Lds Church Issues Statement Re: Church Finances

[wenglund]

I've seen no evidence that the LDS Church has a "value-neutral approach to financial decision-making."

There is actually evidence to the contrary. According to an article on Bonneville International Corp, a wholly owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corp, (DMC)a holding company owned by the Church: "The company's other values come before profitability, but profitability is necessary to achieve the other values."

In fact, the slogan for DMC is: "Protecting family values for over a century."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

Thank you for not making it personal.

You posted an attack on Wade and his methods (without bothering to address the accuracy or veracity of his argument).

I posted a general (Biblical) principle without naming names or pointing fingers.

So which one of us "made it personal"?

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[KevinG]

Thank you for not making it personal.

Some people take repetitive criticism of their faith and its practices as a personal thing. Go figure?

[smac97]

Okay. Can anyone here just explain to me, in simple terms, without getting personal and throwing me under the bus, why me as a tithe payer, cannot go into SLC HQ and ask for a church finance statement?

Here are my thoughts:

First, "church finance statement" is a very nebulous term.

Second, the church membership receives a report every year on the financial management of the Church during general conference (here's the most recent one). Do you have any reason to believe these reports are false or misleading? I sense that they do not get into the level of detail that you want, but then we're talking about financial accountability and transparency as a matter of degree.

Third, the calls for increased transparency on Church finances seem to come principally from people who do not contribute to those finances. And I sense that these people will never be satisfied regardless of how much "transparency" is proffered by the Church. That's that pernicious thing about fault-finders: They can pretty much always succeed at it in some way.

Fourth, I suspect your juxtaposition of the LDS Church as compared to "almost any other church, non profit, or government entity" is a bit off. Levels of transparency and accountability are all over the map, so to isolate - and tacitly criticize - the LDS Church for differing in its disclosure of its finances, when there is a lot of variation amongst other groups in their disclosures, seems unfair. Reasonable minds can disagree about what level of disclosure is appropriate.

Fifth, when it comes to disclosure of the LDS Church's finances, we hear a lot of people hinting that "where there's smoke, there's fire." Except, well, there isn't a fire. Nor is there any smoke. By most objective indicia, the LDS Church is a pretty good steward of its finances. The Brethren don't live in opulent luxury. Local leaders don't abscond with Church funds. The Church builds lots of buildings, sends out lots of missionaries, maintains lots of bishops' storehouses, manages or contributes to lots of humanitarian efforts, subsidizes a lot of education, provides a lot of job training and employment resources. And yet despite this lack of smoking guns, we have a crop of people who nevertheless want to stick their noses into finances that they don't contribute to anyway. (As an aside, I notice that I am really mixing metaphors here, ain't I?).

Sixth, I think the Bloomberg article's most risible claim is the wildly disproportionate amount of money it claims the LDS Church spends (or, rather, doesn't spend) on humanitarian efforts. I suspect that it was this claim, more than any other, that triggered today's response from the LDS Church. I think today's response does a pretty good job of addressing the inaccurate assessment of its humanitarian efforts. I also think that if the Church expanded its "transparency" on its humanitarian efforts, our critics would just switch tracks and accuse us of broadcasting our almsgiving (sounding the proverbial trumpet, according to Matthew 6:2).

Seventh, I think much of the hue and cry for more "transparency" is not offered in good faith.

I could do that for almost any other church, non profit, or government entity. Why will the church not tell me how my tithing funds are being used?

First off: "My tithing funds?"

Anyhoo, a few months ago the Church Auditing Department reported to the entire body of the Church that it "has been granted access to all records and systems necessary to evaluate the adequacy of controls for receipts of funds, expenditures, and safeguarding of Church assets."

The CAD also reported that it "is independent of all other Church departments and operations, and the staff consists of certified public accountants, certified internal auditors, certified information systems auditors, and other credentialed professionals."

The CAD also reported that it performed audits of the Church's finances and "is of the opinion that in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2011 have been recorded and administered in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, approved budgets, and Church policies and procedures."

Do you have any basis for suspecting malfeasance in terms of the Church's expenditures or the CAD's audits of those expenditures? Let me go out on a limb here and guess that you do not, but that you instead just want "more." More information. More details. Spreadsheets galore.

So here's my question to you: Why is the CAD's report not satisfactory to you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 13, 2012 by smac97

[Pahoran]

I Appreciate the responses, except for this one.

