Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Next Time a Critic Gripes Re: Church's Business Interests . . . Quote Quinn


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is rather vague.  And overstated.

This is not self-evident.

Again, vague.  And overstated.  And not self-evidently true.

I find it interesting that you are speaking in the abstract, apparently 'cuz speaking in the particular (as to the LDS Church and its management of its finances) doesn't seem to yield an opportunity to criticize the Church.  

I find it sad that faultfinders will always succeed in their line of work.  Always.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Typical support the status quo kind of perspective, not surprising. 

Do you believe in financial transparency for large institutions or not?  Or is it just the LDS church or religious institutions that should be exempt from transparency, and if so, why should these institutions be exempt while others are not?  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Typical support the status quo kind of perspective, not surprising. 

Typical griping for the sake of griping, not surprising.

Meanwhile, I said this: "I would be fine if the Church was more open with its finances.  But I'm also content with the Church's current course, particularly given the generalized reports we receive at General Conference, the generalized sentiment and perception that the Church's finances are in good order, the generalized lack of apparent financial mismanagement, and even the occasional outsider perspective on the Church's finances which confirm - often begrudgingly - that the Church is doing very well at managing its finances."

Quote

Do you believe in financial transparency for large institutions or not? 

Do you only perceive complex questions in a big, blocky, all-or-nothing, kind of way?  

Again, your question is vague.  And overstated.  

I am not sure what you mean by "financial transparency."  I am, however, reasonably confident that the critics of the Church don't give two figs about the finances of the Church, except as a point of discussion emphasized to make the Church look bad.

I think safeguards should be in place to guard against financial malfeasance for non-profit organizations.  I am, however, fairly skeptical of sweeping, overbroad declarations about such things from axe-grinding critics of religious groups.  We have seen numerous examples of combatants in the Culture Wars weaponizing governmental regulatory power to punish the "other side."  So when we see how the LDS Church is doing a great job at managing its finances, and when there is neither fire nor smoke as to the Church's leaders misappropriating funds, and when axe-grinding critics whose objective is to attack and weaken and undermine the LDS Church come along and present baseless (even counterfactual) insinuations about the Church's finances, and when they further propose that despite the Church's demonstrated good stewardship, the government still needs to step in and use the force of law to impose more regulatory disclosure requirements on it.  Because for such critics, "financial transparency" is a noble-sounding pretext for "How can I use the force of law to bend the LDS Church to my will, including using governmental regulation to punish religious groups if they say or do things I and my compatriots dislike?"

Quote

Or is it just the LDS church or religious institutions that should be exempt from transparency, and if so, why should these institutions be exempt while others are not?  

Phrases like "financial transparency" and "exempt from transparency" aren't really meaningful, particularly when presented in this context.  Axe-grinding critics whose raison d'être is to attack and tear down the LDS Church are not interested in "transparency."  I wouldn't mind a good faith discussion about needed and specific measures for additional governmental oversight of religious groups and other non-profits.  But vague public demands for "Financial Transparency!" from agenda-driven, virtue-signalling critics of the LDS Church will usually put me on my guard.  Opponents of the Church would love to try to weaken or destroy the LDS Church by using the coercive power of governmental regulation.  Or, failing that, the opponents would at least have some grist for their voyeuristic mill.

Moreover, these critics would never be satisfied with more "transparency."  They could (and undoubtedly would) endlessly call for more transparency, then more, then more after that.  Ad infinitum.  And the threatened (or actual) use of government coercion would always be there.  But by that point, the pretext would be gone.

Here is a fairly interesting blog entry on this topic (by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

Some excerpts:

Quote

Financial Statements are a snapshot into the financial health of a business or organization, designed to allow stakeholders (i.e. a person who has a stake in a business. Not like “Stake Boundary” stake, more like “interest” stake) to determine, on a macro level, the well being of the company.

...

Keep in mind that financial statements are at a painfully high level. Ask any auditor and they’ll tell you the same thing until they’re blue in the face. It doesn’t tell most of the transactions. It’s not a blueprint on how to run a company. It’s not designed to detect fraud. Although our accounting overlords continually add new rules to try to prevent the next Enron or WorldCom, neither a thorough, expensive audit nor the resulting financial statements are a guarantee to that.

...

Okay, so you now know, or can at least pretend to know, what a financial statement is. Here’s where I’m having problems: what would publicly releasing the LDS Church’s financial statements accomplish?

Before you answer that, want to see what you’ll be getting? I found the financial statements for the Episcopal Church, which happened to be put together by my former employer. Go ahead, read through the 2013 report.

So what did you learn? I learned that the Episcopal Church is financially sound right now. And…that’s about it.

How much do they donate to the poor? How much to give in foreign relief? How much do they use on buildings? I have absolutely no idea. The best we get is this scant breakout here:

episcopal_breakout.png

What do they consider to be “Canonical and missional programs”? Is “General convention” a euphemism for the priests heading to ComiCon on the church’s dime? And what’s with this “other” amount grouped in with Grants?

