Church Finances Redux: Why Should The Books Be Opened?

[KevinG]

There are myriad threads on LDS Church finances and myriad criticisms of the records being kept private.

I would like to ask critic and defender alike what reasons there are to open the books vs. leave them private.

I will start with a few Privacy vs. Public reasons.

Private:

The data contains privileged information on people and institutions receiving aid.

It is the churches business to do with donations once they are donated.

Open records could be used for nefarious purposes by those wanting to mess with the church.

Tithing and offerings are principles of faith and sacrifice not an accounting exercise.

We should sustain officials in their sphere of influence and that does not include micro-managing church finances.

Public:

It might assuage the curiosity of the critics or concerned members

It could end conspiracy theories about church finances (doubtful but could)

It would show how much the church does invest in charitable and positive works and investments.

Add to the lists...

[omni]

I will add my vote to open the books. I don't believe the church is doing anything nefarious with the money, which is exactly why we should have nothing to fear. In doing so I believe it would do something to alleviate (however not eliminate) the perception that we are a secretive organization with much to hide.

I believe the church doesn't release it's finances because it does posses a lot of wealth and would invite criticism from many outside the church who believe churches shouldn't be wealthy. Number two it would shine a light on those business ventures that are money losers inviting criticisms from members who may (rightly or not) believe that a church inspired by God shouldn't be losing money.

[KevinG]

Private:

The data contains privileged information on people and institutions receiving aid.

It is the churches business to do with donations once they are donated.

Open records could be used for nefarious purposes by those wanting to mess with the church.

Tithing and offerings are principles of faith and sacrifice not an accounting exercise.

We should sustain officials in their sphere of influence and that does not include micro-managing church finances.

Would invite criticism from many outside the church who believe churches shouldn't be wealthy.

Invite criticisms from members who may (rightly or not) believe that a church inspired by God shouldn't be losing money.

Public:

It might assuage the curiosity of the critics or concerned members

It could end conspiracy theories about church finances (doubtful but could)

It would show how much the church does invest in charitable and positive works and investments.

alleviate (however not eliminate) the perception that we are a secretive organization with much to hide.

[cwald]

Ever heard of Enron?

I trusted them too...with my money.

Godwins Law Violation - you are excused from this thread.

[onthepath]

As I recall, church financial reports at General Conference from (perhaps?) the early to mid-20th century were much more detailed than they are now. My impression has been that as the church struggled with finances and the auxiliaries (specifically the Relief Society) shifted funds to make sure the church didn't go to far into debt, that details about finances have been cut back, the same way details about membership statistics reports have been eliminated.

Does anybody have more information about what used to be reported at Conference and when (or why) the reports changed? I'm wondering if there's a connection to the elimination of welfare sessions as well (was there ever a financial reporting component to welfare sessions in the first place?).

[KevinG]

Ever heard of Enron?

I trusted them too...with my money.

Did you just imply the General and Local Authorities of the Church should be under better scrutiny than the management of ENRON?

...and you were lecturing others to play nice.

[selek1]

The books should be kept private for the following reasons:

• None of those clamoring for the "opening of the books" have any legal or moral right to the data contained therein.
  
• None of those clamoring for the "opening of the books" would tolerate or countenance the same level of prurient intrusion into their own affairs.
  
• The publication would increase, not decrease the level of criticism (ignorant and otherwise) levelled against the Church. This is amply demonstrated from history.
  
• The perception (right, wrong, or indifferent) that the Church released its financial information in response to public pressure would encourage others to demand that the Church buckle to their pet agenda as well. This would increase, not decrease the riotous clamor of Babylon against the Church of Christ.
  

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[ShawFanX]

None of those clamoring for the "opening of the books" would tolerate or countenance the same level of prurient intrusion into their own affairs.

I think this is salient. What are the motives, taken overall, of the main body of those that have been clamoring for years now for the Church to make its finances public?

Its just that, if we can ascertain, to a realistic degree, the motives involved, we would be in a better position to judge the possible consequences of opening those books.

