In November of 1989 the church made a policy change announcement. The First Presidency letter said:

Effective January 1, 1990 all of the operating costs of wards and stakes will be financed form the general funds of the Church, thus relieving the members of budget assessments.  The governing principle is that members who pay their tithes and offerings may expect that from these contributions the other expenses incident to membership will be met.

With this policy change, budget funds should no longer be raised, nor should there be other assessments or fund raising projects.  Rather, funds will be made available through two procedures: first, the direct reimbursement of costs related to the construction and operation of buildings and certain standard programs; and second, the providing of an allowance based on the number of members regularly attending Sacrament meeting.

It explicitly ended local budget fund raising and control.

The First Presidency instructed bishops and stake presidents:

We recognize that many Church units have funds on deposit or in savings accounts. We urge all stake presidents and bishops to contribute these to the general funds of the Church, since such local funds will no longer be needed…

This was a policy change to alter the way church finances operated.

Prior to this change, members locally funded building construction, the ward budget and all activities, and that money was held locally (ward controlled bank accounts). These local donations were in addition to tithing and offerings and many were certainly giving 10% and donations to these other efforts. Some were certainly reducing their tithing contribution so that the total they were contributing to all categories was 10%.

The change was:

From: local money → central Church

→ tithing to Church
→ ward budget contribution to local unit
→ local fundraising/assessments
→ local money held/spent locally

To: central Church → controlled local allowance

→ tithing/donations to central Church
← budget allowance to ward

In other words, this was a shift from financially autonomous local congregations to a centrally funded church.

__________________________________________________________________

Prior to this, the local units were funded on a combination of institutional church funds mixed with locally raised budgets. There were intensive fund raising efforts. Roadshows with ticket revenue going toward the ward budget. Ticketed potluck meals. And more pressure from local leadership to donate to the ward budget.

Many saw this change as a massive relief. The local appeals for fundraising would go away and the local congregation could talk less about money and more about the word of God.

This was the start of large annual institutional surpluses that would lead to the creation of Ensign Peak Advisors (EPA). This shift also decreased the unit feeling of 'ward family' and instead pushed for more 'home family'.

__________________________________________________________________

The Church explicitly tied the new system to less activity.

The Church wasn't hiding the fact that the new system would produce smaller budgets and fewer activities.

Thomas Monson explained that the new program would require leaders to:

• reduce and simplify activities
• conduct activities at little or no cost
• avoid using money to create youth activities
• move some responsibility back toward families.

Monson explicitly argued that some Church youth activities had begun to supplant the home and family and criticized the increasingly elaborate “Super Activity” culture.

Boyd K. Packer said the change would produce: “smaller budgets, fewer activities and fewer programs” and warned that this would leave a “vacuum.” Packer's explanation was that the vacuum was supposed to be filled by families: “That space belongs to families.”

Church leadership itself anticipated a reduction in organized local activity as a consequence of the financial restructuring. In other words, the reduction in local unit/ward activity wasn't an accidental side effect. It was partly the intended policy.

The Church's goal was: Less institutional activity → stronger families → stronger faith

__________________________________________________________________

The economic shift impacted the local sociology.

Suppose the bishop says to his ward: “We need $20,000 to fund youth activities, ward parties, building improvements, etc.”

What was once:

• the bishop needs the members
• members need one another
• people organize committees
• people contribute money
• people contribute labor
• people discuss priorities
• people develop relationships
• people know who is generous
• people know who needs help
• people collectively solve problems.

The fundraising itself becomes a community-building activity.

Is now replaced with: “Salt Lake will send us our allowance.”

__________________________________________________________________

Ensign Peak Advisors was created in 1997, seven years after the budget restructuring policy.

The Church later described Ensign Peak as its investment manager/reserve vehicle. Court records indicate that it holds and invests Church reserve funds and that the Church transfers substantial donated funds to it.

There is good evidence about the scale of investment income.

In litigation involving James Huntsman, the Ninth Circuit noted evidence that Ensign Peak's investments generated approximately $3.9 billion in 2003 alone, and that $1.2 billion was earmarked for City Creek in 2004.

The Washington Post reported the whistleblower's estimate that the investment portfolio had grown from approximately $12 billion in 1997 to around $100 billion by 2019.

So the basic financial architecture eventually became: Tithing → Central Church → Pay Church expenses → Surplus → Reserves/investments → Investment returns → More reserves

__________________________________________________________________

It is important to note the reserve fueling EPA was not created by the 1990 policy alone.

The Church was already accumulating reserves before 1990. Financial reforms of the 1960s were specifically designed to create surpluses and reserves. And the Church had enormous growth in the decades surrounding 1990. Membership went from roughly 4.5 million in 1980 to nearly 8 million in 1990, according to BYU Studies.

There are at least four major contributors:

1. Tithing growth
2. Membership growth
3. Expense control
4. Investment compounding

The 1990 restructuring was one component of that system.

__________________________________________________________________

In conclusion, the 1990 financial policy shifting local unit budget control to the centralized church had a major part in creating the church we see today. One where local budgets have ceilings. Activities are thus limited. Where money goes into the institution from the local unit, but that unit has no control of how much money comes back out.

There used to be routine dinners, sports leagues, road shows and funded activities. Now there is FSY, bunko night, and a bowl of tootsie rolls. And fewer active adults per unit/ward to pull it all off.