In other words, we’re almost exactly where we started. We know how much money they brought in and how much money went out, but they grouped their expenses based on arbitrary categorizations invented by whichever accountant implemented Quickbooks for them.

Unfortunately, their grouping totally fails for me, because those Episcopal financials don’t allow me to voyeuristicly understand how they use their money. Heck, it doesn’t even tell me how much they spent on Communion Crackers!

For them, though, it works. Their goal was likely to prove that they are spending less than they make, and on that point, mission accomplished.

If we were to get public financial statements for the LDS Church, this is about as good as we could expect. Want proof? Turns out the LDS Church has financial statements in the UK (required by UK law). And considering that I haven’t heard a single person mention how great it is that the Church practices financial transparency overseas, I’m guessing the number of people demanding US financial statements that know about the UK financials are in the single digits.

Hence my suspicion that calls for further "Financial Transparency" would be followed, endlessly, by more calls for "Financial Transparency."  Because the objective of the critics is digging for dirt, that's about it.

More from the blog:

Quote

Okay, so you’re not an accountant, and you’re not interested in stuffy financial statements made up by overweight accountants with little green visors and even smaller personalities. You just want more transparency.

But why?

What are you going to do with that information? Do you honestly believe that knowing how much the LDS Church depreciates the Salt Lake City Temple renovations every year will convince you that what goes on inside is sacred? Will seeing how much the LDS Church sends to Africa in financial aide have one bit of bearing on whether Joseph Smith talked with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove? Does the amount spent on basketballs each year have any relevance on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true?

Look, I really don’t mean to come across as harsh, I just fail to see how financial ledgers, no matter how detailed or how summarized, matter. Either the Church is true, or it’s not. I believe that it is. Yes, it’s absolutely run by imperfect people, and they will make financial mistakes. But like Tomas at the beginning of this post so wisely told me, if they screw up, it’s on them.

I think these are fair questions for you.  What do you propose to do with the further-disclosed information about the Church's finances?

And more (emphasis added):

Quote

The thing is, I get what many people are trying to say. It’s easy to look around the world and see all the suffering, then look at the (non-released) financial situation of the LDS Church and think, “surely we can do better.”

Whether we can or can’t, I really don’t know. As individual members of the Church and followers of Jesus Christ, especially ones living in the wealthiest country in the world (or wherever you are on that list if you’re not in the the US), absolutely. I throw myself into that bucket for sure. All of us can get a little caught up in what should be considered a “want” and what should be considered a “need,” forgetting that the amount we spend on those alleged needs could be better served helping those with real needs.

But can the actual organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better allocate it’s resources to give more to the poor?

The LDS Church recently included “caring for the poor” among their missions, bringing the total missions to four. I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by saying that this new mission takes money. What about the other three? Proclaiming the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, Redeeming the Dead? All of them take money, too.

Could we ask missionaries to pay a bit more to cover the expenses related to the mission? Maybe, but for many what’s being asked is already a huge burden.

Could we worship in buildings that aren’t quite as nice? Perhaps, but most of the newer buildings are pretty utilitarian, even reusing the same architecture plans to save on costs.

Could we make our temples look a little less nice? On this one, I think not. The new, smaller temples already have several changes to help cut back on expenses, but we can only go so far.

...

So, what, then, would transparent financial statements be used for? I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game.

Yep.  I think that's the endgame intended by critics demanding for more "transparency."

So perhaps you can understand my skepticism and resistance to such obviously agenda-driven demands.

And one more bit:

Quote

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret: there’s too many accountants at the LDS Church, including some who have turned against the Church, for unethical dealings to not have been leaked by now. Enron had a much shorter life than the LDS Church, and it was dismantled by someone on the inside, not someone reading financial statements. Considering that Enron was stocked full of self interested employees, not people who grew up believing that their organization should be held to a higher standard than everything else, serious Church financial wrong doing would have come out by now.

At best, if we had transparency, you’d get a small group of people complaining that the LDS Church is wrong because it does their finances differently than they would do it, while everyone else would get bored before scrolling to the end of the released PDF.

Going back to the cost, that sounds like a pretty low benefit to justify virtually any expense.

If the LDS Church does one day release their finances, so be it. In the meantime, there are much better causes to dedicate our time to. May I suggest helping the poor instead of complaining that the Church isn’t helping them enough?

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Quote

Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments. (The Bloomberg Businessweek piece from five years ago cited an investigation pegging the LDS Church’s worth at $40 billion.)

 

He's silly.  33 billion in one year?  Did he put his estimate to any kind of reality check?  That's 2 grand per member per year.  Of course not all members pay tithing.  But 2 thousand per year for a family in some locations in this globe is probably quite high.  If we have 50% activity that's still 4 grand per member. 

