ABC News’ investigative desk is out with a scandalous report tying together presidential politics and religious tithing. Apparently when wealthy people tithe at the same rate as less wealthy people, it can add up to more gross dollars. Who knew?
Underscoring the prominent, if little discussed role that Mitt Romney played as a Mormon leader, the private equity giant once run by the GOP presidential frontrunner carved his church a slice of several of its most lucrative business deals, securities records show, providing it with millions of dollars worth of stock in some of Bain Capital’s most well-known holdings.
Romney has always been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires that members “tithe,” or give 10 percent of their income to the church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, has given more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. But because Romney, whose fortune has been estimated at $250 million, has never released his personal tax returns, the full extent of his giving has never been public.
Newly uncovered stock contributions made during Romney’s Bain days suggest there is another dimension to Romney’s support for the church — one that could involve millions more than has been previously disclosed.
Dunh-dunh-dunh!!! But seriously, what’s the problem? I mean, when my husband and I give money to our congregation, we just write checks from our bank account. But sure, if we were involved in investment transactions, we almost certainly would transfer things immediately to our congregation — if for no other reason than the tax implications. Am I missing why this is a big deal? Donors frequently donate stocks directly to non-profits. Whether you’re the American Civil Liberties Union or the Zoroastrian Alliance or something in between, this is not really breaking news.
The article goes on to reveal that an unnamed Bain partner donated $1.9 million worth of Burger King stock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And Romney’s staff responded by saying that some of the Bain stock transactions the ABC News investigate desk asked about were, in fact, donated at Romney’s direction.
“Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he regularly tithes to his church,” said Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, when asked about the Bain contributions. “Some of those church contributions have come through the Tyler Foundation. Others have been donations of stock through Bain. Any shares donated by Mitt Romney are personal shares owned by him.”
Saul also noted that not all the shares that appear on Bain securities filings can be attributed to Romney, “as there are other Mormon members of the firm who may also have been making donations to the church of personal shares owned by them.”
Questions about Romney’s faith have remained largely subdued during the 2012 campaign. Many believe he helped tame the issue during his previous campaign with a December 2007 speech at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, during which he declared that his church would not dictate his actions in the White House, if he was to become President.
“Questions have remained subdued”?
“Many believe”?
Why all the indirect language?
The article tries to get into explaining the religion angle behind all this but just skims the surface:
The Mormon church is distinct from many other American denominations in what it asks from adherents in money, time and commitment — and not just because it asks young Mormon males to spend two years proselytizing for the faith as missionaries, said Jan Shipps, a religion professor at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis, and one of the preeminent non-Mormon authorities on the church.
Romney has spoken about the 30 months he spent in France as a missionary, but his role within the church as an adult is largely unexplored. Shipps said Romney has held several significant posts within church leadership, including bishop and “stake” president, a leadership post that covers a sizeable geographic area and requires a significant commitment of time.
Beyond that, Romney appears to have lived up to rigid financial requirements within the church that asks parishioners to contribute 10 percent of their annual earnings.
So how is it distinct other than asking Mormon males to spend two years as missionaries? Don’t expect the article to tell you, unless they think adult laypeople serving as leaders is “distinct.” Hey, tell that to the people in my congregation who serve as elders or on congregational or national boards.
Seriously, I have no idea what the article is trying to say.
Also, the last sentence seems a bit overwrought. Are they rigid requirements or just requests? I actually wouldn’t mind a much more thorough discussion of that in the article, considering how it is interpreted in different ways by some LDS members. The dramatic language is par for the course here. I was going to comment on a line about “high-wheeling deals” but I don’t actually know what it means. Sounds nefarious, though.
The last time I was reporting on a newspaper covering a presidential candidate’s tithe, it was when a Texas newspaper went after Gov. Rick Perry for not giving 10 percent of his income to charity. Literally. The second line of the piece was “But when it comes time to giving, the governor doesn’t come close to the biblical guidance of tithing.” Dunh-dunh-dunh!!!
In the excerpt above, we’re told that Romney’s “role within the church as an adult is largely unexplored.” That’s just not true. There have been many, many, many articles about Romney’s role within the church as an adult. We’ve looked at some of them, but not all.