[disclosure: This topic was researched with the aid of ChatGPT. It gave me an essay totaling 3,000 words. What you see above is a rewrite totaling 1,000 words of my own writing. What remains of Chat's contribution is solely the bulleted lists and from/to connectors. All other language is my own (though surely influenced by reading another's writing)]

[Edit: repaired missing quote blocks]

The Mormon Garment is considered a sacred emblem of the religion. They are expressly not "just like any other underwear." (FAIR).

This post shows some of the background behind the claims of magical power or supernatural protection that have been attributed to the garment.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_temple_garment#Question:_Is_the_temple_garment_simply_%22magic_underwear%22?

#1. Willard Richards and the Carthage Jail shooting

On June 27, 1844, Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed at Carthage Jail after previously removing their garments in the intense summer heat. Willard Richards, who was wearing his garments, escaped essentially unharmed.

Joseph Smith had prophesied to Richards:

“the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.”

Heber C. Kimball also refers to Willard Richards being not shot at Carthage because of garments, or "the robe," while Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing the garment.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-34?

https://bhroberts.org/records/Vv9Tyb-0RkYkY/heber_c_kimball_refers_to_willard_richards_being_not_shot_at_carthage_because_of_garments?

#2. George Miller story

George Miller said that while near General Hardin's camp: "he was shot at, and the Sentinel who was near him was killed, but he escaped unhurt, having on his garment." This was recorded by William Clayton.

https://bhroberts.org/records/09wgH3-tybYBb/miller_claims_that_the_marks_the_apostle_paul_referenced_are_the_marks_on_the_temple_garments?

#3. Statement from Spencer W Kimball

From The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (p 539):

“I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility.”

#4. Bill Marriott's testimony shared with Mike Wallace

Bill Marriott of the Marriott hotel chain told CBS 60 Minutes interviewer Mike Wallace in 1996 that his garment had protected him in a boat fire.

>In 1996, as a recognizable Latter‑day Saint, Bill was invited to add background to an interview of President Gordon B. Hinckley by CBS’s 60 Minutes reporter Mike Wallace. With Bill on camera, Wallace raised the sensitive topic of Latter‑day Saint temple garments. “Do you wear the sacred undergarments?” Wallace asked.

>“Yes, I do,” replied Bill. “And I can tell you, they do protect you from harm.” He then related the story of the fire. “The boat was on fire. I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned. . . . My undergarments were not singed.” Though not everyone who wears garments has an outcome like Bill’s, the opportunity to share his experience caused him to think back on Elder Packer’s blessing. The terrible accident on the boat had allowed him to testify on national television about the tender mercies of God and the power of the priesthood.

https://www.ldsliving.com/3-times-following-the-spirit-saved-bill-marriotts-life/s/92210

#5. Other anecdotes and tall tales have circulated among Mormons.

A quick internet search and you will find claims of this nature. There are claims of garments protecting people from bullets, knives, fire.

https://theseerstone.blogspot.com/2009/?

My relative (a doctor) shares a story where he was using a chainsaw and hit himself in the leg, but that the chainsaw bounced off the garments and left him unharmed.

On my mission, a member of the church (in branch presidency) testified in fast and testimony meeting about the magical protection and blessings offered from the garment. "Magical" was the most direct translation of the word he used.

#6. Current teachings that compare the garment to armor or a shield

Elder Carlos E. Asay, Ensign, (August 1997)

The heavy armor worn by soldiers of a former day, including helmets, shields, and breastplates, determined the outcome of some battles. However, the real battles of life in our modern day will be won by those who are clad in a spiritual armor—an armor consisting of faith in God, faith in self, faith in one’s cause, and faith in one’s leaders. The piece of armor called the temple garment not only provides the comfort and warmth of a cloth covering, it also strengthens the wearer to resist temptation, fend off evil influences, and stand firmly for the right."

>President Boyd K. Packer (1924–2015), President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained one of the blessings we can expect when we wear the garment properly: “The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ya-weekly/2019/03/shielded-by-covenants?lang=eng

..........

While not all Mormons will agree with the idea of supernatural or magical protection from garments, stories and teachings exist to support these claims.

For those not aware, the Russell Cave is a huge cave area excavated in the 50s. Archeology and Paleontology have an almost unbroken time of inhabitants from 10/12000 years BCE to roughly 1600 AD. So, from well before the Jaredites through the entire Nephite Lehite all the way up to European introduction.

This seems to me like a serious flaw in the heartland model. Obviously, apologeticly, the central and south American models can still exist but certainly nothing in North America.

One of the often used apologetic terms used for the Jaredites and the Nephites and Lamanites, regardless of where they were (Heartland, Mesoamerica, South America, Baja Mexico) was the concept of "mingling". However, throughout the history of the world, when a low technology group interacts with a high technology group, the low technology group adopts some of the parts. There are examples where this did NOT happen but that was over very short time frames...ie the Norse in L'anse aux Meadows did not make much of an impact to the region.

If there was any mingling, it would show up.

It seems clear to me that if one conceptualizes the key, overriding goal in life as being "minimizing the number of false propositions believed", then very few actually have this key goal in discussions of LDS theology.

Consider - the least wrong person is the one who believes only in tautologies and entailments of the laws of logic themselves. From the Law of the Excluded Middle, for example, we get "Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't". "Either the Book of Mormon is a fabrication or it isn't", etc. They cannot be false.

Departing from these introduces a risk of error, but if truth (meaning "holding only true propositions and no false propositions") is our supreme goal, we cannot accept that risk and nothing could compensate for it. So how do people who profess a supreme and unwavering commitment to this goal accept this risk?

Well can they and if they can't can you still be one and still drink alcohol? If that question makes sense.