 

Quote

Thus, these recent changes appear to reflect a movement to have the size and functionality of international LDS congregations to become more comparable to those in the United States (e.g. 150-300 active members per ward). In the past, the Church has generally maintained significantly smaller congregations outside of North America (e.g. 50-125 active members per ward).
 

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/

Let's break this down for further consideration:

14,719 units (wards and branches) in the US and Canada. 

That's at most then 3,311,775 active members in North America (if we take the middle 225 per unit active members).

Not all of these 3 million pay tithing (some are kids and some simply don't pay). 

30,304 Units world wide.

That means 15,585 units in the world outside of NA.

If say 100 active members per unit outside the US, then 1,558,500 active members.

Not all 1.5 million members outside the US pay tithing. 

If family size is 4, then the US has 827,944 active LDS households.

Not US, then 389,625 households.

So, 1,217,569 households in the world

This would mean, assuming 33 billion in tithing, 27,000 dollars per household per year.  I'm sure there are at least a few households in the world that pay something around that and some more than that.  But his estimate would require that figure to be the average. 

The US has a average household income of:  $59,039

So, it appears the LDS households in North America might have to be very high above the average (assuming most tithing comes from North America).  To bring the average up to 27,000, it must, then, be that the average household in the US pays closer to 30,000-40,000 dollars in tithing per year. 

Or, going with the average activity rate per ward above (4,870,275 active members):

$6,776 per year per active member.

or for household of avg of 3, 1,623,425 househoulds (just to play it safe and to challenge our estimate above):
$20,000 per household per year. 

We can't take that seriously, can we? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

And despite this "success story" our critics regularly pillory the Church regarding its finances.  But if the Church's finances were being handled poorly, I suspect the critics would complain about that, too.

Darned if we do, darned if we don't.  The faultfinders are going to succeed in their endeavors regardless of what the Church does.

 

I'm confused, smac, are you saying with what we have here, in the book and article, that there are no questions raised or concerns to consider?  Is it criticism that concerns you or the content of the criticism?  Does any of this address in anyway criticisms and concerns that have been raised, as they relate to Church finances? 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He's silly.  33 billion in one year?  Did he put his estimate to any kind of reality check?  That's 2 grand per member per year.  Of course not all members pay tithing.  But 2 thousand per year for a family in some locations in this globe is probably quite high.  If we have 50% activity that's still 4 grand per member. 

 

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/

Let's break this down for further consideration:

14,719 units (wards and branches) in the US and Canada. 

That's at most then 3,311,775 active members in North America (if we take the middle 225 per unit active members).

Not all of these 3 million pay tithing (some are kids and some simply don't pay). 

30,304 Units world wide.

That means 15,585 units in the world outside of NA.

If say 100 active members per unit outside the US, then 1,558,500 active members.

Not all 1.5 million members outside the US pay tithing. 

If family size is 4, then the US has 827,944 active LDS households.

Not US, then 389,625 households.

So, 1,217,569 households in the world

This would mean, assuming 33 billion in tithing, 27,000 dollars per household per year.  I'm sure there are at least a few households in the world that pay something around that and some more than that.  But his estimate would require that figure to be the average. 

The US has a average household income of:  $59,039

So, it appears the LDS households in North America might have to be very high above the average (assuming most tithing comes from North America).  To bring the average up to 27,000, it must, then, be that the average household in the US pays closer to 30,000-40,000 dollars in tithing per year. 

Or, going with the average activity rate per ward above (4,870,275 active members):

$6,776 per year per active member.

or for household of avg of 3, 1,623,425 househoulds (just to play it safe and to challenge our estimate above):
$20,000 per household per year. 

We can't take that seriously, can we? 

But it could be a bit like the US tax structure where the top 20 percent pay 84 percent of all taxes collected. The top 1 percent of tithing payers most likely pay a large percentage of all tithing collected. http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-does-1-percent-pay-in-taxes/

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused, smac, are you saying with what we have here, in the book and article, that there are no questions raised or concerns to consider? 

I'm saying that public demands for vague references to more "transparency" from critics should be taken with several grains of salt.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is it criticism that concerns you or the content of the criticism? 

Neither.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not mind good faith, principled criticisms of my faith.

But what is being proposed here is . . . something different.  As I said:

Quote

Phrases like "financial transparency" and "exempt from transparency" aren't really meaningful, particularly when presented in this context.  Axe-grinding critics whose raison d'être is to attack and tear down the LDS Church are not interested in "transparency."  I wouldn't mind a good faith discussion about needed and specific measures for additional governmental oversight of religious groups and other non-profits.  But vague public demands for "Financial Transparency!" from agenda-driven, virtue-signalling critics of the LDS Church will usually put me on my guard.  Opponents of the Church would love to try to weaken or destroy the LDS Church by using the coercive power of governmental regulation.  Or, failing that, the opponents would at least have some grist for their voyeuristic mill.

Moreover, these critics would never be satisfied with more "transparency."  They could (and undoubtedly would) endlessly call for more transparency, then more, then more after that.  Ad infinitum.  And the threatened (or actual) use of government coercion would always be there.  But by that point, the pretext would be gone.

