Twisting both the criticism and the defense?

[_Dr Moore]

Regarding the massive financial empire known as Ensign Peak, its secrecy and abject useless existence as measured by >>15 years of the works of Jesus (you know, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless).

There have been precious few frankly pathetic defenses offered as to why church leaders have chosen, year after year, again in secrecy, to consecrate precisely $0.00, or 0.00% if you prefer, of those funds to serving the God who purportedly leads the church in all things, great and small.

To call a $100 billion+ multi-strategy financial empire a "rainy day" fund would be laughable, if it weren't so weak. Anyone with even a basic comprehension of financial principles will recognize how ludicrous that claim is. Unless you're willing to accept that "rainy day fund" can be applied to any sum, be it ten trillion dollars or "all the money in the world", which for all practical purposes is what the church now holds.

And besides that, the excuse that the church practices what it preaches by saving "a portion" of what it takes in every year, is also laughable at this point. Once sufficient has been saved, it behooves an organization acting in God's name to go out, GET UNCOMFORTABLE, and start doing things for people, not continuing to hoard and mindlessly pursue "growing this puppy" as some sort of sick tribute to God.

Anyway, I'll concede that people are free to disagree about the merits of whether the church needs $1 billion, $10 billion or $100 billion in its rainy day fund, and what that means by way of opportunity cost and emotional damage to members who scrimp and save in order to pay their tithing. That's not the purpose of this post.

What I've noticed, for several weeks now, is a strange tactic being deployed over at SeN to not only twist the criticism of the secrecy and size of Ensign Peak, but then to twist the defense by conflating wholly unrelated things. The result is a bizarre apologetic indeed, and one that I think will backfire as intellectually dishonest.

Check out this sleight of hand.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... id-19.html

Another possible response, of course, would be to devote one’s time to posting up a storm online, complaining about the fact that the greedy Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in a financial position to do such things while not compromising its fundamental spiritual mission.

Um, the church makes these donations through LDS Philanthropies, which takes specifically earmarked, separately solicited and raised donations from members, and puts those donations to work in the church's name. While admirable, and people at LDS Philanthropies are all terrific (I know several personally), these folks, their organization and its activities are in no way related the church's financial standing. It is totally separate, by design. Again, these charitable activities are great, but they have absolutely nothing, $0 and 0.00% taken or shared with Ensign Peak, to do with the church's financial savings, eg the Ensign Peak funds. To suggest a relationship that somehow gives strength or durability to LDS Philanthropies is factually incorrect and intellectually vacuous.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... opics.html

I think we badly, badly need another round of angry denunciations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for having built up a rainy day fund in order to be able not only to weather crises but to help others through them.

And here it is again, conflating totally separate entities with completely separate financial structures. The existence and actions of LDS Philanthropies has absolutely no connection to the "rainy day" fund, and the "rainy day" fund offers no support or backing to the charitable donations being made. Peterson has created a new apologetic for the socially inactive Ensign Peak funds by pointing to the existence of an entirely separate arm of the church and asserting the need for one by virtue of the existence of the other. Not only wrong, but dishonest too.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... eeded.html

I think that this would be an appropriate time for a rousing chorus to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for having accumulated a substantial rainy-day fund in preparation for dealing with crises.

And again, conflation of the church's ownership of chapel parking lots, and its willingness to allow *some* medical services in unused Utah parking lots, with the existence of Ensign Peak? The buildings are owned outright, with no debt. Ensign Peak has literally no connection to whether the church is able to safely allow medical services in chapel parking lots. None. So why conflate the two? Why imply that one is somehow necessary, or even a contributing factor, in the other?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... world.html

Isn’t it regrettable that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints built up a substantial rainy-day fund during those sunny days before the epidemiological and economic rains began to fall? Don’t we wish that it hadn’t?

