Lds Church Issues Statement Re: Church Finances

[ShawFanX]

Many publishers have taken political stances and have turned their publications into political advocates. Mayor Bloomberg has done this. The Bloomberg piece was an attempt to damage Romney through his church. See, big rich guy is a member of big rich heartless church.

Bloomberg is the guy who has banned salt, transfats, soda pop (nothing larger than 16 oz.), and food donations to homeless shelters in NYC. Probably not an intellectually substantive source on matters of greater import such as a presidential candidate and his religious veiws.

[selek1]

Here does this support my allegation?

I gotta admit- it comes awfully darn close.

Of course, a number of unanswered questions remain.

Were the Huff's- as you allege- paying for the privilege of serving this mission?

How typical is this sort of arrangement?

What are the revenues from the property actually used for?

The article mentions rather specifically that the endeavor had not yet been been profitable (it was written over a decade ago).

How would you feel if the Huffs had purchased and developed the property on their own and then deeded it lock, stock, and barrel to the Church? Would that still be troublesome to you?

[TAO]

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.

Naturally, they will tend to other boards. But at the same time, there is only so much you can do without losing your honesty. What do I mean by that... I mean that eventually, you do have to tell them what they don't want to hear. Eventually, there will be something that will make them hesitant. You can usually deal with small differences in opinion; that's just a matter of shifting perspectives, but what you shouldn't do as an apologist is lead people to a place that does not exist. That I think, is what is happening here.

You want the church finance information pretty badly. But the thing is, it probably isn't going to be given. So what can they say other than, "It's not your business." It would be wrong of us to give you false belief that the church finances are going to be released sometime. Because most likely they aren't. So, ultimately, we can do our best to try and provide reasons and such, but eventually we have to be straight out and blunt.

That's the nature of apologetics (and really any form of argument that attempts to fix perceived issues). A bit of bending to help. But eventually, a very blunt response. There is only so much you can bend. I can provide a lot of reasons (some okay reasons, and other really good ones) why they don't give out the information. But the thing I can't do is say I believe they should give out the information. I can bend and provide reasons you prefer. But to give, is the breaking point for me which I cannot cross.

I hope you understand that sort of. That is why you get blunt responses; we are not willing to bend that much. And when that happens, when we cannot bend any more as apologists... that means those with questions must change their perspective if they wish to receive answers that are satisfying to them. Either they believe or don't. It's a step of faith, so to say.

Edited July 13, 2012 by TAO

[Tacenda]

I gotta admit- it comes awfully darn close.

Of course, a number of unanswered questions remain.

Were the Huff's- as you allege- paying for the privilege of serving this mission?

How typical is this sort of arrangement?

What are the revenues from the property actually used for?

The article mentions rather specifically that the endeavor had not yet been been profitable (it was written over a decade ago).

How would you feel if the Huffs had purchased and developed the property on their own and then deeded it lock, stock, and barrel to the Church? Would that still be troublesome to you?

You make some good points.

[Avatar4321]

Am I the only one who doesnt really care if the tithing money was to start the "for profit" businesses? The Lord can use His money in whatever way He directs His servants to use it. If for some reason, The Lord told the First Presidency and Twelve to go out and buy Iphones for every member or go buy Apple, then Im sure the Lord has a good reason for it.

The only issues I have with the use of tithing is if it was used in a way contrary to what the Lord wants. Of course, that's why all the audits and checks are in place.

I give tithing to the Lord, because it's His, not mine. He is the one who generously gave me 90% of of my paycheck.

I think the ultimate question then is: Is this the Lord's Church, or is it not?

[selek1]

You can usually deal with small differences in opinion; that's just a matter of shifting perspectives, but what you shouldn't do as an apologist is lead people to a place that does not exist.

Amen and amen!

If I lie to someone- or tell them something they want to hear simply to keep them in the Church- I am doing them no favors and damning myself in the same breath.

Agency is only agency if it is exercised freely. If I purposely mislead someone in order to elicit a specific action or behavior, then I am practicing a form of unrighteous dominion (and depending upon the topic) a form of priestcraft as well.

That's one of the reasons why the veteran posters here tend to be both circumspect and quick to admit their error.

Better I look the fool (no, thank you, I really do have all the help I need in that department) and teach a true principle than to preserve my pride and lead someone astray.

[Scott Lloyd]

It isn't.

Deseret Management Corporation is the holding company which owns the tax-paying companies that fall under the umbrella of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. DMC's Board of Directors is made up of the church's First Presidency, three rotating members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric.

I'm aware of the nature of Deseret Management Corp. I work for one of the companies under its umbrella.