Nice Wade. That is going to make people want to go back to church and be a full tithe payer again. You do great job as an apologist.

Perhaps Wade could have worded his response more diplomatically, but what did he say that wasn't true? When we pay tithing, it is with "no strings attached." Always has been, and I hope it always will be.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Evangeline]

cwald, I happen to agree with Wade here (although I believe that the money is the Lord's already). I appreciate many of Wade's comments because he says things that I might say if I had more courage. Although you might feel he's not helpful to you, he's helping to strengthen me by vigorously reaffirming many of the same thoughts that I'm having.

Here's an intriguing thought from Elder Christofferson: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/as-many-as-i-love-i-rebuke-and-chasten

I would like to speak of one particular attitude and practice we need to adopt if we are to meet our Heavenly Father’s high expectations. It is this: willingly to accept and even seek correction. Correction is vital if we would conform our lives “unto a perfect man, [that is,] unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). Paul said of divine correction or chastening, “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (Hebrews 12:6). Though it is often difficult to endure, truly we ought to rejoice that God considers us worth the time and trouble to correct.

[Analytics]

While that is remotely possible, even given that DMC is private holding company, it wouldn't make sense to take tax-exempt dollars (tithes) and invest them in or pass them through taxable entities.

Why not? Making a good return on assets entails investing it in productive enterprises, which implies business and taxes.

[wenglund]

During those times when the Church has almost gone Church bankrupt, then is it my business?

No.

And during the decades when the Church did publish its financials, was it the members' business then,

No.

...and then when Church leaders decided to stop doing so (coincidentally, at a time of great fiscal pressure), did it suddenly stop being our business?

No. It never was your business.

Now, I realize that it is a difficult distinction for busy bodies to make, but your business is what goes on between you and the Lord and the stewardship you have been given, whereas Church's finances, and who they will be disclosed to or not, is the business of the Church leaders, and is between them and the Lord, and not you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

In a few words, it is none of your business.

I love ya, Wade, but I will respectfully disagree with you here. I think we should be attentive to how the Church spends money. Some measure of accountability is a good and proper thing. So we shouldn't just turn our brains off and not give a thought to how the Church behaves.

However, I also think that we can and should be able to exercise some measure of trust and faith in the Lord and His servants. If my bishop was authorizing expenditures which I felt were not in harmony with the principles of the Restored Gospel, I wouldn't say to myself "Well, it's none of my business because it's not my money." I would do something about it. But if my bishop was authorizing expenditures that may trigger some principled disagreement, I would pretty much give him the benefit of the doubt. In other words, where reasonable minds can disagree, my inclination is to support principled expenditures rather than second-guess them.

I think this sort of faithful-but-not-stupid deference to decisionmaking by the Brethren is better than the sort of groundless and bitter-edged second-guessing that seems to trigger cynical cheap shots from people like the Bloomberg journalist and JoAnna Brooks.

I also don't think the world views the Brethren, and their stewardship, and their accountability and subordination to God, in the same way that faithful Latter-day Saints do. With that in mind, I can understand healthy scepticism from outsiders who do not understand us well or believe as we do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 13, 2012 by smac97

[Calm]

I also think that if the Church expanded its "transparency" on its humanitarian efforts, our critics would just switch tracks and accuse us of broadcasting our almsgiving (sounding the proverbial trumpet, according to Matthew 6:2).

They already do this.

[omni]

I would love to see the church use tithes for the spiritual and educational mission of the church, I.e. churches, temples, universities, and seminaries, etc. Then use the profits from the business ventures to strictly for humanitarian purposes.

With a tithing, no paid clergy and the church's general frugality, I see no reason why this couldn't or shouldn't be done.

[wenglund]

I Appreciate the responses, except for this one.

Busy bodies don't like to be told to mind their own business. However, it is in everyone's interest for them to be told this, and for them to do so, like the rest of us. And, since some people are particularly hard of hearing, it becomes necessary at times to speak in no-nonsense and clarion terms.

Nice Wade. That is going to make people want to go back to church and be a full tithe payer again. You do great job as an apologist.

People's decision to return to the Church and pay tithing or not shouldn't be based on having their ears tickled or offended by others, but rather because it is the right and best thing for them to do.

