Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bjw

Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

Recommended Posts

I wanted to run something by you guys that was in the anti video that I mentioned in another post about church history. I won't post the link here because it contains temple content, but I'm sure you have heard this all before. I noticed some contradictions the reasoning so I thought I would like to see what you think.

The video claimed the bretheren, including the Q12, FP, and other top leaders are the highest paid clergy in the world. They claim that not only do our leaders get paid homes, transportation, and huge salaries, but their families own the construction firms and other vendors the church uses when building temples, chapels, malls, and various projects, overcharging the church and dividing the money. Then, they sit on imaginary boards of various church owned companies to collect large salaries.

In the midst of all of these charges, the accuser claims the LDS church is very secretive and will show nobody financial statements or give an account of how any funds are spent. If this is true, how does the accuser know these accusations are true? Does he have a spy who knows more than the members?

These things were in the same video that claimed the Rosicrucians had a role in the founding of the church, Book of Mormon coming from John Dee's Book of Madog, and Cochranites bringing polygamy to the church.

While I do have a solid testimony and some corruption in the church would not change that, I would like to know the real story behind this. Are the brethren really the highest paid clergy in the world? How can our critics claim to know this stuff without examining financials. It doesn't seem like a church as large as ours could get away with any corruption with so much scrutiny from government and other outside organizations.

I always heard the full time church officials get a modest stipend, housing, and transportation, but nothing too elaborate. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

Many in the upper leadership of the Church were/are of independent means. They volunteer their time and efforts in the Church. If how they dress is any indication, and it usually is, I'd put their average income in the upper middle class range. The next GC look at the suites they wear. They are nice, but not that nice. I'd guess in the $500 range. These are generally older gentlemen, and with all the kind thoughts I have for them. I don't want them out driving themselves on the roads. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

if you ask me the brethren of the 1970's and into the 1980's dressed like they were put together by a committee

Share this post


Link to post

Until President Monson's view is this (and the room unseen behind him is filled with gorgeous Renaissance art):

 

gty_vatican_city_pope_window_thg_130226_

 

I think we should take any such argument with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post

Many in the upper leadership of the Church were/are of independent means.

 

CFR

Share this post


Link to post

People who simply can't wrap their minds around genuine faith inevitably cast about looking for alternative motivations: since Church leaders, presumably, must know they're engaged in a fraud, then what keeps them going? The accusation reveals far more about the thought processes of those making it than it does about Church finances.

Share this post


Link to post

The video claimed the bretheren, including the Q12, FP, and other top leaders are the highest paid clergy in the world. They claim that not only do our leaders get paid homes, transportation, and huge salaries, but their families own the construction firms and other vendors the church uses when building temples, chapels, malls, and various projects, overcharging the church and dividing the money. Then, they sit on imaginary boards of various church owned companies to collect large salaries.

In the midst of all of these charges, the accuser claims the LDS church is very secretive and will show nobody financial statements or give an account of how any funds are spent. If this is true, how does the accuser know these accusations are true? Does he have a spy who knows more than the members?

These things were in the same video that claimed the Rosicrucians had a role in the founding of the church, Book of Mormon coming from John Dee's Book of Madog, and Cochranites bringing polygamy to the church.

 

I wish I lived in a world where people who are either this deliberately ignorant or outright liars in their rantings were excluded from society like lepers and we felt no need to investigate their other claims once they were confirmed to be liars.

Share this post


Link to post

People who simply can't wrap their minds around genuine faith inevitably cast about looking for alternative motivations: since Church leaders, presumably, must know they're engaged in a fraud, then what keeps them going? The accusation reveals far more about the thought processes of those making it than it does about Church finances.

Especially the part about the secret financials, yet they claim to know what the leadership makes.

Share this post


Link to post

People who simply can't wrap their minds around genuine faith inevitably cast about looking for alternative motivations: since Church leaders, presumably, must know they're engaged in a fraud, then what keeps them going? The accusation reveals far more about the thought processes of those making it than it does about Church finances.

 

I can't get my mind around an organization that wouldn't recognize that genuineness - the type that might lead someone to a genuine faith - might begin with accountability in all things.  

 

Here are a few apostate evangelical ministries that understand that the money isn't theirs, so everything should all be out in the open:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Council_for_Financial_Accountability

Share this post


Link to post

CFR

While none of them are likely to rival Bill Gates anytime soon, they all come from respectable professions and given the church's stance on fiscal responsibility probably all saved money for a rainy day.

Just in the Quorum of the 12 alone their are multiple PhDs, Multiple MBAs from Harvard, A Surgeon, A Nuclear Engineer, a few additional lawyers, and a state supreme court justice.

I don't know what your net worth cut off is for "of independent means", but this is sufficient for me.