[cwald]

Let me ask a question. If you donate money to say the red cross, is it any of your

business how they spend that money?

Edited July 13, 2012 by cwald

[selek1]

Let me ask a question. If you donate money to say the Ted cross, is it any of your

business how they spend that money?

I don't donate money to organizations I don't know and trust- let alone to those I've never heard of.

That having been said, once I donate the money, it is no longer mine- and therefore none of my business.

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

I don't donate money to organizations I don't know and trust- let alone to those I've never heard of.

That having been said, once I donate the money, it is no longer mine- and therefore none of my business.

So is that a no? No accountability from the red cross?

[selek1]

So is that a no? No accountability from the red cross?

I've donated both time and money to the American Red Cross.

I am well familiar with their mission and their reputation- and yet I've never demanded to see their financial statements, nor do I have any legal or moral right to do so.

As I stated before- once the money leaves my hand (or wallet, checkbook, bank account, etc.) it is no longer mine, and how it is spent is none of my business.

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

I've donated both time and money to the American Red Cross.

I am well familiar with their mission and their reputation- and yet I've never demanded to see their financial statements, nor do I have any legal or moral right to do so.

As I stated before- once the money leaves my hand (or wallet, checkbook, bank account, etc.) it is no longer mine, and how it is spent is none of my business.

I've donated both time and money to the American Red Cross.

I am well familiar with their mission and their reputation- and yet I've never demanded to see their financial statements, nor do I have any legal or moral right to do so.

As I stated before- once the money leaves my hand (or wallet, checkbook, bank account, etc.) it is no longer mine, and how it is spent is none of my business.

Okay.

[Heide]

My personal opinion is that as a matter of broad public policy any tax exempt organization should make its financial reports public, including all churches. The reason is that people should be able to review charitable organizations to ensure that their donations are being properly used as represented. Because this is my personal preference, I believe the Church should do so as well. If tax exempt organizations desire to not release its financial records, then it may only do upon losing its tax exempt status.

Setting that public policy issue aside and assuming the tax regulations will not change any time soon, I still believe the members should have a right to view the public finances of the church. It was mentioned above that there is no legal or moral reason to do so, but I respectfully disagree. All money donated to the Church legally belongs to the Church to use as it deems appropriate; however, the money is really being held in trust for the benefit of all members, tithe payers or not.

From a legal perspective, it is important to note that this rule on non-disclosure applies in the US but does not necessarily apply to other countries. People may not know that the legal organization of the Church in the US is unique to the US; however, the Church has legally formed other "churches" in other countries. For example, in England the LDS Church is organized under English law and in England that legal entity is required to disclose its financial reports.

I do recognize that there are valid arguments against requiring the US legal entity to disclose its financial records. It's a judgment call and one that the general authorities have decided against disclosure, for whatever reason we can only speculate. I suspect that there are many reasons and there is no simple answer.

One valid concern that I would have, and it is one that causes me to question my own opinion on the matter, is whether the Church sends more money outside the US than it receives in kind. In other words, US tithe payers could be supporting the operating expenses of the Church outside the US in certain regions. Revealing the financial disclosures may cause an unfair argument whether these expenditures are wise or maybe members would unfairly criticize members outside the US.

Another valid argument against disclosure is that few members would truly understand how budgets of large organizations function. For example, money is collected from different sources. Simply, there is income from tithe but also income from investments. Similarly, money is budgeted and spent for different line items. Some budget expenditures are sourced by tithes and other expenses are sourced by investments. Where this gets complicated is there is just not one legal entity that is the Church, there are many, and each has its purpose, and each has its own income and expenditures. What I would suspect, much like the federal budget, is that people would look at the bottom line income and bottom line expenses and not understand that the gross figure has little correlation on how income is allocated to specific line items. So, if the gross number is a negative for one year, few people may understand that the number may be negative because of an investment arm of the church, for example, leveraged assets to invest in a long term project (downtown Salt Lake commercial improvements) that would generate a net zero or a gain over many decades but currently shows a negative. Also, if the number was a positive, members may not understand why operating expenses for a certain budget item are so low.

