Church Finances---official source

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

This sounds like a great deal for the government.  Tax my dollar that I donate to the church, then tax it again when the church gets it.

 

Here is the crux of the issue: disclosure. How is the church acting? Is it more like a business that does religion on the side? Are the revenues so overwhelming that the church makes tons of money off of investments? Im not a tax lawyer or accountant so I don't know if tax exempt money escapes taxation of investment gains but that would be a great benefit that maybe should be closed if it is the case. So to answer your issue, I don't think the church should be taxed on already taxed dollars but should be on gains it makes from those already taxed dollars.

Again, we don't know the whole picture because revenues aren't disclosed and expenses aren't completely disclosed either. If we knew what we were dealing with, then we could come up with a reasonable way to deal with the issue, but we don't because the law says they don't need to tell us.

[JAHS]

In my opinion the only people who are demanding transparency are either critics of the church or members who are on their way out of the church for other reasons.
This issue by itself can't be the only deciding factor. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If we knew what we were dealing with, then we could come up with a reasonable way to deal with the issue

Who is the "we" that you are referring to?  If you're talking about the people who are donating money to the church, I think "we" are fine with how the church is handling it's finances.  Those who are not, as has been pointed out, are not being forced by anyone to donate.

My suspicious is that many of those who are critical of church finances do not donate to the church.  Which makes me wonder why they even care.

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What does the church have to gain from it?  Most members do not care about the details and those that care the most will nitpick things and ask "Why so much money for this and that?"  It may be that it just easier not to publish it than have to deal with constant questions from various people and the constant headache is just not worth it.

It's true that transparency makes an institution more accountable to uppity people with all kinds of questions. I'm sure it is much easier to simply control the information and keep people in the dark.

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's true that transparency makes an institution more accountable to uppity people with all kinds of questions. I'm sure it is much easier to simply control the information and keep people in the dark.

I am not in the dark. I can see very clearly what the church does with the donations I make, which already belong to God in the first place.  What good would it really do to see exactly where every cent is going?

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In my opinion the only people who are demanding transparency are either critics of the church or members who are on their way out of the church for other reasons.
This issue by itself can't be the only deciding factor. 

Correlation doesn't equal causation.  Maybe the correlation is that people who begin to think critically about the church begin to question the church's image on a number of issues including financial ones.  

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Who is the "we" that you are referring to?  If you're talking about the people who are donating money to the church, I think "we" are fine with how the church is handling it's finances.  Those who are not, as has been pointed out, are not being forced by anyone to donate.

My suspicious is that many of those who are critical of church finances do not donate to the church.  Which makes me wonder why they even care.

 

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Who is the "we" that you are referring to?  If you're talking about the people who are donating money to the church, I think "we" are fine with how the church is handling it's finances.  Those who are not, as has been pointed out, are not being forced by anyone to donate.

My suspicious is that many of those who are critical of church finances do not donate to the church.  Which makes me wonder why they even care.

They care because the older folks are sometimes donating properties...they care because they have invested thousands of dollars..with relative doing the same  They care because they care about those friends and family are paying when house payments are behind..they care because they could have paid for homes or have homes had they been keeping that 10 percent that goes who knows where???  They care because there would have charitable contributions that would have meant so much more...they care because the families...give and give and there is nothing there to show..except some empty Temples far and away...they care because this church has turned into a corporation...where they don't just give food or extend their love and service to the needy...(and I know they do)...but they invest in properties...spend money on PR...on legal things that keep their name out of situations that would deem them not in good light.  They care..because they know...what some do not know.  There tithes are of value to God because He loves them...but the blessing are all the same to those who aren't even members that give love and ewrvice to others..all the days of their lives...without the "look at me..look at me..my church is true..!

Quote

This quote just kind of popped up on me...so...give what you can...love everyone..be humble and sincere. 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Jeanne

[carbon dioxide]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's true that transparency makes an institution more accountable to uppity people with all kinds of questions. I'm sure it is much easier to simply control the information and keep people in the dark.

I don't need to know what % of money is given to this or that.  I am sure some money is wasted on things as that will always be the case but I am sure the church is much more efficient than government at spending.   I just strongly believe the people who want this information the most are the ones that are seeking to bash the Church over something.   When someone demands something, there is often is an agenda behind it.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

This is an extremely relevant article in a law journal about the exemption churches have from public disclosure laws, and the arguments that they should not be exempt:

 

THE LAW AND FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY IN CHURCHES: RECONSIDERING THE FORM 990 EXEMPTION

 

Thanks for posting this, very interesting and relevant.  I agree that transparency is almost always a good thing, and shouldn't be opposed by the church or its members.  This is a positive direction for society in general and it should continue down this road, and I think will eventually.   

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 

They care because the older folks are sometimes donating properties...they care because they have invested thousands of dollars..with relative doing the same  They care because they care about those friends and family are paying when house payments are behind..they care because they could have paid for homes or have homes had they been keeping that 10 percent that goes who knows where???  They care because there would have charitable contributions that would have meant so much more...they care because the families...give and give and there is nothing there to show..except some empty Temples far and away...they care because this church has turned into a corporation...where they don't just give food or extend their love and service to the needy...(and I know they do)...but they invest in properties...spend money on PR...on legal things that keep their name out of situations that would deem them not in good light.  They care..because they know...what some do not know.  There tithes are of value to God because He loves them...but the blessing are all the same to those who aren't even members that give love and ewrvice to others..all the days of their lives...without the "look at me..look at me..my church is true..!