-guerreiro9

Share this post


Link to post

Until President Monson's view is this (and the room unseen behind him is filled with gorgeous Renaissance art):

 

gty_vatican_city_pope_window_thg_130226_

 

I think we should take any such argument with a grain of salt.

None of which is the Pope's. :-) The Pope receives no salary, but then he doesn't pay for any thing. Catholic donations feed and clothe him. We're good with this.

Share this post


Link to post

None of which is the Pope's. :-) The Pope receives no salary, but then he doesn't pay for any thing. Catholic donations feed and clothe him. We're good with this.

 

and he seems to humbled by the magnitude of that in his choice of digs 

Share this post


Link to post

While none of them are likely to rival Bill Gates anytime soon, they all come from respectable professions and given the church's stance on fiscal responsibility probably all saved money for a rainy day.

Just in the Quorum of the 12 alone their are multiple PhDs, Multiple MBAs from Harvard, A Surgeon, A Nuclear Engineer, a few additional lawyers, and a state supreme court justice.

I don't know what your net worth cut off is for "of independent means", but this is sufficient for me.

-guerreiro9

 

Saving money for a rainy day is not the same as having enough money to last for the rest of your life.

Share this post


Link to post

Saving money for a rainy day is not the same as having enough money to last for the rest of your life.

What are you looking for? You seem to have something in mind that hasn't been provided or you are just being contrary for contraries sake.

-guerreiro9

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't care less if the Q12 got money to live, I doubt they make a million bucks a year. They probably have charge accounts at major stores and they get reviewed i'm sure. I know Elder Marion Hanks of the Seventy was in a rest home due to his ill health in his declining years and I would hope the Church foot the bill for that, he gave them his life the least they could give him is that

Share this post


Link to post

I don't find the allegations credible, with few exceptions the Church recruits from the successful upper middle class usually from the professions or business. Not sure that applied to President Monson, but is generally the case. I don't begrudge them stipends if they need it. You don't hear of any living luxuriously, at least I haven't.

Share this post


Link to post

Especially the part about the secret financials, yet they claim to know what the leadership makes.

This all could be avoided if the church was a little more transparent with the funds and donations they receive.

Share this post


Link to post

The Church has several for profit corporations under its umbrella. Church leaders sit on the board of directors of these businesses and are paid for that work. The suggestion that these businesses are just shell companies is easily refuted by research into said entities.

Share this post


Link to post

This all could be avoided if the church was a little more transparent with the funds and donations they receive.

Every critical worm would come out of the woodwork with comments about how THEY would better spend the money. Most such people have little to no knowledge of how to run and maintain a solvent business. (We need look no further than the Feds to see just how well they are guiding the US economy.) Oops, sorry, too political !

Share this post


Link to post

The Church has several for profit corporations under its umbrella. Church leaders sit on the board of directors of these businesses and are paid for that work. The suggestion that these businesses are just shell companies is easily refuted by research into said entities.

If this could be proven it would seem to violate the terms of being non profit. I'm sure it's illegal to collect money under non profit circumstances, purchase or operate for profit entities with the money, then pay yourself a high salary for your board activities in the company. I can't understand how the IRS and accounting regulating bodies are allowing it to happen if it is.

Share this post


Link to post

While none of them are likely to rival Bill Gates anytime soon, they all come from respectable professions and given the church's stance on fiscal responsibility probably all saved money for a rainy day.

Just in the Quorum of the 12 alone their are multiple PhDs, Multiple MBAs from Harvard, A Surgeon, A Nuclear Engineer, a few additional lawyers, and a state supreme court justice.

I don't know what your net worth cut off is for "of independent means", but this is sufficient for me.

-guerreiro9

 

And, when he was alive, before Elder David Haight became an Apostle and Gen Authority, he was mayor of Palo Alto, CA, home of Stanford Univ, which I believe he resigned as Mayor to become a Gen Auth.  If he didn't resign, he finished out the term he was in and did not seek election again.

 

