Tacenda Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) 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/c...a-338/financialNo, actually it was Smile Train and I did my research beforehand. But I think I was told I'd get some feedback on the recipient or something to that effect. I haven't yet. Oh, well. I'll research it on the site you provided. If I really want to know. Edited July 13, 2012 by Tacenda
Calm Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Yes, Operation Smile, and I did my research beforehand. But I think I was told I'd get some feedback on the recipient or something to that effect. I haven't yet. Oh, well.I would assume if they did use your money for a specific child, that it would take some time for the process to get approved, get done, healing taking place, etc. It may not be an ongoing process but only certain times of the year. Perhaps they want to supply you with before and after pictures.
Tacenda Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I would assume if they did use your money for a specific child, that it would take some time for the process to get approved, get done, healing taking place, etc. It may not be an ongoing process but only certain times of the year. Perhaps they want to supply you with before and after pictures.Wow, you responded too fast. Once I clicked post I rethunk if that's indeed what I sent it to. I went back and checked my email and found my receipt and it was Smile Train, whew. I checked it out on the site you told me about and it looks great compared to Operation Smile. Thanks, that's kind of a relief. Edited July 13, 2012 by Tacenda
Garden Girl Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Sorry folks... but this topic has been discussed ad nauseam. Nothing opined here will have any effect on the Church's practice in regard to releasing detailed financial information, other than to report that audits have shown the distribution of funds received to be in line with legal and general accounting practices. Just where and how much will not be disclosed. Those of us who faithfully pay our tithing can look at the items that tithing (vs funds from business holdings) supports, i.e., new temples and ward bldgs, educational institutions, etc., etc., and the maintenance (which must be enormous) , etc., and we see the fruits of our giving. I trust those responsible for distribution of tithes and offerings to be doing so prayerfully and with consideration for the best interests of the Church and membership.We all can pontificate all we want... nothing is going to change, at least I don't personally foresee any change in the near future. And I'm satisfied with that. Yes, I do trust the leadership...GG
Muc'ul Ajwalil Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 In my opinion, one could calculate more or less how much the Church takes in in a year and how much the Church spends, by looking at the temples being constructed and the 300 to 400 chapels built in a year, the printing of scriptures, besides other things.Its a huge quantity. Where my comparatively insignificant sum that I put in as tithing and offerings come to mind, my contribution by itself would not be a big deal, but we have the faith that it is going in the right direction.That the church owns land is not frightening to me. On the contrary, if things ever went down south we might eventually become thankful for all that land. 1
cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Sorry folks... but this topic has been discussed ad nauseam. Nothing opined here will have any effect on the Church's practice in regard to releasing detailed financial information, other than to report that audits have shown the distribution of funds received to be in line with legal and general accounting practices. Just where and how much will not be disclosed. Those of us who faithfully pay our tithing can look at the items that tithing (vs funds from business holdings) supports, i.e., new temples and ward bldgs, educational institutions, etc., etc., and the maintenance (which must be enormous) , etc., and we see the fruits of our giving. I trust those responsible for distribution of tithes and offerings to be doing so prayerfully and with consideration for the best interests of the Church and membership.We all can pontificate all we want... nothing is going to change, at least I don't personally foresee any change in the near future. And I'm satisfied with that. Yes, I do trust the leadership...GGI suspect the only things that could get it to change would be if a leader rises through the ranks who has a strong opinion on the matter and is able to get the policy changed, or if enough members of the Church stopped paying their tithing out of protest.Both of those are very, very unlikely, so I agree it will probably never change. Edited July 13, 2012 by cinepro
Closet Doubter Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I absolutely think the Church should be open and honest about their finances. If opening the financial records will give ammunition to critics of the Church, then the Church needs to be doing things differently. Accountability to the membership should occur. The Church was set up with Common Consent being a founding principal. Common Consent doesn't occur today in any meaningful form. The secrecy that occurs today will in the long run cause more problems then it will solve.
