Regardless of the legal status of the issue, I'd like to voice a few opinions and push back gently on the apologists of the church - at least on a couple of points.
My Contextual Background
It's always good to go back my in my mind and articulate what I had expected the church was doing with members' tithing and donations. My expectations were based on what I was taught all my life - by my church teachers, my parents and the leaders in General Conference and church magazines.
From infancy, til about the year 2012, my understanding of how the church operated was:
- members give 10% in tithing donations; the 10% is based on their income before any expenses, including taxes. Later, after the year 2001, I learned there could be some nuances about paying on gross or net taxes.
- members are encouraged to give a generous fast offering as well as contribute to other funds for the temple, or missionary work, etc.
- tithing was used to operate the church - pay for the electricity, print manuals, ward Christmas parties, youth program trips and activities ... all of that.
- fast offerings and other donations went specifically to feeding the poor or to the initiative for which the donations were intended.
- tithing funds were kept separate from other donations such as fast offerings.
- furthermore, it was my understanding that whenever our leaders said that we (the collective church) didn't have any paid clergy, I assumed that the church didn't pay any of the leaders who were responsible for leading and teaching the gospel. The only people who would've been paid were Church Education System leaders at Institutes and who were full-time seminary teachers. I didn't think any bishop, stake president, area authority or general authority got paid anything. It was my understanding, that the people called as general authorities were in such a financial position as to be able to live the Law of Consecration and they gave all that they earned and lived on (including their retirement funds) to the church in order preach full-time; not unlike how full-time missionaries do. Or at the very least, if they didn't consecrate all that they had, they had enough personal funds to serve the church full-time.
Then City Creek Mall happened - around 2012.
That is when I really began to learn how the church operated its finances. I learned that mission presidents and general authorities are compensated (call it a salary or stipend, they receive something in exchange for their time; and they keep their personal retirement funds and incomes).
I learned the the president of the church is actually a corporate sole and in 1923, the church ceased being a normal church congregation and was incorporated into a corporate sole.
I learned that the church always publicly disclosed what they took in and and how that money was used. But in 1959, that practice of transparency ceased.
And then back to the topic of the mall - although the church disputed the fact that tithing money was used to pay for the mall, it appears that was not the case. It would appear that excess tithing funds (what was left after operating expenses) were used for investing. That money then was used to help pay for the mall as well as to financially bail out Beneficial Life Insurance company.
As a member who was taught to pay the church before all other expenses (including utilities, food, clothing, etc), learning that those donations were being used as seed money for investing and then for a billion dollar mall, rubbed me the wrong way.
Another thing happened in 2012. The church changed the verbiage on its tithing slips.
It would seem that funds were kept separate before this change, but after the change, it was pretty clear there wasn't any anxiety about keeping tithing funds separate from fast offerings and other types of donations. Therefore, tracking a dollar paid by a primary child or a widow, to ensure it didn't get mixed with funds that would pay for a mall, would probably be more difficult. I've seen enough corporate accounting to know how very messy "tracking a dollar" gets, with convoluted managerial accounting practices.
What Jesus Taught
When I felt this dissonance, I turned to the Savior to understand what he might think of all this.
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 16:19-21
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 19:20-23
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 10:20-25
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
John 2:14-16
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
When I read these passages and think about them, it seems very evident to me that Jesus had an extreme disdain for mixing the Good News and money.
And when he commanded his disciples to continue to preach and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, he counseled them to have faith and not worry and plan how they would live, eat, drink or how to dress.
Matthew 6:25
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Also, having witnessed dozens of other churches focus on wealth, I developed a strong disdain for any church leader in any church that focused on money. And when I saw the church I belonged to, do the same thing, it caused further dissonance.
How Much Money and Capital Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Have?
This is a question many have wondered since 1959. Because the church ceased being transparent, many often wondered just how much money they must have to be able to afford to buy land and build monuments to God in the form of temples, and adorn those temples with $17,000 rugs. How much must it have if it can purchase and own 2% of the land in Florida?
