Why Are Church Finances Kept Secret From The Members?

[KevinG]

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.

I don't think you are cynical enough when it comes to the busy-body talents of some "faithful Mormons". But that's just me being cynical enough.

[citizen28]

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.

Maybe they ought to open up an email account complaints@lds.org, and then have an old missionary couple assigned to mass delete everything that comes in They could even flag the membership records of any identifiable member who tries the complaint line, and thus keep the "busy-bodies" out of responsible callings...

In all seriousness, the church already receives an enormous amount of mail which it redirects to local units. I'd make a good bet that they receive far more mail from earnest members hoping that the spiritual experience they share might be used in an upcoming general conference talk than any amount of critical or hate mail.

I don't think you are cynical enough when it comes to the busy-body talents of some "faithful Mormons". But that's just me being cynical enough.

I won't lie, you got a smile out of me here. Do you really think many faithful Mormons would bother thumbing through the budget (provided it's long and complicated enough)? I'd prefer an easily read summary with the detailed budget attached, but even a dense, convoluted accounting would be better than none.

[Deborah]

Just so we're clear, public disclosure of the finances has nothing to do with who has a say in "where the money goes".

This was addressed to the person who wanted to know where his money was going.

If public disclosure has no effect in saying where the money goes why is it needed?

[Thinking]

If public disclosure has no effect in saying where the money goes why is it needed?

Public disclosure may have an effect on future expenditures.

[Jeff K.]

The money is voluntarily given by those who feel they are paying back for blessings they were not obligated to receive. One presumes they are the only individuals that are of importance in this matter. No one else has any standing. If the vast membership worldwide chose to follow the course of disclosure, the church would do so. Outsiders need not apply.

[cinepro]

And what if public disclosure can prompt members to give more?

For example, the report on Church finances in England looks like the Church runs a deficit there, and Salt Lake City has to send them money:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/DocumentList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=242451&SubsidiaryNumber=0&DocType=AccountList

(Someone correct me if I read that wrong).

But if that is the case, might Church members in England be encouraged to give a little more to help make up the deficit? I know I've lived in wards where we were told that our ward didn't donate enough fast offerings to cover the needs of our ward members, and that was supposed to encourage us to give a little more.

[Jeff K.]

I think our sacrifices to the Lord should be as private as possible. We should not use public disclosure which may lead to ridicule in order to increase what we are obligated to pay on a personal level. Individual salvation and sacrifice is just that individual.

As a group, when more needs to be done, I think it takes a different tone.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Deborah]

And what if public disclosure can prompt members to give more?

I know I've lived in wards where we were told that our ward didn't donate enough fast offerings to cover the needs of our ward members, and that was supposed to encourage us to give a little more.

Ok, so why not just announce that they are under what they need. I seriously doubt most members would even bother to look at the financial report. In any case all that does is give big numbers; it won't answer the question of where a specific person's dollars went which some seem so concerned about.

[Mark Beesley]

The Lord doesn't always have the same priorities that we have. He sees a much larger picture than any of us can.

If the Lord inspires the use of Church funds for something that we mere mortals might find improvident, publishing that can only hurt those who would criticize such use.

By keeping Church finances confidential, the Lord protects the ignorant masses (to some extent) from saying something stupid. Of course, that doesn't stop everyone.

[cdowis]

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.

At the very least, the enemies of the church have enough grist for their mill. They don't need our financial records.

Edited April 10, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

Clearly, the notion of privacy doesn't register with the meddlesome busy-bodies--except when it comes to their own privacy, which, ironically, they often protect with a vengeance, including keeping their real life identity a secret through the use of on-line screen names. To them, the privacy of others is just a hurdle to clear in their quest to satiate their voyeuristic and/or paranoid proclivities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blackstrap]

Many years ago in Guatemala,there was a fuss made over all the tithing money that was collected and sent to the US.It was shown that the Church collected $12,000 in tithing etc. from the members there......and sent $250,000 back in to the country to sustain the membership.The silence which followed that announcement was deafening.

Kind of like what was heard after the charitable donations by Romney and his families' foundations were published. But I digress.

Edited April 10, 2012 by blackstrap

[Senator]

Many years ago in Guatemala,there was a fuss made over all the tithing money that was collected and sent to the US.It was shown that the Church collected $12,000 in tithing etc. from the members there......and sent $250,000 back in to the country to sustain the membership.The silence which followed that announcement was deafening.

Kind of like what was heard after the charitable donations by Romney and his families' foundations were published. But I digress.

So, in this case a little fiscal transparency did satiate the critics. Interesting!

[Jeff K.]

William Tell would never miss the point. But then pointing that out to some is pointless.

[cdowis]

General descriptions of donations don't give me peace of mind. It is very important to me where my money is being spent.

The solution is insanely simply. Give your money to a church that will give you a detailed accounting, and you will find peace of mind -- at least regarding your money.

Edited April 10, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

So, in this case a little fiscal transparency did satiate the critics. Interesting!

Which explains the several current threads on the topic.

Besides, satiating the critics should always be priority-one.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-