For instance, Vanity Fair has a huge story about Mitt Romney — and it’s quite good, actually, despite the bizarrely negative headline, “The Dark Side of Romney” — that focuses mostly on his role within the LDS church as an adult. It’s in the February issue and was released last week. At the top of the story, we’re told that the Romney’s Mormonism is their foundation and explains everything from their charity, their marriage, their parenting and their social lives to their very weekly schedules. They cherished their family but also viewed it as a Mormon duty to spend time together. The Romneys enjoyed citing a well-known Mormon credo popularized by the late president of the LDS, David O. McKay: No other success can compensate for failure in the home.
Here’s just a section of the substance of the religion discussion in Vanity Fair’s profile of Romney, completely disproving ABC News’ contention that his adult Mormon life has been unexplored:
Mormon congregations, typically groups of 400 to 500 people, are known as wards, and their boundaries are determined by geography. Wards, along with smaller congregations known as branches, are organized into stakes. Thus a stake, akin to a Catholic diocese, is a collection of wards and branches in a city or region. Unlike Protestants or Catholics, Mormons do not choose the congregations to which they belong. It depends entirely on where they live. In another departure from many other faiths, Mormons do not have paid full-time clergy. Members in good standing take turns serving in leadership roles. They are expected to perform their ecclesiastical duties on top of career and family responsibilities. Those called to serve as stake presidents and bishops, or leaders of local wards, are fully empowered as agents of the church, and they carry great authority over their domains. Mitt Romney first took on a major church role around 1977, when he was called to be a counselor to Gordon Williams, then the president of the Boston stake. Romney was essentially an adviser and deputy to Williams, helping oversee area congregations. His appointment was somewhat unusual in that counselors at that level have typically been bishops of their local wards first. But Romney, who was only about 30 years old, was deemed to possess leadership qualities beyond his years. Romney’s responsibilities only grew from there; he would go on to serve as bishop and then as stake president, overseeing about a dozen congregations with close to 4,000 members altogether. Those positions in the church amounted to his biggest leadership test yet, exposing him to personal and institutional crises, human tragedies, immigrant cultures, social forces, and organizational challenges that he had never before encountered.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is far more than a form of Sunday worship. It is a code of ethics that frowns on homosexuality, out-of-wedlock births, and abortion and forbids pre-marital sex. It offers a robust, effective social safety net, capable of incredible feats of charity, support, and service, particularly when its own members are in trouble. And it works hard to create community, a built-in network of friends who often share values and a worldview. For many Mormons, the all-encompassing nature of their faith, as an extension of their spiritual lives, is what makes belonging to the church so wonderful, so warm, even as its insularity can set members apart from society.
But a dichotomy exists within the Mormon Church, which holds that one is either in or out; there is little or no tolerance for those, like so-called cafeteria Catholics, who pick and choose what doctrines to follow. And in Mormonism, if one is in, a lot is expected, including tithing 10 percent of one’s income, participating regularly in church activities, meeting high moral expectations, and accepting Mormon doctrine—including many concepts, such as the belief that Jesus will rule from Missouri in his Second Coming, that run counter to those of other Christian faiths. That rigidity can be difficult to abide for those who love the faith but chafe at its strictures or question its teachings and cultural habits. For one, Mormonism is male-dominated—women can serve only in certain leadership roles and never as bishops or stake presidents. The church also makes a number of firm value judgments, typically prohibiting single or divorced men from leading wards and stakes, for example, and not looking kindly upon single parenthood.
The portrait of Romney that emerges from those he led and served with in the church is of a leader who was pulled between Mormonism’s conservative core views and practices and the demands from some quarters within the Boston stake for a more elastic, more open-minded application of church doctrine. Romney was forced to strike a balance between those local expectations and the dictates out of Salt Lake City. Some believe that he artfully reconciled the two, praising him as an innovative and generous leader who was willing to make accommodations, such as giving women expanded responsibility, and who was always there for church members in times of need. To others, he was the product of a hidebound, patriarchal Mormon culture, inflexible and insensitive in delicate situations and dismissive of those who didn’t share his perspective.
His role within the church as an adult is largely unexplored?
