YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[sock puppet]

Mormons come in last below Muslims and Atheists. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... catholics/. A soon to be trillion dollar organization isn't making much headway anywhere other than Africa.

Two of the more interesting callouts from the survey:

First, only one of the religious groups has a net favorable view of Mormons, Catholics at a measly +2%. Yes the unaffiliated are much more prone to unfavorable responses but it isn't like Mormons are winning the hearts and minds of everyone else. As for why the unaffiliated have such strong feelings, my guess would be that politics has the biggest role in that.

Second (and maybe more importantly, or at least funnier in my opinion), Mormons are the only group who's favorability doesn't improve when a respondent knows a member of the religion. I know the authors in MG's link suggest bridge building as a key focus, but so far the data hasn't really backed up that assertion.

Interesting data point and observation. So to know, know, know him, is not to love, love, love him if he's a Mo.

[I Have Questions]

Second (and maybe more importantly, or at least funnier in my opinion), Mormons are the only group who's favorability doesn't improve when a respondent knows a member of the religion. I know the authors in MG's link suggest bridge building as a key focus, but so far the data hasn't really backed up that assertion.

So much for spreading the gospel. Interestingly, through “knowing” a Mormon on this board (MG 2.0) has anyone’s opinion of Mormons improved directly because of how MG 2.0 behaves and interacts?

[Kishkumen]

Second (and maybe more importantly, or at least funnier in my opinion), Mormons are the only group who's overall favorability doesn't improve when a respondent knows a member of the religion. I know the authors in MG's link suggest bridge building as a key focus, but so far the data hasn't really backed up that assertion.

I am not seeing what you mean. Those who know Mormons are nearly twice as likely to have a favorable impression of them as those who don't. How are you interpreting the data?

[Xenophon]

Interesting data point and observation. So to know, know, know him, is not to love, love, love him if he's a Mo.

So much for spreading the gospel. Interestingly, through “knowing” a Mormon on this board (MG 2.0) has anyone’s opinion of Mormons improved directly because of how MG 2.0 behaves and interacts?

I'd be curious if there is some regional impact to the numbers. I was blessed to never really deal with folks inside of the Mormon corridor. My experiences in the Southern US left me more open to LDS even prior to my joining.

[Xenophon]

I am not seeing what you mean. Those who know Mormons are nearly twice as likely to have a favorable impression of them as those who don't. How are you interpreting the data?

Sorry, my wording may not have been as clear as intended. Yes, the favorability rises when someone knows a Mormon, but so does unfavorability and at an equal rate. The net result is that knowing a Mormon doesn't improve the "balance of opinion" and they are the only group in the survey that this is true for.

[Analytics]

I don't think it will. The church, even though criticized for its mistakes recently, has a barrel of cash and will continue to invest wisely into the future. If I was a bettin' man I'd give the church at least a 90%+ chance of managing and growing their funds into the future.

And saving for a rainy day ain't such a bad idea.

Before I reply to this, let me give you some personal background. According to insurance laws and regulations, the board of directors of every insurance company domiciled in America is required to appoint a qualified actuary to annually opine on whether the reserves of the company are sufficient to meet its obligations. This appointed actuary has to submit to extensive professional and criminal background checks. In the annual statements that are filed with state regulators, the appointed actuary states whether he thinks the reserves are sufficient, and explains whether his opinion is qualified or unqualified. He then must submit a detailed report--typically 100-200 pages in length, that details his analysis and supports his opinion. With regards to the question of whether an insurance company’s reserves are sufficient, the buck stops with the appointed actuary--executives, owners, board members, employees, regulators, and policyholders all ultimately rely on the appointed actuary to know if the company's financial statements present an accurate picture of the insurance company’s long-term strength.

I happen to be the appointed actuary of an insurance company that focuses on policies with promises that extend deep into the future. Evaluating whether big, complicated organizations have enough savings is what I do.

Understanding that this is my background, here are my thoughts on this. The question isn’t whether “saving for a rainy day” is a good idea or a bad idea. The question is the extent to which the Church’s savings are appropriate, or whether it is hoarding.

Addressing that question, the Church has two main sources of income: tithing and investment income. Using very rough approximations to illustrate the dynamics of the situation, let’s assume the Church takes in about $7B a year in tithing, and has now accumulated $200B in for-profit investments. If it makes a 5% return on its investment portfolio, then it is earning about $10B a year in investment income. With these assumptions which are at least close to the right ball park, the Church’s annual revenue is $17B ($7B in tithing + $10B in investment income) a year.

The Church has always disclosed, and the leaked documents confirm, that the Church sets a budget to live on a portion of its tithing revenue, with the balance being “saved for a rainy day.” If we assume it saves 10% of its tithing revenue for a rainy day and spends the remaining 90% on its missions, that means the Church directs $6.3B a year (i.e. 37% of its annual income) towards its religious and charitable missions, and $10.7B (i.e. 63% of its annual income) towards growing the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

Is this appropriate? How big do the church’s reserves need to be?