However, like the myth about LDS apologetics driving people out of the Church, I have grown increasingly familiar with lame attempts like this at guilt-tripping and accountability shifting--which I find ironic since it affectively divest oneself of that which one is accountable for, in a thread where some portend to illegitimately invest themselves of that which they aren't accountable for.

Please, for your own sake, take back control of your own faith and don't shoulder me with that responsibility. And, please, for everyone else's sake, stop trying to control the Church and LDS apologetics. Lift that usurped responsibility from your shoulders so you can better fulfill your own responsibilities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

Fourth, I suspect your juxtaposition of the LDS Church as compared to "almost any other church, non profit, or government entity" is a bit off. Levels of transparency and accountability are all over the map, so to isolate - and tacitly criticize - the LDS Church for differing in its disclosure of its finances, when there is a lot of variation amongst other groups in their disclosures, seems unfair....

I don't believe it is as all over the map as you think. No less than 1,600 churches belong to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which has very specific requirements that their member churches are required to subscribe to.

In explaining their specific standards, they say:

Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christian organizations operating in the forum of the Church. It may be true that public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of the Christian ministry in general is at stake.

Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal. Furthermore, the availability of financial statements promotes responsible Christian stewardship over assets as donors seek to make monetary investments in the work of the Kingdom. Simply put, Christian organizations provide current financial statements to anyone who submits a written request for them because it is the right thing to do.

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Comment5

The CAD also reported that it performed audits of the Church's finances and "is of the opinion that in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2011 have been recorded and administered in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, approved budgets, and Church policies and procedures."

What that means is that the financial reports that the top leaders see are accurate. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the money was spent appropriately.

For my part, I have absolutely no doubt that nothing illegal or immoral is going on with the church's finances. But that doesn't change the fact that "Financial disclosure is an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large."

The following is the part where I freely speculate. I don't believe the church cares what critics think. The reason they don't disclose their finances isn't because of me. They are keeping the information hidden from the general membership. If the general membership saw specifically how successful the church has been at avoiding debt, living within its means, and saving for a rainy day, many people would decide that getting their own financial houses in order was more important than paying tithing.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Analytics

[Mudcat]

Second, the church membership receives a report every year on the financial management of the Church during general conference (here's the most recent one). Do you have any reason to believe these reports are false or misleading? I sense that they do not get into the level of detail that you want, but then we're talking about financial accountability and transparency as a matter of degree.

Your right.

Seems they have top men working on it.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-rQ6Jay6w

edit add..

I think the only peacable resolution to the thread is an infinite regression of brinksmanship through George Lucas film clips.

additional edit add...

With the singular exclusion of the Cairo swordsman bit. I would think that would be a pseudo violation of Godwin's law as it pertains to the realm of Lucas

Edited July 13, 2012 by Mudcat

[Tacenda]

I would love to see the church use tithes for the spiritual and educational mission of the church, I.e. churches, temples, universities, and seminaries, etc. Then use the profits from the business ventures to strictly for humanitarian purposes.

With a tithing, no paid clergy and the church's general frugality, I see no reason why this couldn't or shouldn't be done.

I agree with this idea wholeheartily. And would add that missionaries should not have to pay to serve in "for profit" missions. For instance the hunting game reserves in Utah.

There are alot of seniors spending retirement money and doing it out of a duty to do their part. And it is strongly encouraged over the pulpit. I believe the least the church could do is not take any of their money. This would be more in keeping wih a churches behavior.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

I agree with this idea wholeheartily. And would add that missionaries should not have to pay to serve in "for profit" missions. For instance the hunting game reserves in Utah.

That's one of the points that seemed most obscured in the article. The authors go out of their way to conflate the Church's for-profit and non-profit ventures- and take pains to avoid clear distinctions.

A primary example of this is how the article mentions the for-profit AgReserves, but then lumps in the farms and orchards which serve the Bishop's Storehouses and canneries under the same umbrella- despite the fact that they are not for-profit endeavors.

This is damnation-by-innuendo, and one of the primary (and recurring) flaws of the article. All of the Church's holdings are referred to in terms of it's for-profit arms and no distinctions are made.

Do you have any factual evidence that our missionaries actually are serving in the Church's "for profit" endeavors?

There are alot of seniors spending retirement money and doing it out of a duty to do their part. And it is strongly encouraged over the pulpit. I believe the least the church could do is not take any of their money. This would be more in keeping wih a churches behavior.