My comment was my understated way of pointing out the error in Analytics's fanciful notion that the Church would use tithing funds to purchase DMC "stocks and bonds" when, of course, there are no such stocks and bonds to be had.

[Scott Lloyd]

I gotta admit- it comes awfully darn close.

Of course, a number of unanswered questions remain.

Were the Huff's- as you allege- paying for the privilege of serving this mission?

How typical is this sort of arrangement?

What are the revenues from the property actually used for?

The article mentions rather specifically that the endeavor had not yet been been profitable (it was written over a decade ago).

How would you feel if the Huffs had purchased and developed the property on their own and then deeded it lock, stock, and barrel to the Church? Would that still be troublesome to you?

When I was growing up, my dad ran a Church welfare farm. It was his paid job.

Some of what was produced on the farm -- namely hogs -- went directly for use as commodities in the Church Welfare Program to feed the needy. Other of what was produced there -- namely sugar beets -- was sold on the open market as a cash crop with the proceeds benefitting the welfare program with the purchase of commodities used to provide for the needy.

I wonder if this game preserve, instead of being a for-profit enterprise, produces revenue that is used to support the mission of the Church in some way, like the sugar beets grown on the farm my dad ran.

Or perhaps it is simply self-sustaining and being held against the time when the Church might need it to meet some emergency, the same purpose for which the agricultural holdings are kept.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I wonder if this game preserve, instead of being a for-profit enterprise, produces revenue that is used to support the mission of the Church in some way, like the sugar beets grown on the farm my dad ran.

Whatever it is, it is making use of land that could not be otherwise useful due to lack of water. And while I am not fond of hunting for sport, there is a great increase of wildlife available there now that wasn't originally, not solely for the hunting. The care of the land must be paid for by something. Since farming is not an option, it seems hunting is not only a decent investment, but something that makes use of the land while improving it, unlike mining (if that was an option, probably not) or logging...which also may be inappropriate due to lack of quality timber. If I was able to something like that, I would find a greatly rewarding enterprise, not the hunting aspect, but the creative aspect, the bringing a natural space alive with life, both animal and plant. Edited July 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

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.

So they won't have us as fellow Christians but they will audit our books for us?

[CV75]

In what way?

What spurred my statement is my understanding ( and that may be flawed) of what the vision of B. Young and J. Smith was. Their vision of an independent people was centered around the vision of a zion, the blessed state (society) resulting from a righteous people. That the individual could receive and everlasting inheritance in said society, which was as much temporal as it was spiritual. They could not be removed..etc, except for apostacy. The ultimate desire of this is that such a society was to receive the direct blessing of God upon it. He would be its provider and protector. So, in this respect it can be said that the institutional church has obtained a certain degree of independence and security. However, the church as a people, still have no such assurance. (again, temporally speaking)

By “right direction” I mean that individual members, and more of them, are blessed temporally over time. The perpetual education fund is an example. As members benefit from it, the fund itself grows, and more members benefit, etc. Their children develop a hopeful and positive attitude toward the temporal possibilities of their faith, and pursue education and higher employment (and very likely without reliance upon the fund).

As personal righteousness is coupled with temporal means to bless others (most minimally through tithing, fast offering, other contributions—PEF, temple patron assistance fund, etc.), Zion gets gradually built temporally and spiritually, the everlasting inheritance being obtained through temple ordinances.

In this way, the realization of the vision began with settlement and making the desert blossom as a rose, expanded to the Church as it stands today, with “Zion” represented in the stakes, which leads to the Millennial Zion (however that gets designed temporally, there is at least one City uniting with the City of Enoch, and presumably the continuation of many “stakes”), which leads to the ultimate everlasting inheritance after the resurrection. Each stage presents tremendous blessings to the people involved.

At each stage, the people who qualify receive the direct blessing of God, as they typically testify. No matter how poor they presently may be in our estimation, the faithful will say that they are better off than they were before, and account for any temporal setbacks as trials or chastening from God designed for their ultimate blessing.

[CV75]

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? 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?

Because the tithe is a specific covenant between you and God, and the Church does not have a paper trail from your tithing slip to where those specific dollars and cents end up, they will not provide you with what "your"specific tithing contribution is spent on (and that is all that is owed you). However, i trust that God will give you a full accounting as appropriate.

Edited July 13, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

As I finally read through the thread (sorry for late relpies, I'm apparently not in the right time zone for this...), it does seem that what I do with what the Lord has given me is ultimately between Him and me. Tithing, as I mentioned above, is a personal, private covenant between me and Him (this is why the "definition" for declaration purposes is limited to what is stated in the D&C). As a result, what is specifically done with my specific covenant is all I have a right to know, and if the Church does not track it in this fine a detail, then I have to wait until the Lord reveals it to me personally (assuming it is pertinent to my best interests). For the same reason, I am not privy to others' contributions, even in the aggregate.