Very broadly, a church or non-profit should have a rainy day fund between 3 months and 2 years of its annual expenses. If you want to be extremely conservative, you could make it 3-years of annual expenses. According to this measure, the Church would need a rainy day fund of about $20 billion, which is about $20 billion more than it needed for the great recession and the pandemic.

But the Church has 10X that amount, and continues to allocate the vast majority of its annual income to increasing that.

Its behavior is consistent with a hedge fund that is accumulating wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth. It is also consistent with a dysfunctional organization that has no vision, plan, or courage to deploy its resources for any worthwhile purpose, so it hoards them by default. The latter is what’s really going on.

Ultimately the Church can do whatever it wants with its own money, but the laws should be changed so that its investment income is taxed like a hedge fund.

But the more relevant question is that if an individual rejects what Jesus said about such things and personally believes that extreme saving “for a rainy day” is really a virtue, they should save that money for themselves rather than giving it to the Church. Because unless you are already independently wealthy and your income only comes from investment sources, you are going to need money when you can no longer work. In contrast, the Church will always receive enough donations to do its work. People need savings for when they retire. The Church will never retire and doesn’t need to save very much for the future.

[Kishkumen]

Sorry, my wording may not have been as clear as intended. Yes, the favorability rises when someone knows a Mormon, but so does unfavorability and at an equal rate. The net result is that knowing a Mormon doesn't improve the "balance of opinion" and they are the only group in the survey that this is true for.

Ah, OK. Thanks.

[I Have Questions]

I don't think it will. The church, even though criticized for its mistakes recently, has a barrel of cash and will continue to invest wisely into the future. If I was a bettin' man I'd give the church at least a 90%+ chance of managing and growing their funds into the future.

And saving for a rainy day ain't such a bad idea.

Before I reply to this, let me give you some personal background. According to insurance laws and regulations, the board of directors of every insurance company domiciled in America is required to appoint a qualified actuary to annually opine on whether the reserves of the company are sufficient to meet its obligations. This appointed actuary has to submit to extensive professional and criminal background checks. In the annual statements that are filed with state regulators, the appointed actuary states whether he thinks the reserves are sufficient, and explains whether his opinion is qualified or unqualified. He then must submit a detailed report--typically 100-200 pages in length, that details his analysis and supports his opinion. With regards to the question of whether an insurance company’s reserves are sufficient, the buck stops with the appointed actuary--executives, owners, board members, employees, regulators, and policyholders all ultimately rely on the appointed actuary to know if the company's financial statements present an accurate picture of the insurance company’s long-term strength.

I happen to be the appointed actuary of an insurance company that focuses on policies with promises that extend deep into the future. Evaluating whether big, complicated organizations have enough savings is what I do.

Understanding that this is my background, here are my thoughts on this. The question isn’t whether “saving for a rainy day” is a good idea or a bad idea. The question is the extent to which the Church’s savings are appropriate, or whether it is hoarding.

Addressing that question, the Church has two main sources of income: tithing and investment income. Using very rough approximations to illustrate the dynamics of the situation, let’s assume the Church takes in about $7B a year in tithing, and has now accumulated $200B in for-profit investments. If it makes a 5% return on its investment portfolio, then it is earning about $10B a year in investment income. With these assumptions which are at least close to the right ball park, the Church’s annual revenue is $17B ($7B in tithing + $10B in investment income) a year.

The Church has always disclosed, and the leaked documents confirm, that the Church sets a budget to live on a portion of its tithing revenue, with the balance being “saved for a rainy day.” If we assume it saves 10% of its tithing revenue for a rainy day and spends the remaining 90% on its missions, that means the Church directs $6.3B a year (i.e. 37% of its annual income) towards its religious and charitable missions, and $10.7B (i.e. 63% of its annual income) towards growing the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

Is this appropriate? How big do the church’s reserves need to be?

Very broadly, a church or non-profit should have a rainy day fund between 3 months and 2 years of its annual expenses. If you want to be extremely conservative, you could make it 3-years of annual expenses. According to this measure, the Church would need a rainy day fund of about $20 billion, which is about $20 billion more than it needed for the great recession and the pandemic.

But the Church has 10X that amount, and continues to allocate the vast majority of its annual income to increasing that.

Its behavior is consistent with a hedge fund that is accumulating wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth. It is also consistent with a dysfunctional organization that has no vision, plan, or courage to deploy its resources for any worthwhile purpose, so it hoards them by default. The latter is what’s really going on.

Ultimately the Church can do whatever it wants with its own money, but the laws should be changed so that its investment income is taxed like a hedge fund.

But the more relevant question is that if an individual rejects what Jesus said about such things and personally believes that extreme saving “for a rainy day” is really a virtue, they should save that money for themselves rather than giving it to the Church. Because unless you are already independently wealthy and your income only comes from investment sources, you are going to need money when you can no longer work. In contrast, the Church will always receive enough donations to do its work. People need savings for when they retire. The Church will never retire and doesn’t need to save very much for the future.

