http://www.google.com/imgres?q=chang...93&tx=83&ty=54
It seems clear from the changes to the tithing slips that the Church realized that they had serious PR and maybe legal liability for taking money from the BofM, Temple, and Perp Edu funds and using them in other areas. Now they can do whatever they want with any donation with impunity.
Now if they shifted $100,000 from the Temple fund to cover the building of a chapel in Nigeria or from the Perp Edu fund to cover the building of a seminary building in Bolivia I don't think anyone is going to complain too loudly. Although they might.
But if they shifted $100 million from the Perp Edu fund to cover overages in building City Creek, and it becomes known, they are going to have a serious problem.
I do know that they have far far more money in the Perp Edu fund than they can deploy responsibly. So they should invest it and get a reasonable return. I think we can all agree that there is nothing wrong with the Church earning a return on its holdings.
But it is one thing to put reserves into a CD or even a PE Fund, on the one hand, and funding a commercial development that no private entity would ever undertake such as the retractable roofs and Bellagio fountains at City Creek. If people found out that their donation to assist poor returned missionaries in third world countries was diverted and used to pay for Tiffany's diamond showroom, I think people would not be pleased.
To be clear, I have no idea of the details behind this change, but I think it is a big deal and I hope the forthcoming Reuters article has some details on the subject.
It seems clear from the changes to the tithing slips that the Church realized that they had serious PR and maybe legal liability for taking money from the BofM, Temple, and Perp Edu funds and using them in other areas. Now they can do whatever they want with any donation with impunity.
Now if they shifted $100,000 from the Temple fund to cover the building of a chapel in Nigeria or from the Perp Edu fund to cover the building of a seminary building in Bolivia I don't think anyone is going to complain too loudly. Although they might.
But if they shifted $100 million from the Perp Edu fund to cover overages in building City Creek, and it becomes known, they are going to have a serious problem.
I do know that they have far far more money in the Perp Edu fund than they can deploy responsibly. So they should invest it and get a reasonable return. I think we can all agree that there is nothing wrong with the Church earning a return on its holdings.
But it is one thing to put reserves into a CD or even a PE Fund, on the one hand, and funding a commercial development that no private entity would ever undertake such as the retractable roofs and Bellagio fountains at City Creek. If people found out that their donation to assist poor returned missionaries in third world countries was diverted and used to pay for Tiffany's diamond showroom, I think people would not be pleased.
To be clear, I have no idea of the details behind this change, but I think it is a big deal and I hope the forthcoming Reuters article has some details on the subject.
Comment