Financial Transparency

[OMWO2]

Good grief, you people will say anything, no matter how lame, in order to avoid answering the question. I know you don't have any interest in seeing the benefits from this project, but I will point them out to you anyway.

While continuing to give to humanitarian causes, this project will allow the following:

1 - Revitalizing down town SLC

2 - Provide economic growth

3 - Provide additional jobs.

4 - Provide a residual income that will allow the Church to do more than the initial investment would have allowed.

If you can't see this, then you are blind.

Now you may continue with your ignorant mockery.

My best,

T-Shirt

Alright I'll bite since no one else is. Frankly your question is a vague and poorly written. It is also very rhetorical. If you are saying that it is a choice between a onetime payment of $1000 or monthly payments of $1000 that is a no brainer. Perhaps I was reading more into it but if that is all you want to know then the answer is...I will take the $1000 each month. Now that I have answered your question will you be so kind as to tell me the point of such a silly question?

[solomarineris]

Another person who post's something and adds no comment of their own.

Are you a member? Do you tithe? Do you have evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the Church?

Is this a relevant Q.? Whether he pays tithing or not? How can you find any evidence of wrong or right doing?

If nothing is disclosed?

If you were a tithe payer how could you be satisified if there were no public accounting?

I mean, if you don't hold your bank or investment company under the scrutinity what kind of retirement you will get?

It is common sense to ask for an accounting of any money you invest.

[Severian]

If the church did have full disclosure, people would just accuse it of falsifying documents if everything looked good.

That is the beauty of having an independent audit (that means one not conducted by the Church itself), to back this disclosure up. That way any appearance of impropriety is eliminated and this could therefore become a non-issue which would be one less thorn in the side of Church apologists.

[cinepro]

Take two theoretical churches.

One is led by God, and they manage their finances according to His wishes.

The other has leaders that do their best, but don't have any real divine help. Sometimes they do a good job, but other times they mismanage the money and teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

One of these churches publishes their financial info for their members and the world to see. The other church keeps it hidden, insisting that its members "trust" them, and have "faith".

Guess which is which.

[Thinking]

The other has leaders that do their best, but don't have any real divine help. Sometimes they do a good job, but other times they mismanage the money and teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

This sure sounds like the LDS Church before 1959.

[OMWO2]

T-shirt

Sorry to keep coming back to your question about the $1000 contribution. I will now attempt to answer the question you asked. My answer is in bold.

Why is it it so hard to answer the question as it is written without adding all manner of conditions? Let me ask it in another way:

Which gift do you think would be of most use to a charity?:

A - A one time gift of $1000.00.

B - $1000.00 a month for life. I would choose B

Now I would like you to read the following article which was published in the LDS.org newsroom. The bold emphasis was added by me.

DENVER, Colorado 28 August 2007 Reporter Electa Draper visited a Church-owned cannery in Aurora, Colorado, that dispenses everything from pudding to job-hunting advice for laid-off corporate executives.

In her report for the DenverPost, Draper notes that the Churchâ??s aid program goes well beyond caring only for its own members. It also feeds a global humanitarian aid program.

The report describes the Churchâ??s network of 751 storehouses, canneries, thrift stores, family-services providers and employment and literacy centers which serve 13 million members worldwide.

"Many churches have a lot of programs, but the comprehensive nature of what they're doing is unique," said Jan Shipps, an emeritus professor of religion at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.

Welfare needs often spill over to humanitarian needs. Between 1985 and 2006, the Church donated cash of more than $201 million and goods of more than $705 million in disaster relief to 163 countries.

The Church requires members to fast once a month and give the money they would have spent on meals to the Churchâ??s welfare program. Members also pay 10 percent of their income as a tithe, which primarily funds its worldwide operations. http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

Now if I may ask you to please answer the following question?

Which gift do you think would be of most use to a charity?:

A - A one time gift of $2,000,000,000 (billion) made in 2007?

B - Payments made over a 21 year period equaling $906,000,000 (million)?

Looking forward to your reply.

[Obiwan]

HOW would anyone know if there is corruption, abuse of funds etc, IF the finances are not transparent???

Easy..... Because there ARE people involved in handling the funds, and who DO know the workings, therefore, the cat would have been let out of the bag, if naughty things were happening. As well, as was mentioned, the once/twice yearly audits by independent entities ensures the same.

[Doctor Steuss]

How much does the church give to 3rd world countries? We don't know because all of the church does not publish its financials. I have traveled Africa, and I have 2 relatives who are serving church missions there. I see little in the way of real aid that has come from the church.