Even if the Church can/does track the money flow from each individual member, the policy not to share this information is a wonderful test of voluntary trust and faith. Those who more fully value the personal covenant with God would appreciate this principle more than those who do not.

[Analytics]

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

I'm not convinced that "used towards" is as all-encompassing as you think it is. Here are the questions that I have (with my answers in italics; if you disagree with my answers, please tell me which ones):

1- If tithing is by far their main source of revenue for running the church, are they going to budget conservatively and "live within their means"? yes

2- Will they sometimes save some tithing money for a rainy day? yes

3- Will they invest their rainy day fund in a way that generates a good, yet safe return? yes

4- Does investing in a corporation entail "using money towards" the specific, individual projects of that corporation? No(!); from the perspective of the church's books, the money is classified as tithing money and is being saved in assets that produce income and have growth potential. From the church's perspective, the money isn't being used for anything and is simply being saved in a way that allows it go grow. From the point of view of the corporation in which its invested, the corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to run their business well and make a profit for their shareholders. The money they use is simply the business's capital—it isn't 401(k) money or pension money or a somebody's rainy-day-fund money or even a church's tithing money. It is simply the business's capital.

My point in 4 doesn't change if the corporation in which the church invests happens to have no investors other than the church itself.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Analytics

[Nofear]

It's little wonder that the Church has opted to withhold details of its fiduciary activities (starting a few decades ago) -- it is better to have blowhards critics speculate endlessly than let them rail against the Church as armchair financial-advisor-quarterbacks.

Still, the vehicles by which the Church manages its finances are available for those that look (one example: Deseret Trust Company) and every organization (profit, non-profit, private, public) are subject to safeguards and professional auditing.

[Tacenda]

This is something I've thought about lately. What if we didn't have the requirement to pay a full tithe before getting a temple recommend, would our church be similar to other faiths as far as financial wealth? I'm aware that in the earlier church there wasn't a requirement to pay a full tithe and also not a requirement to keep the Word of Wisdom, btw. I think some of us need that nudge to do what is asked sometimes.

[Deborah]

I leave for a few minutes and there's several more pages, which I haven't read through.

It always amazes me how many people feel the need to tell the church, or anyone else for that matter, how their money should be spent. Lest people are unaware, Brigham Young himself was a successful businessman and encouraged many enterprises in the area. It is of benefit to the community, which consists of people who are LDS and non-LDS, to have an enterprise concerned with the prosperity and beauty of the area. The church has always been more than a just on Sunday organization and has always been interested in building up the community around it. Nauvoo was the perfect example.

[wenglund]

They say the church has been blessed by, "simple but sound economic principles such as avoiding debt, living within one’s means, and setting aside funds for a rainy day." The Church also says, "The vast majority of the income used to manage the Church comes from tithing." So in this context, what is the straight-forward way to interpret the "simple but sound economic principles" that they describe? It's simple: don't spend every penny of the income you rely upon to manage the church--if you are having a good year, save some of it for a rainy day. Put the money you save to productive use so that it grows.

They said, "The vast majority of the income used to manage the Church comes from tithing."

Yes, for the sake of argument, let's grant that they were being honest when they said, "The vast majority of the income used to manage the Church comes from tithing."

We can agree that I certainly don't have your understanding of finance.

I am sorry Analytics, but I have tried three times to right your backward thinking, and were the Church's finances any of your former-member business, I might try once more to explain the difference between the subject and object in a sentence and explain why using tax exempt funds to finance taxable entities doesn't make sense, but it isn't your business, and I fear that I may have inadvertently encourage your illegitimate meddling in the Church's affairs by paying your nonsense some mind. Now that I realize this, the best thing I can do is to pay your nonsense no mind. Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

The great thing about Latter-day Saints is most are actually doers of the word and not just hearers. One example would be that active members pay a full honest tithe. That is a rarity for most other Christians who appear to be hearers only. I say that from experience with other Christian religions and credible studies done. The one bad part(not really that bad) is the Church which is its members can be put in a bind.

A bind that could hurt the church, the members pay in a ton of money to operate the Church. We the members(the Church) are basically penalized for doing what is Biblical commanded. If the Church was to release the financial records it would be even more clear that we are doers and not just hearers. The drawback is that people would then see just how wealthy the Church is. That is just giving easy bait for people to criticize the church even more. Also then it would show how many members are inactive.

Despite all that, it would very wise for the Church to release financial records. It looks like the church is hiding something. If there is nothing to hide, why not release them?