Unless and until you actually support the allegation, I don't believe you are qualified to condemn anyone based on its unproven veracity. Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

While I admit Wade's approach can be abrasive many of the issues you are discussing have been asked and answered many times (search the topic on this board). Instead of depending on other posters logic and arguments to make you feel good about paying tithing perhaps approaching the Lord in faith on the matter would be more productive.

Fine... I did not make it personal. Saying that is "none of my business." That is making it personal.

Whatever though...this is the mormon discussion and dialogue board. You faithful folks do represent the church as far as apologetics are concerned. You will either help people stay involved in the church...or you will confirm their skepticism and help drive them out. OR...they will go to other boards to find their answers, boards like NOM, MDB ect.

[Tacenda]

That's one of the points that seemed most obscured in the article. The authors go out of their way to conflate the Church's for-profit and non-profit ventures- and takes pains to avoid clear distinctions.

Do you have any factual evidence that our missionaries actually are serving in the Church's "for profit" endeavors?

Unless and until you actually support the allegation, I don't believe you are qualified to condemn anyone based on its unproven veracity.

Surely you know that the hunting reserves is a "for profit" business and that couple missionaries help run it, on their dime. There are several missions like that!

[ERayR]

I Appreciate the responses, except for this one.

Nice Wade. That is going to make people want to go back to church and be a full tithe payer again. You do great job as an apologist.

There comes a time when the snide caustic and abrasive statements need to be answered in kind.

[Evangeline]

You will either help people stay involved in the church...or you will confirm their skepticism and help drive them out. OR...they will go to other boards to find their answers, boards like NOM, MDB ect.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

http://www.lds.org/s...im/4.3?lang=eng

Edited July 13, 2012 by Evangeline

[cwald]

2 Timothy 4:3-4

http://www.lds.org/s...im/4.3?lang=eng

Meaning what? I read the link. Not sure what you mean by it.

[cwald]

There comes a time when the snide caustic and abrasive statements need to be answered in kind.

I've been pretty mild and kind. Not sure where this comes from?

[selek1]

I'm not being dishonest and I'm not speculating. I'm taking what the church actually said at face-value.

Apparently not, since we are told explicitly that not tithing funds are not used towards the Church's for-profit ventures.

From page 5 of the article: "McMullin insists that not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors".

Here we have an explicit statement from a person in a position to know.

Unfortunately for your argument, that statement flatly refutes the spun-candy fairy tales and fanciful speculation you've been pushing.

[selek1]

Surely you know that the hunting reserves is a "for profit" business and that couple missionaries help run it, on their dime. There are several missions like that!

This was implied in the article- but I have yet to see it explicitly stated.

The key paragraph appears to be this one:

Wildlife biologist Clair Huff, for example, took on a two-and-a-half-year unpaid “senior mission” at the age of 68 to transform 11,000 acres of church-owned desert into a revenue-generating hunting preserve. By the time he and his wife were relieved by another couple, the private hunting preserve was generating $100,000 annually.

Note the weasel wording here: "revenue generating" rather than "for profit".

There is no clear definition on whether the "hunting preserve" belongs to a for-profit or non-profit division of the Church or where the "revenues" go.

Further- right after this blurb- McMullin states that "none of the DMC’s volunteers are senior missionaries."

The author further confesses: After my interview with McMullin, a church spokesman clarified that the majority of the 1,400 “are part-time employees, not volunteers.”

So- do you have factual evidence that senior missionaries are being used to support for-profit endeavors?

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

That's one of the points that seemed most obscured in the article. The authors go out of their way to conflate the Church's for-profit and non-profit ventures- and take pains to avoid clear distinctions.

A primary example of this is how the article mentions the for-profit AgReserves, but then lumps in the farms and orchards which serve the Bishop's Storehouses and canneries under the same umbrella- despite the fact that they are not for-profit endeavors.

This is damnation-by-innuendo, and one of the primary (and recurring) flaws of the article. All of the Church's holdings are referred to in terms of it's for-profit arms and no distinctions are made.

Do you have any factual evidence that our missionaries actually are serving in the Church's "for profit" endeavors?

Unless and until you actually support the allegation, I don't believe you are qualified to condemn anyone based on its unproven veracity.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/770568/Tending-the-flock.html

Here does this support my allegation?