Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 537 posts

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#311

Post by curiousgeorgio »

dkarl wrote: post #286
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that. I don't see that. If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see.

> If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see. This is exactly the kind of dishonest bullshit line that local leaders use when people ask to be removed and not contacted again. I don't know how these "lists" work internally in the church, but local leaders can happily say, "Sure, we'll remove you from the list. Done! No more visits!" knowing that…

You're welcome to your own opinions, but I actually work with church records at a local level, and this is the truth. I have siblings and neighbors who have left, and there's absolutely no remaining evidence (that I or my local leaders can see) of their info or that they were ever members of the church.

It comes down to what you're specifically asking. If you ask a local leader to remove you from a list, they may remove you from (for example) a local list of members who are open to being visited. That list would not represent your membership record in the church. In most cases, the removal from a local list like that is both appropriate and what the person actually expects (after all, it's not like your contact info was obtained from a spam list or something; you would have to have been baptized in the church, professed to believe in the church's doctrines, voluntarily consented to being a member, provided personal data, etc, so a retraction of all that is a relatively serious decision).

On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters.

If you asked specifically about removing your record completely, and a bishop didn't tell you how to do that, that would be a (frustrating) mistake, and I believe that leader should be corrected (it's in their handbook of instructions). It's rare enough that some leaders may just not be as familiar with the process.

In either case, it sounds like you had a bad experience with that, and your frustration is understandable. People in similar situations have been very vocal about that kind of thing, but I know that in the majority of cases (many that I've seen firsthand), those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can.

EDIT: The line about you volunteering information (or your parents doing so on your behalf) isn't meant to place blame, but rather to simply point out that significant, deliberate effort was put into creating your record in the church. In that light, it would be crazy for a local leader or member to knock on your door, hear you say "remove me from your list", and interpret that as full authorization to remove your record completely. You certainly have the freedom to do that, but an offhanded remark at the door isn't really appropriate for that level of action.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#312

Post by alanwreath »

darksaints wrote: post #306
umvi wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, how do you know that what you are assuming is "common" isn't just a warped perception due to distillation effects of internet fora? My brother and his wife asked us not to bring up church stuff to them, and like normal humans and family members who respect each other, we obliged. And it's a two way street; when they come visit us we still say prayers for meals and they don't make a bug fuss about it.

And how do you know that your experience is the common one? The exmormon subreddit is an extremely large and active subreddit, with lots of unity in experiences. Its by far the largest known community of ex members of any religion on reddit. If your experience were more common, the exmormon subreddit would probably be as dead as the /r/excatholic subreddit. Now that is a community that really doesn't give a shit if y…

Mormon's that don't go to church for months at a time are not considered active mormons. I don't know if that's the case for catholics or many religions where much of the focus is on a pastor/bishop giving a sermon. In mormon church's each attendee is called on to do something: give a sermon, teach a class, visit a family, clean the building, etc. There are a lot of things to do. I'd assume that for any organized religion that had the same expectations of it's participants, severing from said religion would be a greater life change than those who just observe.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#313

Post by darksaints »

Osiris wrote: post #141
snuxoll wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least that's what they tell me. Assuming the countless anecdotes on /r/exmormon are to be believed, nobody really gets a choice. Your local leaders will browbeat you and try to look over your financials if they don’t feel you are tithing appropriately.

> try to look over your financials If this happens it's against church policy. At the end of each year your Bishop asks if you are a full tithe payer or not. They record your answer and that's it.

Also my experience that they won't try to dig into your financials.

However, if they have any suspicion that you're lying about it, prepare for the guilt trip of the century. You do want to live with your family in the celestial kingdom, right? You wouldn't lie to god, would you?

Effectively they take advantage of the beliefs they taught you. It doesn't matter that they don't subpoena your tax returns...its coercive all the same.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#314

Post by rayiner »

sofal wrote: post #294
rayiner wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine. Families have the right to criticize each other for how they raise their children and to enforce common norms, where they genuinely believe decisions to be harmful. If my brother was raising my nephews/nieces in a way that I felt was harmful you bet he’d get an earful. Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property.

I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs. Lots of people genuinely believe in a lot of harmful things. Some people genuinely believe they need to kick their gay kid out on the street in order for them to learn what's good for them. Some people with great political power genuinely believe that starting an apocalyptic war in…

> I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs.

Because the substantive truth of the theology isn’t dispositive of whether family members have a right (in the social, not legal, sense) to criticize each other from departing from certain norms and practices.

For example, there is a lot of evidence showing that the supposed harms of moderate drinking during pregnancy are overstated, and the benefits of breast feeding are overstated. The effect of screen time on kids is also overstated. Just because someone might conclude that advice is wrong, does that mean family members are out of bounds for giving that advice? Or that people shouldn’t have to graciously accept it? There are boundaries, sure, but family members are entitled to express their views on how each other live their lives.

Beyond that, there are objective benefits to religion apart from the truth or falsity of the theological doctrine. Studies show that actively religious people tend to be significantly happier and more socially involved: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio.... Is that a sufficient basis for family members to encourage each other to raise their kids within the community religion, irrespective of the truth of the theology?