It's not a simple question, really.

[TAO]

Let me ask a question. If you donate money to say the red cross, is it any of your

business how they spend that money?

It depends on my expectations.

The thing is, I don't tithe with strings attached, because I know the Lord will lead the Prophets and Apostles right.

[selek1]

The reason is that people should be able to review charitable organizations to ensure that their donations are being properly used as represented.

The problem with this is two-fold: first and foremost, you should do your due-diligence before donating the money, not afterward.

Second, once the money has left your hand, you have no legal right to dictate how it is spent. It's not yours anymore.

If tax exempt organizations desire to not release its financial records, then it may only do upon losing its tax exempt status.

Again, this is precisely backwards.

If you don't trust the organization to use donated funds correctly and prudently, you shouldn't be giving it to them in the first place.

How can you call yourself a good steward if you only demand accountability after the fact?

It is your prerogative to set the terms under which you will donate. If you don't want to give your money to an organization that refuses to release its financial statements that's your business.

Making demands on them after the fact, conversely, is simply unreasonable and using the force of law to compel someone else to behave in a way you like (again, after the fact) is an infringement of their rights.

All money donated to the Church legally belongs to the Church to use as it deems appropriate; however, the money is really being held in trust for the benefit of all members, tithe payers or not.

Utter rot. The first part of the statement is legally correct. Everything that comes after the semi-colon falls more under the heading of "wishful thinking".

Once the money has left his or her hands, the Church has no legal accoutability to the donor.

Moral accountability is less clearly defined- but still salient.

Tithing funds given to the Church are ultimately a matter of trust.

We trust our leaders to handle the tithes and resources of the Church faithfully, honestly, and diligently.

We trust our leaders to exercise due diligence and weed out any bad apples among them.

We believe that those leaders will be held to account not to the membership, but before the Lord.

If you do not trust our leaders to handle your tithes honestly and correctly, then you should not be giving them to the Church in the first place.

Due diligence must be done before the money leaves your hands, not afterward.

I agree with the remainder of your post however.

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

Let me ask a question. If you donate money to say the red cross, is it any of your

business how they spend that money?

Once I've made the choice to donate, no.

[KevinG]

I'll try to summarize the salient reasons. Please log your reasons first then we can discuss their merits.

Reasons to open the church financial books:

• It might assuage the curiosity of the critics or concerned members
  
• It could end conspiracy theories about church finances (doubtful but could)
  
• It would show how much the church does invest in charitable and positive works and investments.
  
• alleviate (however not eliminate) the perception that we are a secretive organization with much to hide.
  
• people should be able to review charitable organizations to ensure that their donations are being properly used as represented.
  
• the money is really being held in trust for the benefit of all members, tithe payers or not
  
• non-disclosure applies in the US but does not necessarily apply to other countries
  

Reasons to keep the church financial books closed:

• The data contains privileged information on people and institutions receiving aid.
  
• It is the churches business to do with donations once they are donated.
  
• Open records could be used for nefarious purposes by those wanting to mess with the church.
  
• Tithing and offerings are principles of faith and sacrifice not an accounting exercise.
  
• We should sustain officials in their sphere of influence and that does not include micro-managing church finances.
  
• Would invite criticism from many outside the church who believe churches shouldn't be wealthy.
  
• Invite criticisms from members who may (rightly or not) believe that a church inspired by God shouldn't be losing money. None of those clamoring for the "opening of the books" have any legal or moral right to the data contained therein.
  
• None of those clamoring for the "opening of the books" would tolerate or countenance the same level of prurient intrusion into their own affairs.
  
• The publication would increase, not decrease the level of criticism (ignorant and otherwise) levelled against the Church. This is amply demonstrated from history.
  
• The perception (right, wrong, or indifferent) that the Church released its financial information in response to public pressure would encourage others to demand that the Church buckle to their pet agenda as well. This would increase, not decrease the riotous clamor of Babylon against the Church of Christ.
  