why me Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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.No one expects us to open the books except the exmembers who wish to complain about the lds church. They are the vocal part of the criticism and for good reason. They actually believe that if the church opens the books they will find more to complain about. But really, those outside the church who never had any connection with the lds church do not care at all.
why me Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I absolutely think the Church should be open and honest about their finances. If opening the financial records will give ammunition to critics of the Church, then the Church needs to be doing things differently. The critics who used to be members will always find something to complain about when it comes to church finances. I suppose that the lds church should take critics into account when conducting its business. This group is certainly inspired.
why me Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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.I think that it is even more simple than this. Those who want to complain will. This issue is a bedbug for critics. They bring it up in hope that we will scratch. And they bring it up over and over again. However, if the church opened its books, they will still find something to complain about. They need to find negativity to explain why they left the church.
cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) No one expects us to open the books except the exmembers who wish to complain about the lds church. They are the vocal part of the criticism and for good reason. They actually believe that if the church opens the books they will find more to complain about. But really, those outside the church who never had any connection with the lds church do not care at all.Seriously? As a tithe-paying member who would love to see the Church publish its financials just as it did until 1959, I am mystified by your generalization. In my experience, it is not uncommon for people who make donations to an organization to want some degree of public accountability.It also seems like an entirely appropriate and humble way for the Church to acknowledge that, while the leaders are inspired, they are also fallible. Doing so would show a great deal of respect for the members of the Church and the sacrifices they have made.It's no different than the "common consent" that is presented when a new Church leader is called. We trust the inspiration of our leaders, but these things are done before the body of the Church so each member can sustain the action. Edited July 13, 2012 by cinepro
thesometimesaint Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 As we have already witnessed that some, even in the Church, will complain about how the money is spent(no matter how it is spent). I see no need to give them ammunition. 1
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I absolutely think the Church should be open and honest about their finances. If opening the financial records will give ammunition to critics of the Church, then the Church needs to be doing things differently. Accountability to the membership should occur. The Church was set up with Common Consent being a founding principal. Common Consent doesn't occur today in any meaningful form. The secrecy that occurs today will in the long run cause more problems then it will solve.The books are completely open to the IRS and other regulatory agencies. The assets belong to the church and not to the donors. If you are concern read the forms 990 filed with the IRS.
USU78 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I'd like to add another line to the "Don't Disclose" column.There is a long, sometimes troubled history of relations between Church and State, both in Britain, the US and elsewhere. Historically, the position of Church was that it had jurisdiction over the European and other Christian States . . . not the other way around. In Britain, the reign of Henry VIII was a time of particular trouble, as the State asserted such control of the the Church that its executive became and still nominally is head of the established Church in Britain.In any case, it remains, even in so miserable a time as the Obama Administration [i?] that the State has only limited jurisdiction to exercise any kind of regulatory or other power over the Church. At present, that limited jurisdiction empowers the State to ensure that Churches do not conflate their for-profit activities, if any, with their Church-qua-Church activities. The latter the State may appropriately regulate and tax . . . the former the State may not. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" is the watchword here: The feds may not tax states' activities . . . and they may not tax Churches' Church-qua-Church activities. They simply haven't the power.Now, the IRS, the agent [so-called] of the citizenry in the US, has all the information required by law from the for-profit activities, which the Church has spun off into wholly-owned entities like DMC. If someone were to show cause, they could obtain a Court order for disclosure of the tax returns of those subsidiaries. Just like someone could get your or my tax returns for good and sufficient cause.The public has NOT LEGITIMATE INTEREST in the Church-qua-Church activities, either jurisdictionally or morally.As Wade so warmly stated in the other thread, it's simply nobody's business.And as I pointed out: It is the business of only one Person . . . and He receives the P&Ls and any other reports He deems necessary through those He has delegated to review them.
cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 As we have already witnessed that some, even in the Church, will complain about how the money is spent(no matter how it is spent). I see no need to give them ammunition.Really? There are people out there who pay their tithing and then will complain about anything the Church does with it? So whether the Church uses the money to build a Temple, a mall, or a welfare farm, they're going to complain?That makes no sense.You wouldn't be trying to marginalize those who "complain" by classifying them as a type of person who just compulsively complains no matter what, so there is no need to actually listen to them or acknowledge them, would you? 1
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I went out to IRS regulations and must report I stand corrected on form 990 filings. Not surprising as I have only done 4 or 5 in my whole career. It seems churches are exempt from 990 filings for their church and charitable activities but they are required to file for their unrelated business income. Here is a small excerpt from one of the discussions on it by Crown Financial Ministries for any interested."In addition, churches aren't required to file either an application for exemption (IRS Form 1023) or an annual report (IRS Form 990) with the IRS.However, churches still must file an annual report on unrelated business income (IRS Form 990-T)"Church schools are required to file.This is just why I wasn't going to delve into it today because it quickly becomes a can of worms. However, I am posting this because of my previous misinformation. I apologize for the previous misinformation.However as noted by USU78 (post # 39) there are still certain reporting requirements. Edited July 13, 2012 by ERayR 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 cinepro:Yes there are some.I don't marginalize anyone. But I do give them all the attention they deserve.
sjdawg Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I went out to IRS regulations and must report I stand corrected on form 990 filings. Not surprising as I have only done 4 or 5 in my whole career. It seems churches are exempt from 990 filings for their church and charitable activities but they are required to file for their unrelated business income. Here is a small excerpt from one of the discussions on it by Crown Financial Ministries for any interested."In addition, churches aren't required to file either an application for exemption (IRS Form 1023) or an annual report (IRS Form 990) with the IRS.However, churches still must file an annual report on unrelated business income (IRS Form 990-T)"Church schools are required to file.This is just why I wasn't going to delve into it today because it quickly becomes a can of worms. However, I am posting this because of my previous misinformation. I apologize for the previous misinformation.Thank you for the information.
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Really? There are people out there who pay their tithing and then will complain about anything the Church does with it? So whether the Church uses the money to build a Temple, a mall, or a welfare farm, they're going to complain?That makes no sense.You wouldn't be trying to marginalize those who "complain" by classifying them as a type of person who just compulsively complains no matter what, so there is no need to actually listen to them or acknowledge them, would you?Who said people had to make sense. 1
Verum Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 As we have already witnessed that some, even in the Church, will complain about how the money is spent(no matter how it is spent). I see no need to give them ammunition.I actually somewhat agree with this statement. If the church's finances were completely transparent, not much would probably change with peoples attitudes...There will be many members who will be upset and outraged about how the church is using its immense amount of capital and there will be other members that,no matter how the church uses the money, will continue to defend it.
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I actually somewhat agree with this statement. If the church's finances were completely transparent, not much would probably change with peoples attitudes...There will be many members who will be upset and outraged about how the church is using its immense amount of capital and there will be other members that,no matter how the church uses the money, will continue to defend it.They seem to be doing an excellent job. I no longer get budget or building fund assessments and the work goes on.
Verum Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 They seem to be doing an excellent job. I no longer get budget or building fund assessments and the work goes on.I guess this is the standard to gauge for determining proper use of membership funds?
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I guess this is the standard to gauge for determining proper use of membership funds?No it is not a standard to guage by. Just trying to lighten up a bit.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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 membersIt 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...I assure you the gov't knows what they need to in order to get their 30 pieces of silver.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I actually somewhat agree with this statement. If the church's finances were completely transparent, not much would probably change with peoples attitudes...There will be many members who will be upset and outraged about how the church is using its immense amount of capital and there will be other members that,no matter how the church uses the money, will continue to defend it.In today's world nothing is worse than having "too much" money.
Recommended Posts