Also, there are non-falsifiable moral judgments that are independent of but associated with religion. Secular US culture emphasizes individualism, self expression, and personal fulfillment. Many believe that kids should be raised with a strong sense of duty to family, and the expectation that their purpose in life is to work hard and raise families of their own. These ideas are independent of theological truth. Many non-religious people believe these things too. But if you think it’s important for kids to be consistently exposed to those ideas, you’ll find that most of the people who have those beliefs just happen to be either religious (or Asian, or both). Is it out of line for communities to encourage their members to conform to values that they believe are more conducive to a better world? Whether the underlying theology is true or false doesn’t change the answer.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#315

Post by trenning »

starskublue wrote: post #79

It's important to note the historical context around this. The LDS church used to be constantly in extreme debt and close to having their religious buildings taken away due to it. Then in the early 1900s they instituted a simple financial policy that could also be an example for members. 1. Spend less than you take in. 2. Save/invest a portion of what you bring in for a rainy day. Thus over a hundred years that build…

> they all get the same stipend which for many is less than they made in their professional lives

It's weird how much this is being repeated in this thread. It's clear this opinion didn't form on an individual level but rather is directed by the church to their followers to repeat. It's an odd way of justifying position is all.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#316

Post by jacurtis »

sturgill wrote: post #107

Can you imagine the criticism if the investment arm was losing money? The Church does amazing work providing resources during crises. I’ve personally cut trees off of people’s houses with chainsaws provided by the Church and given buckets of sanitation supplies when hurricanes swept through Florida. There is always a tension in “what do you spend now and what do you invest for later” but I honesty feel like the Churc…

One part that was left out of the WSJ article but was released by the whistleblower was the source of these funds. When members asked to donate money to charity, the church said they would happily donate it on behalf of the members. It was then taken from the members and funneled into this investment fund instead of redirected to charity (as they promised).

The church claims that since they are a non-profit that they are therefore a charity (they have also claimed that the purpose for stockpiling $124B was for the second coming of Jesus). While they might be able to make this claim legally... it was obviously not the intention of the members who invested the money. If members intended to fund the church directly, they could have simply paid their tithing or even over-paid their tithing (as many members choose to do) as usual. But they chose specifically to donate to charity, which implies someone other than the church.

Since I am assuming you are a member, you are familiar with the tithing slip. That extra line at the bottom that says "charity:_____" yep, that money never went to charity. It went into this fund that the church kept for themselves. Very honest and Christlike.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#317

Post by alanwreath »

darksaints wrote: post #256
sturgill wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never found that number substantiated anywhere. But we agree that the Church is tight with its money. I just argue that’s a good thing...

We only agree that the church is tight with its money with respect to how that money is used to benefit members and the unfortunate that should probably be the beneficiaries of good old christian charity. But tight with its money amongst those that control it? Neither of us know...because it is a secret. A secrecy that has no benefit but to protect those who control it from scrutiny. I don't know how you could view e…

I think you've just described FUD. Asking for more transparency isn't bad though - this would require a change in US law or wherever they operate. Start there. Then all religions might meet the standard you're describing. There are abusers in every organization and transparency would be good.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#318

Post by patch_collector »

tomrod wrote: post #166
wincy wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! As I said, I’m officially a member and live in a fairly affluent area. When I was unemployed and going through some tough times, even though I’ve never tithed they extended food aid to me. It was a very humbling experience, and if I didn’t have to believe all the stuff Joseph Smith made up I’d probably be an active Mormon. The ingroup exhortations of beliefs that, charitably, are very unlikely, is somethi…

You bring up something that bothers me too. The manipulation of local congregations in order to fund the central corporation is disappointing to say the least. Mormons are often the nicest people you'll find. It's a shame they are expected to express belief in racist, sexist, or other bigoted beliefs in order to be fully acceptable to their in-group. I point out in another comment that, charitably, congregations rece…

Yes and no. One way to think of it is as a redistribution of wealth -- while some locations are pushing larger amounts of money into the system, others are undoubtedly receiving more than they give. The end result is that everyone, regardless of the affluence of their neighborhood, gets a perfectly acceptable building and environment in which to learn.

Thinking about the US education specifically...imagine if we handled finances that way? Schools are largely paid for by local property taxes, so the rich areas get well funded schools, and the poor areas get poorly funded schools. If it was centralized and balanced, the rich schools might not get as many 3d printers, but perhaps the poor schools could get books. It might not be fair in the sense that those that pay more should get more, but it would be fair if your end goal is balance and charity.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#319

Post by tomohawk »

darksaints wrote: post #273
tomohawk wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus makes several truth claims, that if true, are extremely compelling for why someone may want to pay attention today. One of these is His claim to be God. You can either dismiss Jesus as a lunatic, dismiss Jesus as a liar, or accept Jesus for who He claimed to be. If Jesus was merely a good man, He would not have claimed to be God. That is not something good people do.

We have no first hand accounts from Jesus himself. We have a couple of first hand accounts from followers. Most of them don't reconcile with each other very well. And even if they did, humans have a long history of collectively believing and participating in supernatural bullshit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbCzb_FWpi4 Lots of people have claimed to be god. Some are even widely recognized as good people. Do we n…

Does your belief system require you to be so disparaging to people who believe differently?

If you don't want to pay any attention to the claims of Christianity, then by all means don't.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#320

Post by telmo »

rayiner wrote: post #289
knicholes wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. One has to deal with the random crying, the questions of "Why haven't you baptized your children? I want to spend eternity with my grandbabies!", "They need primary!", etc. Then there's the endless gossip at family activities when you're absent about how you're leading your family to hell.

Which is fine. Families have the right to criticize each other for how they raise their children and to enforce common norms, where they genuinely believe decisions to be harmful. If my brother was raising my nephews/nieces in a way that I felt was harmful you bet he’d get an earful. Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property.

> Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property.

Kids are nobody's property, and parent absolutely have the right to ignore the rest of the family as long as they observe the laws of the land.

Post reply on HN