Here is a fairly interesting blog entry on this topic (by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

Those are my concerns.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Does any of this address in anyway criticisms and concerns that have been raised, as they relate to Church finances? 

I do not understand your question.  "Any of this" refers to . . .?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

He's silly.  33 billion in one year?  Did he put his estimate to any kind of reality check?  That's 2 grand per member per year.  Of course not all members pay tithing.  But 2 thousand per year for a family in some locations in this globe is probably quite high.  If we have 50% activity that's still 4 grand per member. 

 

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/

Let's break this down for further consideration:

14,719 units (wards and branches) in the US and Canada. 

That's at most then 3,311,775 active members in North America (if we take the middle 225 per unit active members).

Not all of these 3 million pay tithing (some are kids and some simply don't pay). 

30,304 Units world wide.

That means 15,585 units in the world outside of NA.

If say 100 active members per unit outside the US, then 1,558,500 active members.

Not all 1.5 million members outside the US pay tithing. 

If family size is 4, then the US has 827,944 active LDS households.

Not US, then 389,625 households.

So, 1,217,569 households in the world

This would mean, assuming 33 billion in tithing, 27,000 dollars per household per year.  I'm sure there are at least a few households in the world that pay something around that and some more than that.  But his estimate would require that figure to be the average. 

The US has a average household income of:  $59,039

So, it appears the LDS households in North America might have to be very high above the average (assuming most tithing comes from North America).  To bring the average up to 27,000, it must, then, be that the average household in the US pays closer to 30,000-40,000 dollars in tithing per year. 

Or, going with the average activity rate per ward above (4,870,275 active members):

$6,776 per year per active member.

or for household of avg of 3, 1,623,425 househoulds (just to play it safe and to challenge our estimate above):
$20,000 per household per year. 

We can't take that seriously, can we? 

It sounded high when I first read it.  Now that I've seen you break it down, it definitely seems high.  Nice work on the analysis!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying that public demands for vague references to more "transparency" from critics should be taken with several grains of salt.

Agreed.  I have no problem there at all. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Neither.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not mind good faith, principled criticisms of my faith.

Good.  Thanks for clarification, even if it seems redundant to you. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But what is being proposed here is . . . something different.  As I said:

Those are my concerns.

I do not understand your question.  "Any of this" refers to . . .?

Thanks,

-Smac

I meant the book or the articles alerting us of the book. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I said this: "I would be fine if the Church was more open with its finances.  But I'm also content with the Church's current course, particularly given the generalized reports we receive at General Conference, the generalized sentiment and perception that the Church's finances are in good order, the generalized lack of apparent financial mismanagement, and even the occasional outsider perspective on the Church's finances which confirm - often begrudgingly - that the Church is doing very well at managing its finances."

Financial transparency is almost always a positive step in the right direction, it helps stakeholders to understand how their interest in the institution is being managed, and its helps keep the leaders of the institution more accountable and honest with the organization being managed.  I look at religions similar to how I look at governments or businesses, and I'm in the profession of corporate finance in my career.  There are no drawbacks to this greater transparency for the regular person.  The only drawback that might be perceived by the institution is a lack of freedom or competitive advantage perspective, but these types of drawbacks are almost always at the expense to the shareholders as a whole.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think safeguards should be in place to guard against financial malfeasance for non-profit organizations.  I am, however, fairly skeptical of sweeping, overbroad declarations about such things from axe-grinding critics of religious groups.  We have seen numerous examples of combatants in the Culture Wars weaponizing governmental regulatory power to punish the "other side."  So when we see how the LDS Church is doing a great job at managing its finances, and when there is neither fire nor smoke as to the Church's leaders misappropriating funds, and when axe-grinding critics whose objective is to attack and weaken and undermine the LDS Church come along and present baseless (even counterfactual) insinuations about the Church's finances, and when they further propose that despite the Church's demonstrated good stewardship, the government still needs to step in and use the force of law to impose more regulatory disclosure requirements on it.  Because for such critics, "financial transparency" is a noble-sounding pretext for "How can I use the force of law to bend the LDS Church to my will, including using governmental regulation to punish religious groups if they say or do things I and my compatriots dislike?"

You're worried about optics, and I'm talking about principles.  The principle of financial transparency is fundamental and it is broad and ethically a strong ground to stand on.  You're asking for exceptions, but why the need for an exception for the Mormons, or for religions.  The LDS church should follow the laws of the land, and should be accountable to the public precisely because it is given tax preferential status, making it so every citizen is essentially subsidizing the church, therefore the public has a vested interest in the finances of this organization and all tax exempt institutions ought to be subject to the same financial transparency, this is a failing in our current U.S. tax code, but I'm hopeful it will be remedied in the future.  