Over 100,000 wheelchairs to the disabled in developing nations at a cost of $6.8 million, helping 1.8 million people in over 1,000 communities gain access to clean water at an average cost of only $2.50 per person, $3.5 million to send doctors to developing nations to train local health-care professional, 200 million pounds of food, clothing and medicine over the last 20 years donated, $3 million towards measles vaccinations in Africa, $31.1 million in 2004 in cash and materials to assist in natural disaster relief, over 5,000 service missionaries...

[edited out my initial sarcasm. sorry sunstoned]

[Doctor Steuss]

[deleted... Oops, someone already posted it]

[Doctor Steuss]

Now if I may ask you to please answer the following question?

Which gift do you think would be of most use to a charity?:

A - A one time gift of $2,000,000,000 (billion) made in 2007?

B - Payments made over a 21 year period equaling $906,000,000 (million)?

Looking forward to your reply.

Depends. Is that charity receiving the infrastructure, administrative costs/abilities, volunteer hours, cannery buildings, distribution methods/costs, etc. as well as the $2 Billion? In another 21 years, can it be expected that another gift will be received?

Edited to add:

I don't know what would be of most use to the charity. But it seems to me that it would be of no use to people who needed help prior to 2007.

[Calm]

Depends. Is that charity receiving the infrastructure, administrative costs/abilities, volunteer hours, cannery buildings, distribution methods/costs, etc. as well as the $2 Billion? In another 21 years, can it be expected that another gift will be received?

Edited to add:

I don't know what would be of most use to the charity. But it seems to me that it would be of no use to people who needed help prior to 2007.

There is significant increase in the long run due to investment early on. Check out microbanks and how they are changing people's lives by just supplying them with a small investment (to us anyway) to get a small business going. Giving $1000 (or even as little as $100 for some) at a crucial time in someone's life 25 years ago may mean they are already self-sufficient by the time that $1000 has turned into $10,000 in the charity's account at the end of the 25 years and they in turn may be the contributors to the charity now.

Plus there are all those lives that have been saved and their contributions to society that could not be recovered just through a much greater check twenty years late.

Of course, giving that money to the wrong person may just result in the money being totally wasted. That is why microbanks often work mainly with women.

OTOH, there are various investments that work better in holding on to most of the capital and dispensing a smaller amount over time, such as chair endowments at colleges.

Context is everything. What is the best approach in one situation may be a death sentence to another individual.

[Hammer]

T-shirt

Sorry to keep coming back to your question about the $1000 contribution. I will now attempt to answer the question you asked. My answer is in bold.

Now I would like you to read the following article which was published in the LDS.org newsroom. The bold emphasis was added by me.

Now if I may ask you to please answer the following question?

Which gift do you think would be of most use to a charity?:

A - A one time gift of $2,000,000,000 (billion) made in 2007?

B - Payments made over a 21 year period equaling $906,000,000 (million)?

Looking forward to your reply.

Are you quibbling about people being cared for?

[Thinking]

Which gift do you think would be of most use to a charity?:

A - A one time gift of $2,000,000,000 (billion) made in 2007?

B - Payments made over a 21 year period equaling $906,000,000 (million)?

I'm not sure what your point is here but I crunched some numbers.

Using a 5% APY, $2 billion would grow to $5,571,925,180 after 21 years if none of the money was used.

21 deposits of $43,142,857.14 is about $906,000,000. Using an APY of 5% and depositing $43,142,857.14 every year for 21 years would make the balance $1,618,082,107 at the end of the 21st year.

[erichard]

Automatically excommunicated? What does that mean?

Hi Urroner,

D&C 102:15, speaking of a high council court, says this: "The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice."

Now lets say a church member robs a bank, kills three people, confesses and is convicted in court. Would the church have a careful "trial", giving him half of the high council to support him? Not likely. It would pretty much be an automatic excommunication. Right?

Now lets say a church member claims the right to NOT sustain the church President, to not reject the evidences for that decision, and also the right to seek for a D&C 107:81-84 type trial to settle the controversy over the church President.

Should the church give him a real trial, with half of the high council truly on his side, OR should the church just automatically excommunicate him-- as they would in the first example to the bank robber?

Now remember, there is no doctrine in the church taught with more emotion than that this is the Lord's church, and He will never allow the church President to lead it astray. So, should it not be just automatic excommunication to take the position of the member in the second example?

Richard