Instances of financial impropriety

[_Master_DC]

The debate over the $100+ billion has been fascinating to observe. A mere 6 weeks ago, the argument from the faithful was that the church is able to due much good across the globe with a limited income and budget. The church was fiscally conservative to avoid the need to take on loans to fund projects. I don't think anyone really has a major problem with that idea, though I could be wrong. Once the "leak" hit the press, this argument was severely weakened in my book. But lo and behold, the faithful did not miss a beat adopting and fitting this new information into their belief system.

The question is, does the church have a history of financial impropriety? If it does, it is a reasonable request for those who donate, and the tax collectors, to know what is happening with regards to the "books."

I have not yet read The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power, but is their reason for some level of concern from the tithe paying members of the church?

[_Kishkumen]

There is a lot more evidence of financial incompetence than there is of impropriety.

[_tapirrider]

The question is, does the church have a history of financial impropriety?

Have you read Religion, Politics, and Sugar: The Mormon Church, the Federal Government, and the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, 1907 to 1921?

Joseph F. Smith was the first president of Utah-Idaho Sugar, from 1902 to 1918. He was also the prophet of the Mormon church from 1901 to 1918. This corporation owned by the Mormon church became the subject of a Congressional investigation.

From page 52
"Yet a central part of the examination also focused on the LDS church’s role in the industry, including unseemly conduct by Utah Idaho leaders, such as stock watering, price hikes for Utah consumers, and actions to discourage independent sugar concerns. At the conclusion of the hearings, the committee declared American Sugar’s relationship with Utah-Idaho to be improper, and they also castigated Utah-Idaho leaders for their business practices."

In 1982 the Mormon church pumped 17.5 million dollars into Utah-Idaho Inc.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n ... 76%2C19502

[_Gadianton]

The debate over the $100+ billion has been fascinating to observe. A mere 6 weeks ago, the argument from the faithful was that the church is able to due much good across the globe with a limited income and budget. The church was fiscally conservative to avoid the need to take on loans to fund projects. I don't think anyone really has a major problem with that idea, though I could be wrong. Once the "leak" hit the press, this argument was severely weakened in my book. But lo and behold, the faithful did not miss a beat adopting and fitting this new information into their belief system.

The question is, does the church have a history of financial impropriety? If it does, it is a reasonable request for those who donate, and the tax collectors, to know what is happening with regards to the "books."

I have not yet read The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power, but is their reason for some level of concern from the tithe paying members of the church?

Some good thoughts and questions, Master_DC. I don't think the argument that the church does so much with 10% is intended to say the Church has very little money, yet does good with it. It means the Church doesn't throw all of its money into a problem it can't really solve, such as in giving to the poor. And so while the government lets the poor take advantage of them, the Church has better oversight on their welfare programs. It's about efficiency, not aggregate good. The church leaders have all the smarts of a cunning slumlord. They are good at a narrow scope of things, like figuring out if it's really going to be worth replacing a leaking roof. They aren't innovators like Bill Gates and his wife. Bill is an obsessed genius, and his full passion is apparently fixed on doing good things like eradicating polio. But that ain't easy -- billions could be poured into these projects from he and Warren, and fail to solve anything. That being said, if anybody can do it, he's probably the guy. Rusty and his boys don't have the smarts or the passion to even consider large and complex humanitarian projects. The disgruntled Saints who expect more welfare works from the Church should seriously consider if their "non-prophet" organization is cut out to really do anything useful for the world at all.

So how did we get here, is it transparently fraud? No. They've backed into a corner with nowhere to go. At one time the kingdom was growing, and so the Church was a growing business as such. Money invested in the mission program and chapels and temples ultimately was returned with a harvest of fresh tithe payers. But what happens when the marginal returns on investing in the religion fall far short of returns on other investment opportunities? You've got to be smart and put at least some money into those other things. Isn't that what any religion would do? No! Some would, sure. But apologists, for instance, are assuming that religions and non-profits generally are profit-maximizing institutions masquerading as churches like their church is. There are Christian mission programs where people go to Africa to spread the Word, and while there, help with what they can to make life better and if the money runs out, well, then it runs out. If the Church puts a dime into Africa, it pits that dime against the present value of all future tithes generated from investing the dime.

With growth stagnant but still with a large harvest, what to do with the income? There are some in-between options, the prime example being City Creek. What if they could make the quality of life and presence of the Church better by building a private empire? Well, they got through it, but got their asses handed to them in cost overruns. If they could renovate cities efficiently, they would continue that angle and continue with a physical Mormon kingdom in Utah. But they learned their lesson. Not having any kind of real talent, they've been backed into a corner of simply putting their money in the market and earning by modest market risk.

[_SuperDell]

Remember a Wheelright at BYU in the Art Department. Some years ago.

He would buy and sell artwork from the permanent Collection at the University.

Finally - an audit was done and a lot of art that should have been there was not.

Records of most of it was on file, who-what-where-when, so they could track it down. A number of institutions involved were contacted and told the artwork was not legally transferred. In effect, it was stolen and sold/traded by one with no authority to do so and the University would like it back.

"We'll be happy to do so - just provide us with the Police Reports"...

Nothing was returned. No deals undone. Wheelright was not reported nor prosecuted. BYU and L-d$,inc were just SOL. Financial losses in the Millions suffered rather than have the information be made public.