Why Are Church Finances Kept Secret From The Members?

[Bikeemikey]

This is a bad example since paycheck is not a donation.

The only time we should expect to know what happens with our tithing money is if we are told it will be used for specific purposes.

For example, I think there is a better case to be made that if you filled out a donations slip and made a payment to the missionary fund or the welfare fund that there should be transparency to the point that you get that information.

We are told that tithing goes into a general fund so there should be no issue with this. Tithing settlement makes it clear that the other funds are allocated according to the request when the tithing is paid.

[Deborah]

This is a bad example since a paycheck is not a donation.

Except an employer can choose not to hire you or fire you if they find out you are spending "their" money for something they don't like. It is the same principle because once an employer pays you for a service they no longer have a say in where the money goes. Once you voluntarily pay an offering to the church you likewise no longer have a say where the money goes as it is no longer yours.

[ERayR]

This is a bad example since a paycheck is not a donation.

I have seen some cases where it very well might have been.

[Thinking]

I have seen some cases where it very well might have been.

I stand corrected.

[Damien the Leper]

So when your employer gives you your paycheck they have the right to tell you how to spend it?

Money donated vs money earned? Really?

[wenglund]

Salvation Army reports theirs too:

http://annualreport....ionarmyusa.org/

I wonder what it says about a church that chooses to report their financials?

I also know a lot of people who pay tithes and offerings who don't stick their nose in the church's business. What might that says about them?

It's also interesting to see the arguments that are made from assumption. Like it's a bad thing to want a Church corporation that asks its members for money in the name of God to account for that money.

The church does account for the money. It gives an accounting to whom it is and ought to be accountable.

What is "bad" is the assumption that the church should give an accounting to those who are accountable to the church or those whose business it is not. Again, this is upside-down thinking, but evidently it is the busy-bodies creed.

Like the Church is the first organization in the history of mankind that won't make any mistakes with its money, not counting the previous mistakes it has made.

Yes, and it isn't as though the Church is the only organizations with its share of busy-bodies.

I suspect that for all the churches that have been listed in this thread showing their financial reports, very few people actually care enough to look at them. If that's the case, are they wasting their time? Are they fools for doing it when they don't have to? Does it mean their members have less faith in their leaders?

Perhaps it is none of our business why they may have done what they did, nor is it our business to judge what they decided for themselves. But, then, I am not a busy-body.

And what might be some good reasons for the Salvation Army, Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists or others to stop publishing their financials? Other than making the LDS look bad, of course.

See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Again, you can set the conditions for what you are willing to give and under what conditions you are willing to give. That is your business.

Likewise, the church can set the conditions under which it will receive gifts and how it will use them. This is their business, not yours.

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to understand?

That is fine for you.

However, if the homeless bum, as you call him or her, didn't accept your gift under those conditions, then what he or she may then do with the donations that he or she receives, is none of your business. Do you get this?

The church doesn't receive donations under the conditions you suggest, and this in large part because such conditions defy the spirit, if not the letter, of the law of tithes and offerings. So, what the church has received in donations, and how they use those donations, are none of your business.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I get what you're saying, Wade. Thank you for your patient response. (No sarcasm intended)

[wenglund]

Money donated vs money earned? Really?

In principle, the distinction doesn't really matter. In each case there are people illegitimately intent on being "responsible" for their money after it leaves their hand--or, in other words, they are intent on busying themselves in matters that are no longer their business.

It all has to do with the terms of the exchange. Like you, employers are free to set the terms by which they are willing to pay their employees, including requiring an accounting of how the employees spend the money given them. The potential employees are also free to accept or reject those conditions. However, if the employees received payment absent any terms requiring an accounting of how they spend their money, then it is none of the employers' business what the employees do with their own money. Does this compute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

In principle, the distinction doesn't really matter. In each case there are people illegitimately intent on being "responsible" for their money after it leaves their hand--or, in other words, they are intent on busying themselves in matters that are no longer their business.

It all has to do with the terms of the exchange. Like you, employers are free to set the terms by which they are willing to pay their employees, including requiring an accounting of how the employees spend the money given them. The potential employees are also free to accept or reject those conditions. However, if the employees received payment absent any terms requiring an accounting of how they spend their money, then it is none of the employers' business what the employees do with their own money. Does this compute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It does thank you.

[Peppermint Patty]

It all has to do with the terms of the exchange. Like you, employers are free to set the terms by which they are willing to pay their employees, including requiring an accounting of how the employees spend the money given them.

Wade,

Not to derail, but employers cannot require an accounting of how employees spend the money given them. At least not in the United States, as this would violate numerous state privacy and federal labor laws.

Carry on.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Not to derail, but employers cannot require an accounting of how employees spend the money given them. At least not in the United States, as this would violate numerous state privacy and federal labor laws.

Carry on.

Of course I was speaking in theory, rather than in practice, but it is good to know that there are at least some laws protecting the innocent from interminable busy-bodies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[oats]

I used to have a trust in government that leaders would act in good faith and on the best interest of the people they served. I have consciously recognized this since I was a teenager, since I began to be interested in how my life was influenced by government. I think my similar trust in church leaders helped me trust government despite the prevalence of backroom deals and secret meetings that lacked transparency.

Well, over the past few years my trust in non-transparent public leadership has eroded and disappeared almost completely. It has definitely creeped into my trust of the church bureaucracy. On the local church level I have trust. I have trust in the responsibility of the leaders. I have trust in their financial practices. I do not trust the people who manage the vast sums of money beyond the local levels. More and more I hear of big money business transactions by the church that appear to align more with the "get gain and grind upon the face of the poor" style of American big business investments. I'm just not down with that type of play without accountability. I don't trust the church blindly with finances anymore.