Its also not about punishing religions (talk about persecution complexes here), its about fair play and equal playing field for every institution with tax exempt status.  Its funny how every social change that the church is scared about from civil rights to same sex marriage, there are always the slippery slope fear mongers who try to paint a picture that the world is coming to an end for the religion if these new policies are put in place.  

 

Edited by hope_for_things
Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Typical griping for the sake of griping, not surprising.

Meanwhile, I said this: "I would be fine if the Church was more open with its finances.  But I'm also content with the Church's current course, particularly given the generalized reports we receive at General Conference, the generalized sentiment and perception that the Church's finances are in good order, the generalized lack of apparent financial mismanagement, and even the occasional outsider perspective on the Church's finances which confirm - often begrudgingly - that the Church is doing very well at managing its finances."

Do you only perceive complex questions in a big, blocky, all-or-nothing, kind of way?  

Again, your question is vague.  And overstated.  

I am not sure what you mean by "financial transparency."  I am, however, reasonably confident that the critics of the Church don't give two figs about the finances of the Church, except as a point of discussion emphasized to make the Church look bad.

I think safeguards should be in place to guard against financial malfeasance for non-profit organizations.  I am, however, fairly skeptical of sweeping, overbroad declarations about such things from axe-grinding critics of religious groups.  We have seen numerous examples of combatants in the Culture Wars weaponizing governmental regulatory power to punish the "other side."  So when we see how the LDS Church is doing a great job at managing its finances, and when there is neither fire nor smoke as to the Church's leaders misappropriating funds, and when axe-grinding critics whose objective is to attack and weaken and undermine the LDS Church come along and present baseless (even counterfactual) insinuations about the Church's finances, and when they further propose that despite the Church's demonstrated good stewardship, the government still needs to step in and use the force of law to impose more regulatory disclosure requirements on it.  Because for such critics, "financial transparency" is a noble-sounding pretext for "How can I use the force of law to bend the LDS Church to my will, including using governmental regulation to punish religious groups if they say or do things I and my compatriots dislike?"

Phrases like "financial transparency" and "exempt from transparency" aren't really meaningful, particularly when presented in this context.  Axe-grinding critics whose raison d'être is to attack and tear down the LDS Church are not interested in "transparency."  I wouldn't mind a good faith discussion about needed and specific measures for additional governmental oversight of religious groups and other non-profits.  But vague public demands for "Financial Transparency!" from agenda-driven, virtue-signalling critics of the LDS Church will usually put me on my guard.  Opponents of the Church would love to try to weaken or destroy the LDS Church by using the coercive power of governmental regulation.  Or, failing that, the opponents would at least have some grist for their voyeuristic mill.

Moreover, these critics would never be satisfied with more "transparency."  They could (and undoubtedly would) endlessly call for more transparency, then more, then more after that.  Ad infinitum.  And the threatened (or actual) use of government coercion would always be there.  But by that point, the pretext would be gone.

Here is a fairly interesting blog entry on this topic (by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

Some excerpts:

Hence my suspicion that calls for further "Financial Transparency" would be followed, endlessly, by more calls for "Financial Transparency."  Because the objective of the critics is digging for dirt, that's about it.

More from the blog:

I think these are fair questions for you.  What do you propose to do with the further-disclosed information about the Church's finances?

And more (emphasis added):

Yep.  I think that's the endgame intended by critics demanding for more "transparency."

So perhaps you can understand my skepticism and resistance to such obviously agenda-driven demands.

And one more bit:

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Regarding Tim's blog post...

Every publicly held corporation here in the US has to release financial statements.  They do it routinely and these corporations are as, if not more, complex than the LDS Church.  People, often shareholders, read them.  They aren't terribly long.  They aren't impossible to understand nor are they all that difficult to produce.  They also don't give rise to unending, unanswerable questions and controversy.  I'm okay with people who feel the church should keep its financial matters secret but I don't buy the argument that we "can't" do it.

And, up until 1960, we *were* doing it.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Typical support the status quo kind of perspective, not surprising. 

Do you believe in financial transparency for large institutions or not?  Or is it just the LDS church or religious institutions that should be exempt from transparency, and if so, why should these institutions be exempt while others are not?  

I'm sorry, is "transparency" the new gold standard for institutional righteousness, is it?

Or is it, perhaps, just another of those buzzwords, like "diversity" and "inclusion," the meaning of which depends on who is speaking at the time?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you believe in financial transparency for large institutions or not?    

Publicly traded companies, yes. 

Sole proprietorships, absolutely not.

Private corporations; yes between shareholders.  No as to everything else.  Ain't anybody's business.

Partnerships; yes between parties.  No as to everything else.  Ain't anybody's business.

First Amendment religions, especially corporations sole, are free to do what they want.  The Doctrine & Covenants plainly says that if you make a donation to the Church, you aren't getting it back.  You have no call on Church finances.  I take that to mean that a member's financial interest in the Church ends at the conclusion of a donation.   Again, a member has no call on the Church's handling of your money.   it is embedded in the D&C and I quite doubt that the Church would ever change and make disclosures.