Please. The article goes on to provide examples from his fans and detractors in an even-handed way. It’s neither a puff piece nor a hit piece. After reading the lengthy Vanity Fair article, the idea that Romney’s tithing to his church would be noteworthy is silly. Vanity Fair shows how it’s done. The article, which also explores his successes at Bain Capital and which is an excerpt from a book on the candidate, is much more thorough and specific.
 | Posted at 3:22 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (20) |
January 18, 2012, at 4:07 pm
Mitt Romney is neither an atheist nor a Democrat … Dunh! Dunh! Dunh!
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
7
January 18, 2012, at 4:52 pm
Mollie said:
Apparently the editors of Vanity Fair thought it was a hit piece. The title of the article on the Politics page of Vanity Fair is The Dark Side of Romney.
Sheesh. I guess it’s assumed that being a conservative Mormon and an investment banker is dark.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
2
January 18, 2012, at 5:25 pm
Dale,
I can’t believe I missed that. It actually colors the whole piece, too. And not in a good way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
January 18, 2012, at 5:28 pm
What? I’m sick of hearing about Romney’s Mormonism. For goodness’ sake, Andrew Sullivan did several posts on his temple garments, a.k.a., “Mormon Long Johns!”
You know, the author should follow up this piece with a hard-hitting expose of how Jeopardy uber-champ Ken Jennings donated a part of his winning to the Mormon Church. Then a piece on mega-prospect Bryce Harper and the LDS plot to take over baseball.
I’m hardly a Romney fan but this is silly unless you can demonstrate some kind of public consequences to these tithes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
January 18, 2012, at 5:35 pm
… Not trying to be a nudge, Mollie, but if you thought the VF piece was “neither a puff piece nor a hit piece,” after reading it, why should the title — which, as TMatt recently reminded us, probably wasn’t the author’s doing — color the piece for you? It presumably says the same thing either way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
January 18, 2012, at 5:41 pm
Nudge all you want, Roberto! Well, what I’m saying is that I read the piece in good faith and I understood the piece to be a collaboration between the book authors and the magazine editors. And I thought it was pretty fair. Tough in parts, glowing in parts, but overall not bad.
The headline is part of that package, that collaboration between the authors and editors. I have no idea which editor or which combination of contributors wrote the headline but it makes me less trusting of what I read. That’s all I mean.
The headline, the graphics, the art, the pull quotes, etc. are all part of the package. And up for commentary.
It’s sort of like that Newsweek gimmick this week. In an attempt to get people to purchase and/or read the magazine, they chose a provocative headline for an article. But the effect on me was to just not bother. Again.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
January 18, 2012, at 8:25 pm
Excellent take-down, Mollie. And you didn’t even mention the headline (“Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church”), which almost makes it seem like someone was trying to suggest that Romney was slipping money to his church under the table, or worse, siphoning it off when it rightly belonged to someone else. Someone at ABC is trying way too hard!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
2
January 18, 2012, at 9:15 pm
Re: Vanity Fair piece.
I found the comparisons to the Catholic Church rather strained and exaggerated.
Generally, Catholics are supposed to belong to the parish in their geographic area and most do. Church shopping is rather recent and frowned upon.
Then there’s the implication that Mormons won’t put up with dissenters like cafeteria Catholics who it’s implied are tolerated by their church. Further on in the piece this is contradicted by the progressive group of women in Boston whom Romney accommodates to a certain degree - moderating the application of directives from Salt Lake City which the writers must think is like “the Vatican” for Mormons.
Interesting story, but the generalizations they throw around don’t always comport with the story they tell.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
2
January 18, 2012, at 11:52 pm
Next: Dog Bites Man
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2012, at 12:21 am
Hey Mollie,
The tithe for LDS is more than a “request.” In order to have access to the Temple, which every good LDS believes they need to have in order to advance in their religion, they must submit financial statements showing they have given 10% of their income.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
9
January 19, 2012, at 2:48 am
One would get the impression that anti-Mitt is the theme - no matter what the tactic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
January 19, 2012, at 3:06 am
I think there is a sense that a stake president (the quotes used in the article just seem odd) is a religious leader. I have seen people say “a stake is like a diocese”. This is a bit much, since say the Cleaveland Diocese has 600,000 or so Catholics and most Mormons stakes have at most 6,000 members.