Thank you for taking the time to spell all that out in such a clear way.

[Rivendale]

Before I reply to this, let me give you some personal background. According to insurance laws and regulations, the board of directors of every insurance company domiciled in America is required to appoint a qualified actuary to annually opine on whether the reserves of the company are sufficient to meet its obligations. This appointed actuary has to submit to extensive professional and criminal background checks. In the annual statements that are filed with state regulators, the appointed actuary states whether he thinks the reserves are sufficient, and explains whether his opinion is qualified or unqualified. He then must submit a detailed report--typically 100-200 pages in length, that details his analysis and supports his opinion. With regards to the question of whether an insurance company’s reserves are sufficient, the buck stops with the appointed actuary--executives, owners, board members, employees, regulators, and policyholders all ultimately rely on the appointed actuary to know if the company's financial statements present an accurate picture of the insurance company’s long-term strength.

I happen to be the appointed actuary of an insurance company that focuses on policies with promises that extend deep into the future. Evaluating whether big, complicated organizations have enough savings is what I do.

Understanding that this is my background, here are my thoughts on this. The question isn’t whether “saving for a rainy day” is a good idea or a bad idea. The question is the extent to which the Church’s savings are appropriate, or whether it is hoarding.

Addressing that question, the Church has two main sources of income: tithing and investment income. Using very rough approximations to illustrate the dynamics of the situation, let’s assume the Church takes in about $7B a year in tithing, and has now accumulated $200B in for-profit investments. If it makes a 5% return on its investment portfolio, then it is earning about $10B a year in investment income. With these assumptions which are at least close to the right ball park, the Church’s annual revenue is $17B ($7B in tithing + $10B in investment income) a year.

The Church has always disclosed, and the leaked documents confirm, that the Church sets a budget to live on a portion of its tithing revenue, with the balance being “saved for a rainy day.” If we assume it saves 10% of its tithing revenue for a rainy day and spends the remaining 90% on its missions, that means the Church directs $6.3B a year (i.e. 37% of its annual income) towards its religious and charitable missions, and $10.7B (i.e. 63% of its annual income) towards growing the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

Is this appropriate? How big do the church’s reserves need to be?

Very broadly, a church or non-profit should have a rainy day fund between 3 months and 2 years of its annual expenses. If you want to be extremely conservative, you could make it 3-years of annual expenses. According to this measure, the Church would need a rainy day fund of about $20 billion, which is about $20 billion more than it needed for the great recession and the pandemic.

But the Church has 10X that amount, and continues to allocate the vast majority of its annual income to increasing that.

Its behavior is consistent with a hedge fund that is accumulating wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth. It is also consistent with a dysfunctional organization that has no vision, plan, or courage to deploy its resources for any worthwhile purpose, so it hoards them by default. The latter is what’s really going on.

Ultimately the Church can do whatever it wants with its own money, but the laws should be changed so that its investment income is taxed like a hedge fund.

But the more relevant question is that if an individual rejects what Jesus said about such things and personally believes that extreme saving “for a rainy day” is really a virtue, they should save that money for themselves rather than giving it to the Church. Because unless you are already independently wealthy and your income only comes from investment sources, you are going to need money when you can no longer work. In contrast, the Church will always receive enough donations to do its work. People need savings for when they retire. The Church will never retire and doesn’t need to save very much for the future.

Thank you for taking the time to spell all that out in such a clear way.

The sad thing is it won't matter. We are talking about an organization that has redefined SA of kids. An organization that protects itself first while simultaneously shaming third world countries for not giving them more money. The stewardship of members money has become a rally cry for excusing their baffling attempt for not using it. As previously stated this is classic hoarding yet most members either wouldn't believe the analysis or will cloak it in some unseen meaning that Jesus keeps secret.

[MG 2.0]

Why do you think that secular Americans dislike Mormons more than other groups?

You're being dishonest, here.

The survey is of Americans--not secular Americans. But, then, you know that.

However, as to why Mormons may be disregarded by many Americans, read your own linked article. The last paragraph offers some suggestions:

"But here’s something that all Mormons can do, and it doesn’t involve politics: it would help if we stopped regarding ourselves as the finest people on the planet. We ought to take a long, hard look at the fact that we voted our own group tops in this research. It’s one thing to be proud of our religious group and its teachings, but it’s another thing entirely to communicate, as many Mormons seem to, that we feel we have a monopoly on religious truth and strong families. A dose of humility is in order here."

I know you don't like to put time and effort into you posts, but you should at least read the things that you, yourself, link to.

From the link:

Secular Americans don’t like us. Unaffiliated Americans–the rapidly growing population that claims no religion–dislike Mormons even more than evangelicals. Only 45% of those surveyed reported having a warm feeling toward the Latter-day Saints.

Regards,
MG