I'll give all my time talents, efforts and goods. But currency can too easily be abused and used inappropriately. I've kept my tithing for a few years and will continue with that practice until I can in good conscience donate it to the church in some way that I feel cannot be abused or used to further other causes beyond the missions of the church.

[Bernard Gui]

If the Church splurges on Charmin, I'm gonna be royally ticked! I don't think that's the best possible use of my tithing dollars!

Our stake just keeps a large supply of dried fern leaves and seaweed.

Bernard

[cinepro]

Except an employer can choose not to hire you or fire you if they find out you are spending "their" money for something they don't like. It is the same principle because once an employer pays you for a service they no longer have a say in where the money goes. Once you voluntarily pay an offering to the church you likewise no longer have a say where the money goes as it is no longer yours.

Just so we're clear, public disclosure of the finances has nothing to do with who has a say in "where the money goes". As has been pointed out numerous times, the only influence most members of a group (or "consumers") have is whether or not they give.

So I guess the question would be whether or not it is ethical for a church or other group to withhold financial information from their members (or donators) if that information would decrease the likelihood of the donators donating? Or is that just good business?

[Log]

So I guess the question would be whether or not it is ethical for a church or other group to withhold financial information from their members (or donators) if that information would decrease the likelihood of the donators donating?

I'll give all my time talents, efforts and goods. But currency can too easily be abused and used inappropriately. I've kept my tithing for a few years and will continue with that practice until I can in good conscience donate it to the church in some way that I feel cannot be abused or used to further other causes beyond the missions of the church.

You reminded me of these:

When the Saints of God become covetous and refuse to pay their tithing, it is then they feel oppressed in this point - darkness beclouds their minds, and throws a gloom over their feelings, and the Adversary gains an advantage over them, and little by little they are led captive by the Devil.

For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.

[Bernard Gui]

Looking at the Salvation Army financial report, I am shocked, I say, Shocked! to see they

have...wait......wait.....I can't bring myself to say it..............

investments.

There. I said it.

http://annualreport....11_Activity.pdf

I also noticed something about government fees and grants something or other. I wonder what that could be. If I were a soldier, I would be very keen to know exactly what the officers have been

investing in. There are all kinds of nits I could pick with this report...if I wanted to. Not sure the

Salvation Army has armies of malcontents that would eagerly search every nook and cranny to get some kind of "goods" on the organization. As a paranoid Mormon, I am sure the naysayers would have a field day with any kind of LDS disclosure.

Bernard

Edited April 9, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[KevinG]

I learned some colorful new words to describe whiners and slackers from my sons solider buddies this week. It is all I can do to refrain from using some of them and get myself kicked off of the boards. I admire my son for not being co-opted by the dark side as fast as I am.

[citizen28]

Perhaps it is none of our business why they may have done what they did, nor is it our business to judge what they decided for themselves. But, then, I am not a busy-body.

Do you think the avoidance of busy-bodies is the reason the church chooses not to disclose their finances?

[citizen28]

Just so we're clear, public disclosure of the finances has nothing to do with who has a say in "where the money goes". As has been pointed out numerous times, the only influence most members of a group (or "consumers") have is whether or not they give.

So I guess the question would be whether or not it is ethical for a church or other group to withhold financial information from their members (or donators) if that information would decrease the likelihood of the donators donating? Or is that just good business?

Excellent point.

[KevinG]

Do you think the avoidance of busy-bodies is the reason the church chooses not to disclose their finances?

Give the man a cookie! He has seen the light!

[citizen28]

KevinG, So does the church care what busy-bodies think? Are they worried about the slew of mail and organized protests by people who think they have better ideas for where the money should go? From a faithful perspective I just can't see why disclosing the finances hurts the church in any significant way.

.

[KevinG]

I doubt there is a slew of mail or a huge groundswell of those wishing to see the financial statements of the worldwide church at the transitional level.

I don't think disclosing them would hurt the church.

I do think it would be a colossal waste of time and do nothing to end the whining about what the Lord's anointed do with His tithing and offerings.

So far I've heard no compelling reason to do it other than to assuage conspiratorial cranks.

Edited April 9, 2012 by KevinG

[citizen28]

I doubt there is a slew of mail or a huge groundswell of those wishing to see the financial statements of the worldwide church at the transitional level.

I think you're definitely right about this. I suppose we'd be hard-pressed to find any historical example of a large, vocal grass roots movement by lay members to enact change in the church.

I don't think disclosing them would hurt the church.

You might be right. As cinepro asked earlier, do you think that if the church disclosed budget information it might lead to a drop in tithing revenue? Judging by this statement, I assume your answer would be no.

I do think it would be a colossal waste of time and do nothing to end the whining about what the Lord's anointed do with His tithing and offerings.

Obviously the records already exist. I can't see why making them public would require more than minimal effort.

[citizen28]

So far I've heard no compelling reason to do it other than to assuage conspiratorial cranks.

At very least, it's a good faith gesture toward the people who sacrifice a very significant portion of their means to the church. In my view, a little accountability in this regard could never be a bad thing. And if the budget were released, I really don't think faithful Mormons would find any reason to complain about how the money is spent.

[KevinG]

Obviously the records already exist. I can't see why making them public would require more than minimal effort.

I'm not thinking about the accountants. I'm thinking about the poor church officials who would be in charge of answering mail from every crackpot who thought they could do a better job at spending funds than the brethren. It would probably hit local units disproportionately hard as they were asked to handle it.