GG

Edited by Garden Girl

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”
      In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.
      ;0)
      --Erik
      ______________________________________________
      She appears composed, so she is, I suppose
      Who can really tell?
      She shows no emotion at all
      Stares into space like a dead china doll
      --Elliott Smith, "Waltz #2"
    • By JAHS
      Pretty good article on how to handle critics and protesters: 
        "The Internet is an easy target for pajama-clad critics trolling the sour waters of discontent to hook the curious.   While faithful members of the LDS Church sometimes feel like punching bags, punching back only leads to black eyes. What we need is not more doctrinal ammunition in the war of words, but more kindness from the wellspring of wisdom.   When sharing our beliefs, civility should not depend on winning or losing an argument. We ensure civility when our character is one of a “meek and lowly...heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 32:1). We should share our beliefs in faith with respect for opposing viewpoints, including the faith to keep silent when emotion says otherwise.   Honest discussion over differences in faith can be healthy, but when civility bleeds away, raised voices are an anemic substitute for substance. Engaging in angry debate over matters of faith often leaves the combatants spiritually bruised and more deeply entrenched in the rightness of their cause."   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638627/Friday-Minute-What-to-do-when-critics-howl-around-general-conference.html    
    • By KevinG
      I found a comic I was looking for earlier today when someone was using the old line "I was only being honest" to justify some pointed comments. That line, when used to justify a lack of civility has always bothered me. I'm not feigning innocence. Goodness knows I've shared my quota of snarkyness...
      I share it here without further comment.
      http://geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=3161
    • By BCSpace
      http://www.mormonchallenges.org
      Thought some of you would be interested in this site. It has been claimed to be run by Dennis Packard, professor of Philosophy at BYU. Watched one video and it all seems to be geared towards helping LDS deal will difficult questions. Several vids on the BoA issue which I have not watched yet.
      It is starting to cause a stir on the usual antiMormon sites. Note that it does not have the usual disclaimer about not being an affiliated with the Church etc. nor does it have the official stamp of the Church. There seems to have been a lot of work put into making the videos; the narratives, etc.
      It's actually perhaps not so new as the copyright date is 2010.
    • By alexlds
      Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision. The battle for hearts and minds on the subject of the restored gospel is being stoked up by the Romney thing - and I believe that it is being increasingly played out in the comments sections of articles posted in online media.
      I was horrified when I read the comments section on a recent CNN article about the new Temple In Kansas. The article itself was positive and quite fair. However I had never before seen anything quite like the comments section. There were over 3000 comments (50 pages), and these consisted almost entirely of an unmitigated flood and tirade of pure abuse and hatred against the church and the teachings of the restored gospel.
      At least with Romney based articles, fair minded readers can be persuaded that bashing candidates for not being “true” Christians is unacceptable and rather bigoted. (Goodness knows what will happen if we ever get a muslim presidential candidate – but thats not the point Im making here). But because the subject CNN article was about Temples (and thus church doctrine), CNN had no option but to publish the comments . . on the basis that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion.”
      The Mormon Voices site invites members to help defend the church online in public forums by contributing to the comments sections. But it is SO SO important to do it in the correct, controlled, and effective way – which I would suggest is best done as follows
      I believe that the very best method is to completely avoid all the esoteric, cerebral and even doctrinal stuff (very interesting though it may be) . . and just say something very simple, very short, completely factual and very personal. When I do that, I find our “enemies” are entirely unable to dispute or argue with what I have said.
      On the subject of “enemies” - “We encourage all our members to resolutely refuse to become anti-anti-Mormon,” Marvin J Ashton (Ensign, Nov. 1992, p. 63). We need to speak the truth in love, and not fall into the trap of participating in contention or feeling that we need to respond to every challenge.
      For example - here is a general purpose "template" response that I often use - of course edited and adapted as necessary . . .
      "I have been a member of the "Mormon" church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in the UK for about 40years now. I honestly don't know of any other church that encourages and promotes among its members such a serious and detailed study of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ FROM THE BIBLE. Or of any other church that so strongly emphasizes His divinity. The vast majority of Mormons simply would not be able to recognize themselves at all in some of the previous comments that have been made. The real fact is that at the core of Mormonism is a rather plain, low church Christianity, with decaffeinated adherents who go about their lives paying their taxes, loving their families, serving in their communities, helping the poor, and making mistakes along the way."
      (That last sentence BTW has been "borrowed" from a response to an unfavourable TV program by Mike Otterson in the public affairs dept.)
      My point is that a response of this type disarms them leaves them absolutely no wriggle room to challenge or dispute anything that you have said. They simply cant argue with what you have experienced personally. (And Im not talking here about our formal testimonies) It also closes the door on the spirit of contention, which they thrive on. Sadly some will then just revert to name calling - but any reasonable person then reading a such a comments section will then easily see them for what they are.
      As another example, you might post something like “I have been an actively involved member of the LDS church for x years. In all of that time I have never seen any black or gay visitor or member (and yes we do have them) treated or even talked about with anything less than full respect and consideration”
      Some excellent guidelines and helps on responding in an effective way can be found at the Mormon Voices site. I believe that dignified, respectful, factual, personal, short and simple (for simple people to understand) is definitely the best way to go. Like the old sales guideline K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) And it goes without saying that name calling has to be a no-no
      In fact – I now rather cringe when I see members engaging in debate about church doctrines and practices in comments sections. There is surely a more excellent way.
×
×
  • Create New...