Seeing the pattern yet? Dan's new apologetic wants to give the church double credit -- once for the work of LDS Philanthropies, and a second time because Ensign Peak for somehow provides an implied financial backstop for LDS Philanthropies. No. False. Wrong. Misleading. Factually incorrect. Ensign Peak does nothing of the sort. Ensign Peak sits there, having done nothing of value, for years, just growing in silent secrecy into a massive financial behemoth, and that's the crux complaint. But if Ensign Peak didn't exist, LDS Philanthropies would be no more and no less able to solicit funds from members to do good works for the world to see.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tions.html

In a day when global markets are in upheaval, when stocks are plummeting, when supply chains are disrupted, when customers are staying home, when businesses are suffering and employment is endangered, when savings are at risk, wouldn’t it be reassuring to be a member of a religious organization that — even notwithstanding fierce criticism for doing so — has amassed a sizeable rainy day fund for just such eventualities? ... A fund that, beyond mere maintenance, is also able to assist members of the organization, and even non-members? A fund that is adequate for a time when the needs of the people are not only great but, in fact, greater than normal?

I have to say, this is really stretching the apologetic tissues. What is he claiming, exactly, that this rainy day fund, built up for "for just such eventualities" has done in "such eventualities?" He isn't specific, and I think that's the point. The best we can to is make an allusion to validate by association, that without one, we'd have less of the other. Sheesh, enough already?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... gment.html

It was foolish and greedy for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to have immediately spent everything that it received in donations.

Wait a minute! Now he wants to smuggle in a fresh accusation -- twisting the criticism itself -- that the church should have spent ALL of the money? Woah! If that was the main complaint, I never saw it. The legitimate criticism is that the church has amassed something so far exceeding any semblance of what a conservative "rainy day" fund might require, and done zilch with the excess -- for years, in secrecy. Not that the church should spend every dime and end every year with $0 in the bank.

Anyway, this new apologetic, I suppose, is par for the course. How exactly DOES one defend Ensign Peak -- the existence and size of which were likely a surprise to the apologists, same as everyone else? But this line of defense goes a bridge too far for me. It betrays a deliberate misinterpretation of financial principles, of how the church operates, of what is done with donated funds, and of the legitimate criticisms levied by faithful and former Mormons alike.

[_Finn the human]

Thank you Dr. Moore for a very interesting post. As I was reading each quote from Dr. Petersen, I was so relieved that Dr. Petersen consistently used the full name of the church. “Oh Thank God! Thank God!” I kept thinking.

Anyway, I haven’t followed very closely all this business about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 100 billion “rainy day” fund. If I understand correctly, the information about the existence fund was leaked several months ago. My question is, we know the fund exists, and that it’s an obscene amount, how do we know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is currently doing with the fund right now? How do we know that they are not using the funds to help people right now?

[_Gadianton]

Thank you Dr. Moore for bringing these abominable lies from the apologists to our attention.

Ensign Peak sits there, having done nothing of value, for years, just growing in silent secrecy into a massive financial behemoth, and that's the crux complaint. But if Ensign Peak didn't exist, LDS Philanthropies would be no more and no less able to solicit funds from members to do good works for the world to see.

I disagree. If the Church did what past leaders said it would, and quit making tithing mandatory once they "had enough", members would have more money, and it is far more likely that LDS Philanthropies would be able to solicit funds from members to help with saving their brothers and sisters during Coronavirus.

I guarantee you that if members were able to mark "Ensign Peak" or mark "help with coronavirus" on their current tithing donations, for any excess funds not needed for run-rate operations, nearly all would mark "help with coronavirus".

The exception would be the highest ranking Church leaders themselves, and the Mopologists.

[_Doctor Scratch]

An absolutely devastating critique here, Dr. Moore.

[_I have a question]

Thank you Dr. Moore for a very interesting post. As I was reading each quote from Dr. Petersen, I was so relieved that Dr. Petersen consistently used the full name of the church. “Oh Thank God! Thank God!” I kept thinking.

Anyway, I haven’t followed very closely all this business about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 100 billion “rainy day” fund. If I understand correctly, the information about the existence fund was leaked several months ago. My question is, we know the fund exists, and that it’s an obscene amount, how do we know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is currently doing with the fund right now? How do we know that they are not using the funds to help people right now?

Because they aren't producing press releases about it - the one thing the Church can be relied upon is to shout from the rooftops every time they spend money on something they can deem "charitable".

[_Stem]

Excellent response, Dr. Moore.

One note of passing interest, which I'm sure you have in mind. LDS philanthropies would not operate if the Church did not have this "rainy day fund". That is the only connection. The Church allows a meager few pennies, by comparison, to be used for philanthropic purposes only because it is otherwise building up a rainy day fund that would make the most criminal of all religious schemers and wealth accumulators blush.