In the last 20 or so years, many have speculated. The estimates have been in the $20-30 billion range. But it would seem, thanks to the whistle-blower, that, at a minimum, in its Ensign Peak Advisers arm alone, it manages $100 billion.
Two Members' and Apologists' Arguments and my Gentle Rebuttals
First: Pressure to Tithe and Donate
One of the bulwarks of scriptures for tithing is Malachi 3:8-10. As a missionary, I cited this scripture every time I taught investigators the principle of tithing.
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Years later, I learned the correct context of this scripture. In fact, it says it in the scripture itself that the Lord is talking to his priests - his leaders. The priests were supposed to tithe the donations they received from "members." The Lord accuses of them robbing Him and "this whole nation" (i.e. the "members" or Israelites).
In my opinion, this scripture should not be used to "shake down" the members and make them feel guilty for not paying tithing.
Ironically, it would appear the church's leaders have again been greedy and instead of relieving burdens, they are a burden on members.
There was a time in the church's history, where it strove to not be a burden on members. James Talmage taught that members should not have to pay tithing if their expenses were more than their income!
Also, in 1907, Joseph F. Smith said (source),
I want to say another thing to you, and I do so by way of congratulation, and that is, that we have, by the blessing of the Lord and the faithfulness of the Saints in paying their tithing, been able to pay off our bonded indebtedness. Today the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes not a dollar that it cannot pay at once. At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go. We do not have to borrow any more, and we won’t have to if the Latter-day Saints continue to live their religion and observe this law of tithing. It is the law of revenue to the Church.
Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. … That is the true policy, the true purpose of the Lord in the management of the affairs of His Church.
Second: Talents
The other scripture often cited the last few days, has been the Parable of the Talents. One argument I've heard often is that the church is a good steward of the money the members give it and they are expected to "grow it".
Take the time to read it and understand the context Jesus shared the parable.
Matthew 25:14-30 - The Parable of the Talents
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he agave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Things to note about this parable.
The parable is about individual preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus. In a sense, the talent represents doctrine and commandments given. What we do with what we've been taught is the basis of judgement.
But members and apologists use the parable in a literal sense. They view the talents as actual money the church receives in donations from members. So, if this were the case, the man/lord in the parable would actually represent the members who give money to the church. In the parable, when the man/lord returns, what does he do? He reckons with them. He wants to know what they did with his money. He wants transparency.
So if the members and apologists for the church want to use this parable to defend the $100 billion, then there should be a reckoning - an accounting of where the money comes from and how it is being used. There must be transparency. But members have not had that since 1959. They are told, essentially, "trust us; we have Arthur Anderson auditing us." We simply don't know if the money is being used morally or not. We will never know if the church is like Joel Osteen, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, the Scientologists or not.
Conclusion
In my opinion, for proper justice in this situation, I would want the following to happen:
- The church needs to return to a full, detailed position of transparency for all dollars received and all dollars used; in all its financial and capital interests. Let this work be above the table, in the light of day.
- The church needs to make a strong case for why it needs so much money. They need to justify their actions with the teachings of Christ - in particular with the scriptures cited above. Personally, I'm not convinced Jesus would endorse this kind of behavior.
- If indeed, the church does not need continued donations because they've been excellent stewards, then they should relieve more burdens from members and switch to a purely voluntary donation stance, rather than an absolute 10% of income donation.
As a bonus idea:
Allow church members to "let their light shine" by using the funds to make the world a much better place. Assuming members think the work the church is doing is good for the world, perhaps they could grant project money to wards, stakes and areas to improve the area in which they live: open local food banks, expand peanut butter factories, open affordable clothes-line stores - in all geographical areas of the world.
All of the above doesn't preclude the church from continuing its investing arm. With a fraction of the $100 billion, they could continue to invest and grow funds.
I sincerely hope the church and any organization, would always be a light on a hill; a light that is not hidden under a bush. As we approach the year 2020, I would hope we all would support and strive for greater clarity and transparency.
