The church probably doesn’t have 100 billion, and even if it did
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:12 pm
It would probably not be enough.
So you frothing critics are wrong on both points. You shouldn’t be throwing around the 100 billion number because it is simultaneously too high and too low.
Check. Mate.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ndent.html
“DCP” wrote: First of all, the Church hasn’t confirmed the stunning figure of one hundred billion dollars — as I recall, Church spokesmen have said that the true number is substantially lower than that — and it doesn’t seem to me to be so solid a fact that one should simply assume it to be true. In fact, I’ve recently observed critics casually tossing the figure of one hundred and fifty billion dollars around, so it seems that the number might be quite malleable depending on the mood and allegiances of the person throwing it about.
“Also DCP” wrote: But, in fact, faced with the prospect of a more or less devastating financial downturn, it would not be difficult to justify having an investment portfolio even larger than $100B. Why? Because a massive economic shock would not only depress tithing receipts but, almost inevitably, reduce the value of the investment portfolio itself — as the Tribune article cited above indicated, Church investments had dropped for three straight quarters until they rose again at the end of 2022 — while at the same time dramatically increasing the need for humanitarian aid, welfare expenditures, and the like.
So you frothing critics are wrong on both points. You shouldn’t be throwing around the 100 billion number because it is simultaneously too high and too low.
Check. Mate.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ndent.html