[_Dr Moore]

One note of passing interest, which I'm sure you have in mind. LDS philanthropies would not operate if the Church did not have this "rainy day fund".

That IS the apologetic connection, but it is unsustainable and obviously false.

Ask yourself:

1. How many charities exist in the world with equal or less contributed assets than LDS Philanthropies?
2. Do ANY of those charities have a $100 billion financial edifice standing behind them, ever ready to bail them out?
3. What, exactly, are the risks facing small charities anyway?

When managed by organized, well-meaning, fiscally responsible leadership, risks are manageable so long as success is properly defined. As with all non-profit enterprises, hustle and grit and commitment yield small successes that grow into impact. LDS Philanthropies benefits from the church organization as a captive donor base, but again, that is a benefit completely separate and distinct from the Ensign Peak fortress funds.

How do we know that? Because almost all of the millions of church members had no clue whatsoever about the massive investment funds, believed the church needed their time and money, and they gave that time and money accordingly.

Associating good works with Ensign Peak is just a lie. Ensign Peak and its funds have done no good works in the world. Not yet, anyway. I hope we'll be surprised soon, but ANY good things that come from Ensign Peak will be over-and-above what the church already does via its operating budgets and additional donations made into LDS Philanthropies.

[Guest]

I disagree. If the Church did what past leaders said it would, and quit making tithing mandatory once they "had enough", members would have more money, and it is far more likely that LDS Philanthropies would be able to solicit funds from members to help with saving their brothers and sisters during Coronavirus.

I guarantee you that if members were able to mark "Ensign Peak" or mark "help with coronavirus" on their current tithing donations, for any excess funds not needed for run-rate operations, nearly all would mark "help with coronavirus".

As always, Dean, your peer review elevates.

Great point -- if members were relieved of tithing qua tithing, but encouraged to donate 10% and funneled toward LDS Philanthropies as a mechanism to express humanitarian desires with a charity managed and operated by like-minded Saints, then LDSP would be much much larger today. I think this is very likely the case, and the more I think about it, the more I am dismayed that LDS Philanthropies isn't already the largest single humanitarian charity in the world. Perhaps it will get there -- and it certainly WOULD be close to holding such a notable global position, were Ensign Peak to begin contributing its realized investment returns every year -- today on the order of $5-7 billion annually.

FYI, I am keenly aware that the leadership of LDS Philanthropies has been seeing its role and mandate escalate significantly. Whether or not that is a causal response to the "Letter to an IRS Director" scandal, or just coincidence, we may never know. But the good news, for the world, is that this arm of the church is poised to take on a much more visible role. I can't say more than that without betraying confidences.

I have to agree that members share in the desire -- along with all people -- to do more to help end the Covid-19 pandemic. I suppose donations would be extra support to redistribute capital for so long as many are unemployed. But otherwise, money isn't in shortage when it comes to addressing shortfalls in PPE, treatment or vaccine.

[_Stem]

One note of passing interest, which I'm sure you have in mind. LDS philanthropies would not operate if the Church did not have this "rainy day fund".

That IS the apologetic connection, but it is unsustainable and obviously false.

Ask yourself:

1. How many charities exist in the world with equal or less contributed assets than LDS Philanthropies?
2. Do ANY of those charities have a $100 billion financial edifice standing behind them, ever ready to bail them out?
3. What, exactly, are the risks facing small charities anyway?

Oh no. I mean to add no confusion. I agree, it very well could operate theoretically without the "rainy day fund". What I'm saying is the Church itself wouldn't allow such philanthropy without the rainy day fund. That is to say a defense saying the Church can't operate without the fund, is just plain wrong. That I agree with. It's faulty on the basis of that is obviously not true--others can so operate without such an enormous fund.

This makes the Church hiding the fund, in my estimation, even more deceitful than otherwise. The Church attempted to hide it because it needs to appear more giving than it is. 10 million might sound like a huge amount of money, but compared to 100 billion it is less than a penny. The Church looks good if it can market itself as giving away 10 million for this or for that. But when we learn that the giving was kind of like someone with $100 not giving anything, well then it doesn't look so good.

[_Dr Moore]

Well said, Stem!