---

It is interesting that members automatically think that leaders would not doing anything bad. That is great and the nature of religion. However, we can look throughout history to find out that is not the case. That is why it is even more important for politicians to mandate churches release financial records. It would be protecting people that are mighty vulnerable.

Well this thread is fun, have to run though...

[wenglund]

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.

Hey, Smac, I really respect your opinion and typically find your analysis to be brilliant.

However, I am not sure what happened here.

I agree with you that accountability is a good and proper thing, that is when the accountability is to those whom it is due and not to those it is not. In other words, it is a good and proper thing for a company to be accountable to its investors and debtors; whereas, it is not a good and proper thing for the personal finances of my neighbors to be accountable to me. The Church is quite accountable to the Lord and to it chosen leaders (whose monies it is), and that is a good thing. It isn't accountable to people whose monies it is not and whose business it is not, and that is a good thing.

Even were I to liberally grant your point about it being good and proper for the members, to some extent, to be given an accounting of the Lord's money, the problem as I see it has less to do with the Church being accountable, and more to do with certain members not knowing where to practically and appropriately draw the line. As I see it, there is a segment of our population that have become culturally induced into voyeurism and meddling to an alarming scale. These proverbial busy bodies suffer under the delusion that they are entitled to mind other people's business, and have presumptuously taken way too much liberty in sticking their noses where they don't rightly belong. As such, it doesn't make sense to me to compromise what isn't a demonstrable problem (Church accountability), by encouraging that which is a demonstrable problem (people minding other people's business). Yet, that is what you seem to be advocating.

Then there is the demonstrable problem of making the Church accountable to people whose business it isn't, but who also wish to harm the Church. I don't get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

By “right direction” I mean that individual members, and more of them, are blessed temporally over time. The perpetual education fund is an example. As members benefit from it, the fund itself grows, and more members benefit, etc. Their children develop a hopeful and positive attitude toward the temporal possibilities of their faith, and pursue education and higher employment (and very likely without reliance upon the fund).

CV,

As always, I appreciate your cordial demeanor.

Let me say that I agree with much (if not all) of what you have to say. I see the church as a wonderful vehicle of support to the saints and provides the environment where self-sufficiency can be nurtured. But it has its limits.

My comment was made specifically in relation to the assertion that B. Young's vision of an independent people had largely been realized. Now in the context of the article, I take "independent" to be speaking primarily of financial independence. My response was to question how it can be said that "this people" have become independent.

Individial independence of the membership will vary. It would be interesting to see a study comparing the the rates of financial independence amoung the Saints, those who could be considered self-insured, to the rest of the population. But as it stands, "as a people", the membership of the chuch can not be understood to be independent. As individuals, each member has to subscribe to Babylon's institutions for their security.

My point was to decare it a mistake to conflate the realization of B. Young's financial independence of "this people" to that of the institutional church.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Senator

[wenglund]

It's little wonder that the Church has opted to withhold details of its fiduciary activities (starting a few decades ago) -- it is better to have blowhards critics speculate endlessly than let them rail against the Church as armchair financial-advisor-quarterbacks.

It also isn't any wonder that the Church has opted to withhold its fiduciary activities from people who aren't mindful of what the Church is all about and the purposes to which the fiduciary activities are intended (i.e. bringing people to Christ and enabling them to become like him), but who are focused instead on "show me your money."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Bloomberg is the guy who has banned salt, transfats, soda pop (nothing larger than 16 oz.), and food donations to homeless shelters in NYC. Probably not an intellectually substantive source on matters of greater import such as a presidential candidate and his religious veiws.

Yes but he obviously appeals to a certain audience.

[ERayR]

I'm aware of the nature of Deseret Management Corp. I work for one of the companies under its umbrella.

My comment was my understated way of pointing out the error in Analytics's fanciful notion that the Church would use tithing funds to purchase DMC "stocks and bonds" when, of course, there are no such stocks and bonds to be had.

I am aware that you knew this. My post was my clumsy way of letting Analytics know DMC was not a publicly traded company. Hey I know who you are and have great respect for your insight.

[wenglund]

Despite all that, it would very wise for the Church to release financial records. It looks like the church is hiding something. If there is nothing to hide, why not release them?

While I agree with much of your post, I think that too often people, in their haste to appease the noise-makers, may forget certain very important and valuable principles, like privacy. As with all of us, of course the Church has something to hide--i.e. those things that are nobody else's business--and rightly so. I am not talking about hiding things that are untoward, but rather wisely keeping private things that are private.

Why this doesn't register with some people is a mystery to me especially since it such an important principle within their own private lives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-