However the differences can be overstated. self-identified Mormons spend more time and donate more per capita to the Church according to recent data gathered by Pew, than Catholics, Evangelicals or most other religious groups. Mormons are roughly the same socio-economically as the overall population so this means that it is more per-capita.
However it is easy to overstate the magnitide of difference. I had friends in high school who spent as much time with CYO as I did with the Young Men’s program. I had another who went to mass every day. So while there are lots of religious people who just go to Church for less than an hour a week (or less) there are lots who do a lot more, and Mormons do not stand out supper much on this front.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
January 19, 2012, at 3:42 am
With current usage of terms it is misleading at best to say that the Church “frown on homosexuality”, especially as the first item in a list.
The Church rejects all sexual actions outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
With homosexuality the Church is very clear that while it condemns sexual relations between people of the same gender it does not condemn people for having feelings of same gender attraction.
Thus, while based on literal meanings of the term the Vanity Fair peace is arguably correct, based on how people actually use the term currently it is misleading.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
January 19, 2012, at 4:01 am
Ryan’s claim about financial statements is false. I have never been asked to prove that I was a full tithe payer. Yes, you have to affirm to your bishop that you are a full tithe payer, but you do that by saying “yes” or “no” when he asks you. The Church does not excommunicate people from not paying tithing, and I have heard estaimates that only about half those who show up regularly at Church pay a full tithe.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
January 19, 2012, at 9:31 am
Ryan K. - what qualifies you to tell anyone what the CJCLDS requires of its members? In 20 years no one from the church has ever asked me to provide any documentation of my personal finances. I am so sick and tired of people who don’t “know” describing for others what Mormons believe and are required to do by the church. The chutzpah is amazing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
January 19, 2012, at 12:06 pm
Calm down with the outrage MinJae. I grew up LDS and it is part of my family for generations. I’ve had Bishops to exactly what I said to people of my immediate family. Maybe they do not do it in ever case, but they can ask members to show their tax returns. Or even the very fact that they do ask if you have paid the 10% tithe in order to be Temple Recommend shows that it is not just a request, but a requirement to participate in Temple practices that are essential for advancing in Mormonism.
I am tired of the victimization tone that comes from those who are LDS. I was responding to the journalistic integrity of the article. I have no problem with this practice of the LDS, nor was I weighing in on if it is good or bad (stop being so sensitive and reading into things that are not there, life is easier when you do not constantly believe everyone is out to get you.) I was simply responding to Mollie saying she thought the tithe should have been described as a “request.” This is not a theology blog, but about journalism being accurate in their coverage of religion.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
January 19, 2012, at 1:31 pm
Ryan K. There is no authority for anMormon bishop or stake president to requirebanyone to priduce their tax teturns, pay stub, ornany otherbdocumentation of income when answering the annual Tithing Settlement question, or in the biannual interviews for templebworthiness. If some bishop asked that of yourbrekatives, he eas WAY offnthe teservation and they should have tepirted him to the stake presidentnand Church headquarters. The discussuons in which a Mormon affirms that he or she has contributed a “full tithe” are private ones in the bishop’s office. The bishop does not dictate to peopke how to calculate their tithing beyond teading the very spatse direction in LDS scriptures. There is no mirror of the IRS code that defines the ins and oyts of “income”. Contributionsnate made in plain gray envelopes and no one besides the bushopric and financial clerks who prepare the deposits kniws whether you have donated one dollar or a thousand. The envelopesnare handed quietly to the bishop or one of his two counselors outside of the meetings, so no one is seeing whether you even turned in an envelope. And your level of donatikns is not discussed with anyone else. Thebwhole process ,inimizes peer pressure and telies in your conscience to gyide tou in how to calculate the amount of your tithe and when and in what form to donate it.
It should also be remembeted that thete ate other categories of donations. Mor,ons are asked to fast 24 hours the first sunday each month and donate the food money they save to a fund for the poor. Families or other membets if a ward will donate the standard contribution for missionary support, while stipends to the misdionaries will vary with the cost of living in each country. There arebspecial funds like one for low interest lians for education in developung natuons. Mormons are also asked to support the Boy Scoytsnthroughndirectndonations colkected by members if the congregation. Children contribute to a children’s hospital in Utah that provides care regardless of ability to pay. Special contributions are made for building new temples.