Now, other churches are different.  They may voluntarily sign a pact, and many do, to make their finances public.  That's up to them.  

Take Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church.  I am unaware that it has signed the pact.  It does not disclose its finances.  Joel Osteen has a home in excess of $10 million and his net worth may be $60 million.  He says he does not take a salary from the church, but obviously his position as one of America''s foremost televangelists gives him great exposure to publishers and readers of his books; without the Church he'd not be worth that; he is making money off the church.  Anything wrong with that?  Why can't I give money to the Lakewood Church knowing all that?  Why should he be criticized for how much money he has?   

Of course, my personal experience in the church is quite different.  My wealthy grandfather, a car dealer, took pity on the general authorities in the 1930s and 1940s and bought cars for them who couldn't afford them.  I lived two doors down from my bishop who, a few short years after his release, was made an apostle.  He was a meatpacker.  He lived modestly.

It is my First Amendment right and desire to give my money to a Church which does not display its finances.   Having said that, if you are a member of the Church you have every right to complain about the Church's finances.  I had a malcontent friend in the church who complained and an Apostle invited him to Salt Lake for a discussion.  The Apostle took him around to various Church facilities, opened up some records, and my malcontent friend came away surprised and satisfied.  I was surprised because he was one of the most negative and cynical people I have ever known.  He was a brilliant guy, otherwise.  But, complaining may go too far and be inconsistent with your obligations as a member. 

And, "transparency" is indeed a "buzzword" with little meaning.  I don't think that word exists in the laws dealing with financial disclosure.  I do know that when somebody is using it in the context of the Church, it is just a term of brow-beating.  Why brow-beat any religion?  Should I brow-beat the local Sephardic community down the street which forbids its women from driving?

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sorry, is "transparency" the new gold standard for institutional righteousness, is it?

Or is it, perhaps, just another of those buzzwords, like "diversity" and "inclusion," the meaning of which depends on who is speaking at the time?

When people argue against financial transparency I find it really funny because they typically want more transparency for everything in their life, governments, businesses, schools, politicians, etc, yet because of this don't criticize the church culture they feel a knee jerk need to defend an opposite position in this one case.  Think about it. 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

... I lived two doors down from my bishop who, a few short years after his release, was made an apostle.  He was a meatpacker.  He lived modestly. ...

I thought President Packer worked for CES.  Oh, wait ...  You mean ... :huh::unknw: 

Never mind.

Sorry.

My bad.

:D:rofl::D 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

But it could be a bit like the US tax structure where the top 20 percent pay 84 percent of all taxes collected. The top 1 percent of tithing payers most likely pay a large percentage of all tithing collected. http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-does-1-percent-pay-in-taxes/

For it to be anything like the situation in the US, wealthy people would have to be paying much more than 10% for tithing.  It's possible, but I've never thought that was the case. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For it to be anything like the situation in the US, wealthy people would have to be paying much more than 10% for tithing.  It's possible, but I've never thought that was the case. 

Based on personal experience serving in bishoprics, it does sometimes happen, but overwhelmingly the wealthy members I know send their 'extra' offerings into things like the fast offering fund, missionary fund, humanitarian aid, perpetual education fund, etc.

I do think that some people are significantly underestimating how much tithing some households pay. I don't live in the US, but my quick estimate is that just the members of our ward council are probably paying about US$160,000 per year in tithing.

I also think people may be underestimating tithing faithfulness. It's purely anecdotal, but I heard Pres Hinckley say that at no previous time in Church history were more Saints full tithe payers. A couple of years ago, I ran that claim past someone on a forum (not this one, I don't think) who claimed to have worked in Church finance, and he said that was absolutely the case.

I know  from my past experience in my ward that close to 100% of our active members are full tithe payers, and we even have members that rarely show up to church who contribute.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Based on personal experience serving in bishoprics, it does sometimes happen, but overwhelmingly the wealthy members I know send their 'extra' offerings into things like the fast offering fund, missionary fund, humanitarian aid, perpetual education fund, etc.

I do think that some people are significantly underestimating how much tithing some households pay. I don't live in the US, but my quick estimate is that just the members of our ward council are probably paying about US$160,000 per year in tithing.

I also think people may be underestimating tithing faithfulness. It's purely anecdotal, but I heard Pres Hinckley say that at no previous time in Church history were more Saints full tithe payers. A couple of years ago, I ran that claim past someone on a forum (not this one, I don't think) who claimed to have worked in Church finance, and he said that was absolutely the case.

I know  from my pa  xperience in my ward that close to 100% of our active members are full tithe payers, and we even have members that rarely show up to church who contribute.

Seriously....$160 thousand????  What do y'all do for a living???

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Based on personal experience serving in bishoprics, it does sometimes happen, but overwhelmingly the wealthy members I know send their 'extra' offerings into things like the fast offering fund, missionary fund, humanitarian aid, perpetual education fund, etc.