• the Lord will lead the Prophets and Apostles right.
  
• once I donate the money, it is no longer mine- and therefore none of my business.
  
• Revealing the financial disclosures may cause an unfair argument whether these expenditures are wise or maybe members would unfairly criticize members outside the US.
  
• few members would truly understand how budgets of large organizations function.
  

If I missed anything please add it...

Edited July 13, 2012 by KevinG

[CASteinman]

Hope this has not been mentioned. I have not read all of the posts here.

I would oppose publication because it would turn focus away from the Mission of the Church and give the Church the seemingly confirmed appearance of worldliness that would not serve that Mission and would, in fact, take away from it. It might also discourage individual faithfulness.

As an aside, while I would be dismayed at the waste, it actually would not matter to my sense of obedience to tithing if they piled the money in the street and burned it, using cigars they smoked to light the fires.

Edited July 13, 2012 by CASteinman

[KevinG]

As an aside, while I would be dismayed at the waste, it actually would not matter to my sense of obedience to tithing if they piled the money in the street and burned it, using cigars they smoked to light the fires.

I would prefer an alter and incense for reverence sake but yes, if we burned our 10% as an offering by commandment I would still tithe.

[CASteinman]

I would prefer an alter and incense for reverence sake but yes, if we burned our 10% as an offering by commandment I would still tithe.

I'd write a check.

This sort of reminds me of the joke:

A very wealthy man, old and desperately ill, summons to his bedside his three closest advisors: his doctor, his priest, and his lawyer. "I know," he says, "they say 'you can't take it with you.' But who knows? Suppose they're mistaken. I'd like to have something with me, just in case. So I am giving each of you an envelope containing one hundred thousand dollars and I would be grateful if at my funeral you would put the envelopes in my coffin, so that if it turns out that it's useful, I'll have something."

They each agree to carry out his wish.

Sure enough, after just a few weeks, the old man passes away. At his funeral, each of the three advisors is seen slipping something into the coffin.

After the burial, as the three are walking away together, the doctor turns to the other two and says, "Friends, I have a confession to make. As you know, at the hospital we are desperate because of the cutbacks in funding. Our CAT SCAN machine broke down and we haven't be able to get a new one. So, I took $20,000 of our friend's money for a new CAT SCAN and put the rest in the coffin as he asked."

At this the priest says, "I, too have a confession to make. As you know, our church is simply overwhelmed by the problem of the homeless. The needs keep increasing and we have nowhere to turn. So I took $50,000 from the envelope for our homeless fund and put the rest in the coffin as our friend requested."

Fixing the other two in his gaze, the lawyer says "I know what you guys did -- I found the money. I was astonished and ashamed for you that you would treat so casually this solemn and sacred promise to our friend. But, don't worry. You can rest easy. I removed your insufficient funds and I placed in his coffin my personal check for the full three hundred thousand dollars -- plus a little extra for good measure".

[rodheadlee]

I think it's pretty simple. Those with little faith in the Church as being led by Jesus Christ want the books open and those that have complete faith in the Church and those whom are called to lead Her are fine with keeping it private. I would consider it a waste of time and money to try an please Babylon.

[CV75]

As I finally read through this and the other 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).The same goes for the otehr contributions. 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.

Edited July 13, 2012 by CV75

[Tacenda]

I would prefer an alter and incense for reverence sake but yes, if we burned our 10% as an offering by commandment I would still tithe.

I recently paid for a child to get cleft palet (sp?) surgery online. My husband thinks that money pretty much isn't going to go there and is up in smoke. But I'm going to have faith that the money did help a child, not unlike most that hope their tithing is spent appropriately.

[Calm]

There are services online that can tell you how much of your donation is going to the needy. That was Operation Smile, was it not.

Looks like a quarter goes to fundraising and overhead and the rest goes to the program.

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/operation-smile-in-norfolk-va-338/financial