The construction if meetinghousesm typucally with two to four congregations sharing each one, is paid out of central church tithes, as is the maintenance and utiluries for each. Membets contribute janitorial services.
The Church owns farms and foid preparation centers whete.membets donate labor to provide foid to the poor and unemployed. Doctorsnand lawyers can be found hoeing weeds and mucking out ciw stalk,ls alongside p,umbets and bricklayets.
And that is ovet and above the aervuces each member provudes in opetating the congregation’s religioys srrvices.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
January 19, 2012, at 3:30 pm
Note that Ryan K. does not claim he ever had a bishop ask him to show documents, only that it was “asked of his immediate family”. Thus he is reporting second hanrd, against other people who are reporting first hand, such as me, who in my 15 or so tithing settlements, 10 or so temple reccoemnd interviews and other times I have been asked if I was a full tithe payer, has never been asked to show documentation.
I have changed wards during the year, and the bishops never asked for documentation to show I had been even paying tithing in the old ward, let alone to show what my income was.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
January 19, 2012, at 3:59 pm
Here is a piece building off the ABC piece that seems to try its best to make this sound sinister. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/mitt-romney-may-have-given-mormon-church-19-million-burger-king-stock/47545/
Why are we only being told of Bain stock donations to the Mormon Church. Are Mormon businessmen really the only ones who donate stock to their religion? I find that hard to believe. The Daily Beast also plays up on this here http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/18/romney-sent-millions-to-mormon-church.html
“Given cuts of the deals” seems to be the core of it. Also, if they know that Mitt’s family charity gave $4 million to the Mormon Church, why can they not tell us whatelse it has done for the past 5 years.
Here’s a link to Newsbusters biased analysis http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/01/18/abc-romney-not-bain-1999-he-sent-millions-mormon-church-recent-bain-deal The point that “send” instead of “give” is used (and the whole “cut of the deal” verbage) is important to note.
Of course, I know some people will cry “The Mormon Church is not a Charitable organization”. Well, this is a complexed issue. Until we know how much and to what specific funds Romney and his charitable trust gave, even this is not a valid claim.
This article initially from Reuters http://news.yahoo.com/bain-deals-romney-gave-stock-mormon-church-003327096.html mentions “the church and various charities”. It does not even say “the church” is the top reciepient. While it is true you “avoid paying tax on the gain” this is because you do not exchange, but give away your asset.
I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that Romney paid with cash or check his tithing based on his salary, and it was only for stock gains that he paid these donations to the Church (which may or may not have been paid as tithing).
Since Romney has not made public his tax returns, we do not even know what sort of tax exemptions he claimed on these donations. Considering that Romney’s net worth is estimated at about $200 million, it is hard to see why his giving $4 million to a Church that makes paying 10% of your income one of many requirements to attend the temple (and we know that Romney married his wife in the temple) is newsworthy at all.
The whisper campaign about this makes me understand why Romney will not release his tax figures. I saw one place where it was claimed George Romney (Mitt’s Dad) gave about 19% of his income to the LDS Church. If $4 million is a scandal, how is the news media going to react if they uncover Romney giving $40 million to the LDS Church, BYU and other LDS controlled institutions over the last 12 years or whatever they get? I do not know if it will be anywhere close to that figure, but I am sure it is much more than the $4 million.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
January 19, 2012, at 4:27 pm
Here is a very biased Yahoo article on other donations by Romney’s charity http://news.yahoo.com/romney-charity-used-conservative-donations-185444203.html
The Becket Fund has also sued to allow Jews to build synagogues, Sikhs to build houses of worship and many other groups. Here is a link to their website http://www.becketfund.org/ They are a pro-religious freedom group, that clearly supports freedom for all religions.
Way down at the bottom of the article they admit $4.7 million to the Mormon Church, hundreds of thousands to cancer and MS research, large donations to arvard Busines School and Brigham Young university, and donations to the Oympics and other sports programs. My main reaction to the $25,000 to the Becket Fund is “why so little”?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0