I do think that some people are significantly underestimating how much tithing some households pay. I don't live in the US, but my quick estimate is that just the members of our ward council are probably paying about US$160,000 per year in tithing.

I also think people may be underestimating tithing faithfulness. It's purely anecdotal, but I heard Pres Hinckley say that at no previous time in Church history were more Saints full tithe payers. A couple of years ago, I ran that claim past someone on a forum (not this one, I don't think) who claimed to have worked in Church finance, and he said that was absolutely the case.

I know  from my past experience in my ward that close to 100% of our active members are full tithe payers, and we even have members that rarely show up to church who contribute.

So 160,000 a year between all of you added up or each? 

Lets say that 500,000 families of the 1.2 million make 100,000 a year.  Let’s also say 100,000 families make 1 million a year.  I would call that an exceedingly high estimate globally for church members, but if what you are saying is the norm in the church then ok.  I’ll go with that.  That would still be just 15 billion a year. Let’s assume that of the remaining 600,000 active member families there are 10,000 that make 10,000,0000 a year.  Another ten billion.  That’s the type of estimating we’d have to do to get to 33 billion.  But even here we’d still be short.  

 

What I’ve seen though is Quinn has estimated the 33 billion by saying since tithe donations rose a certain amount in 1960 we can extrapolate that same rate of increase from nearly 60 years ago all the way to current which would give us 33 billion.  I find that ridiculous.  

Link to comment
On 10/17/2017 at 11:43 AM, Jeanne said:

Seriously....$160 thousand????  What do y'all do for a living???

Our bishop is a senior manager within a national government department; his wife (the Young Women president) is the activities director for an aged care facility. His first counsellor is a senior police constable; his wife works as an archivist for a government agency. His second counsellor is an aerospace software engineer. Our executive secretary works in indigenous affairs for our local government, and his wife works for a private health fund. Our ward clerk works with troubled youth in residential care. Our primary president is a stay-at-home mum, but her husband is a linguist with the department of defence. Our Relief Society president is a general practitioner (physician) in a private health practice, and her husband is an accountant. Our Young Men president is a specialist in satellite technology on a private contract with defence. Our Sunday school president is a tech writer for the tax office, and his wife is a marriage/family/addiction counsellor with a global online practice. Our high priests group leader also works for the tax office but in a senior management role, and his wife cleans houses. Our elders quorum president works in global shipping and logistics. I'm the ward mission leader, and I'm senior political adviser to a member of our local parliament. Did I forget anyone?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

When people argue against financial transparency I find it really funny because they typically want more transparency for everything in their life, governments, businesses, schools, politicians, etc, yet because of this don't criticize the church culture they feel a knee jerk need to defend an opposite position in this one case.  Think about it. 

Oh, really?

Who do you know who has argued "against financial transparency?"

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So 160,000 a year between all of you added up or each? 

All together, but after my post above, I suspect the figure may be quite a bit higher.

Quote

Lets say that 500,000 families of the 1.2 million make 100,000 a year

I'm unconvinced that only 1.2 million households in the world contribute tithes to the Church.

Quote

What I’ve seen though is Quinn has estimated the 33 billion by saying since tithe donations rose a certain amount in 1960 we can extrapolate that same rate of increase from nearly 60 years ago all the way to current which would give us 33 billion.  I find that ridiculous.  

I have no access to the book or its methods and so can't comment. I hope Quinn is closer to accurate than you are, but clearly I don't know. I just think it is possible.

In fact, I hope tithing receipts are somehow much, much higher than $33 billion per annum, and I likewise hope that the Church's investments are bringing in more than $15 billion per annum. And I hope that these figures, whatever they currently are, just keep increasing, potentially even exponentially. I love that we no longer seem to face financial obstacles to accomplishing the work the Lord has given us to do!

And, I should add, I'm grateful to the good and faithful tithe payers and inspired leaders who together have made it all come together with the Lord's blessing!

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Publicly traded companies, yes. 

Sole proprietorships, absolutely not.

Private corporations; yes between shareholders.  No as to everything else.  Ain't anybody's business.

Partnerships; yes between parties.  No as to everything else.  Ain't anybody's business.

First Amendment religions, especially corporations sole, are free to do what they want.  The Doctrine & Covenants plainly says that if you make a donation to the Church, you aren't getting it back.  You have no call on Church finances.  I take that to mean that a member's financial interest in the Church ends at the conclusion of a donation.   Again, a member has no call on the Church's handling of your money.   it is embedded in the D&C and I quite doubt that the Church would ever change and make disclosures.

Now, other churches are different.  They may voluntarily sign a pact, and many do, to make their finances public.  That's up to them.  

Take Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church.  I am unaware that it has signed the pact.  It does not disclose its finances.  Joel Osteen has a home in excess of $10 million and his net worth may be $60 million.  He says he does not take a salary from the church, but obviously his position as one of America''s foremost televangelists gives him great exposure to publishers and readers of his books; without the Church he'd not be worth that; he is making money off the church.  Anything wrong with that?  Why can't I give money to the Lakewood Church knowing all that?  Why should he be criticized for how much money he has?   