 

If people disagree so much with what the church is doing then it would seem logical to me that those people would not donate to the church. 

I respect the right of those who choose not to donate and I hope that they would respect my right to donate to the church.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that transparency is almost always a good thing

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

If people disagree so much with what the church is doing then it would seem logical to me that those people would not donate to the church. 

I respect the right of those who choose not to donate and I hope that they would respect my right to donate to the church.

I respect your right to donate to the church and your right to not want to know what the church does with those donations.  

I would hope that you would respect my right to want to know what the church does with my donations and the donations of my family and friends and fellow members of the church.  

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am not in the dark. I can see very clearly what the church does with the donations I make, which already belong to God in the first place.  What good would it really do to see exactly where every cent is going?

Sorry, but I don't believe that. Of course you're in the dark, just like the rest of us. Why? Because the church chooses to not disclose.

It's funny that you say you're not in the dark but then suggest it wouldn't do any good to see where the money is going. If you can't see where the money is going, you are...in the dark.

[cinepro]

Just now, ksfisher said:

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

I think the key difference is whether or not he is asking you to donate money to his cause.

[smac97]

Just now, ksfisher said:

If people disagree so much with what the church is doing then it would seem logical to me that those people would not donate to the church. 

Paying tithing is a principle of obedience for the individual.  So I think it's possible that people could disagree with the Church while still being willing to donate to it.

As it happens, I think publicly speaking against the Church on matters not within the member's stewardship is also a principle of obedience.  But that's another discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

Are you unable to differentiate between a large organization which solicits millions/billions of dollars in donations annually, and an individual.

If an individual asks me for money, and I donate to them, I think it's reasonable to know how the money is being spent. There is a responsibility to the constituency from which you are receiving donations. An individual who does not ask publicly for donations doesn't need to make that information public, because it is in fact private. Please, tell me you can see the difference.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation.  Maybe the correlation is that people who begin to think critically about the church begin to question the church's image on a number of issues including financial ones.  

Well then they have a lot of other issues that they need to work on to get themselves right with the church. Knowing the exact numbers of the income and outgo of donation money is not going to help them. 
It is usually just another excuse used to justify their complaints on other things they don't like about the church. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

Ahh... I missed Smac's post.  Sounds like a poor comparison though.  An individual compared to an institution with respect to financial transparency?  Now if I were running for high public office or the public had some other cause to have access to my personal finances, that would be a different matter.  

There are two compelling reasons why the church should be required to publish their financial records that have no comparison to an individual.  1. The fact that they receive tax exempt status, in essence they are subsidized by every citizen of the USA for that status.  2.  They have an obligation to their stakeholders, the members of the church, to be transparent with how their donations are being used.  

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Quote

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

I think the key difference is whether or not he is asking you to donate money to his cause.

I don't think that's a key difference.  Donations are voluntary.

If we get to select any minimally plausible excuse to avoid "transparency," then transparency must not be a very important consideration.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

I wil gladly open up my books to anyone who is willing to donated 10% of their income to me.  If it is 16 million people, then those 16 million people will see everything their money went to.

I couldn't care less whether the church shows me what they spend their money on.  I don't contribute to it any longer and I don't care one bit what they spend other peoples money on.  

Two different issues.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its happened in other countries, and the trend in society seems to be towards more transparency over time.  I think it will eventually happen in the USA too. 

Anything is possible. I would think that religious participation in America would have to decline significantly before such a proposition would ever even have a chance at passing. 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sorry, but I don't believe that. Of course you're in the dark, just like the rest of us. Why? Because the church chooses to not disclose.

It's funny that you say you're not in the dark but then suggest it wouldn't do any good to see where the money is going. If you can't see where the money is going, you are...in the dark.

Once I hand over the money it is no longer my concern. Not know the exact dollars and cents of where it goes is not being in the dark. At least I don't feel that I am in the dark and that's what counts.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you will be posting your own financial information as Smac asked?  Or does your privacy fall under the "almost" exemption. 

Not a great comparison, since he isn't soliciting donations from anyone, as far as I know.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Ahh... I missed Smac's post.  Sounds like a poor comparison though.  An individual compared to an institution with respect to financial transparency?  Now if I were running for high public office or the public had some other cause to have access to my personal finances, that would be a different matter.  

There are two compelling reasons why the church should be required to publish their financial records that have no comparison to an individual.  1. The fact that they receive tax exempt status, in essence they are subsidized by every citizen of the USA for that status.  2.  They have an obligation to their stakeholders, the members of the church, to be transparent with how their donations are being used.  

 

The main difference I see in this debate is that some people believe the institution and its leaders should be accountable to those whom they serve. The other side seems to believe leaders and the institution should not be accountable to the membership which donates to them. If we truly believe in fallibility as a reality among every human being and institution, then it is very reasonable to accept accountability as a standard for all, leadership included.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Paying tithing is a principle of obedience for the individual.  So I think it's possible that people could disagree with the Church while still being willing to donate to it.

As it happens, I think publicly speaking against the Church on matters not within the member's stewardship is also a principle of obedience.  But that's another discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

With respect to obedience, I think fidelity to the principle of honesty in dealings with your fellow man, includes proper financial transparency for an institution like the church.  

I also think that reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon is another principle that we as members should obey, even when that reproof needs to be directed towards the church.