Of course, my personal experience in the church is quite different.  My wealthy grandfather, a car dealer, took pity on the general authorities in the 1930s and 1940s and bought cars for them who couldn't afford them.  I lived two doors down from my bishop who, a few short years after his release, was made an apostle.  He was a meatpacker.  He lived modestly.

It is my First Amendment right and desire to give my money to a Church which does not display its finances.   Having said that, if you are a member of the Church you have every right to complain about the Church's finances.  I had a malcontent friend in the church who complained and an Apostle invited him to Salt Lake for a discussion.  The Apostle took him around to various Church facilities, opened up some records, and my malcontent friend came away surprised and satisfied.  I was surprised because he was one of the most negative and cynical people I have ever known.  He was a brilliant guy, otherwise.  But, complaining may go too far and be inconsistent with your obligations as a member. 

And, "transparency" is indeed a "buzzword" with little meaning.  I don't think that word exists in the laws dealing with financial disclosure.  I do know that when somebody is using it in the context of the Church, it is just a term of brow-beating.  Why brow-beat any religion?  Should I brow-beat the local Sephardic community down the street which forbids its women from driving?

Very small operations have obligations to their stakeholders, but not necessarily the public in my eyes too, I'm not sure I disagree with you on those points.  But where free money and government subsidy is given I think the public has a right to transparency and accountability, otherwise we shouldn't have to pay in the form of tax preferred status to support those institutions.  

I believe as a member of the church I also have a right to the financial transparency of the organization.  I'm claiming a moral right more than a legal right.  With the money and dedication that members give to the institution, there is a mutually beneficial relationship there, and for me its more than just my personal dedication, but the history of my family members, pioneer stock and all, we've helped to build this church and I believe it has an obligation to a certain amount of financial transparency and I'm not satisfied with the status quo.  

Lastly, I don't know your friend, but to describe someone as a friend and a malcontent sounds harsh.  Am I a malcontent too because I think the church isn't being financially responsible?  You also use the word brow-beat.  Am I brow-beating the church by having a calm discussion on a message board?  Why the negative stereotypes and condemning rhetoric?  Do you always seek to diminish those with different viewpoints through language like this?  

Link to comment
20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He's silly.  33 billion in one year?  Did he put his estimate to any kind of reality check?  That's 2 grand per member per year.  Of course not all members pay tithing.  But 2 thousand per year for a family in some locations in this globe is probably quite high.  If we have 50% activity that's still 4 grand per member. 

I'd assume that, like taxes, the top 1% actually provide most of the money. Someone like Huntsman could easily be paying tens of millions per year. I'll confess the $33 billion does seem too high though. Even assuming around 1000 extremely rich Mormons (say above $50 million) they're probably not withdrawing money each year. (Wealth != increase -- I bet most only pay tithing as they withdraw money from business) If you're really liberal let's say they make $10 million per year. But that's just a billion in tithing. Increase it by an order of magnitude and you'll get $10 billion. But that's still much shy of Quinn's number and I'm very skeptical there's 10,000 mega-rich Mormons.

 

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

When people argue against financial transparency I find it really funny because they typically want more transparency for everything in their life, governments, businesses, schools, politicians, etc, yet because of this don't criticize the church culture they feel a knee jerk need to defend an opposite position in this one case.  Think about it. 

I've long thought a big problem causing many problems in government right now is too much transparency making it difficult for politicians to do the necessary deals to reach consensus. This in turn incentivizes "purity tests" due to media and leads to more polarization and getting far less done.

I think some transparency is necessary but I think the recent trend of the last 20 years towards transparency at all costs first off hasn't solved the problems many claimed and arguably made them worse. 

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What I’ve seen though is Quinn has estimated the 33 billion by saying since tithe donations rose a certain amount in 1960 we can extrapolate that same rate of increase from nearly 60 years ago all the way to current which would give us 33 billion.  I find that ridiculous.  

If that's what he's actually doing that's kind of ridiculous.

 

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know  from my past experience in my ward that close to 100% of our active members are full tithe payers, and we even have members that rarely show up to church who contribute.

I suspect your ward is a bit unusual. I'm sure there are far more tithe payers as a percentage in the US than in the past. But I'd be shocked if it were close to even 60% depending upon what figure one takes as the whole to calculate the percentage. That's because even with efforts to get people off the roles who don't consider themselves Mormon you still have lots of converts that take a while to remove. That's less of an issue in the Mormon corridor where many wards are just made up on more long term members with few converts. i.e. most suburban neighborhoods. However even there you usually have in many wards less active who sometimes don't consider themselves Mormon but still have records. They usually don't pay full tithing if any tithing.

Now the Pew self-identificaiton poll found rather high rates of tithe paying - 79%. That's still far too high for me to believe but still vastly lower than your ward.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...