Church Finances Redux: Why Should The Books Be Opened?

[ERayR]

As soon as I start soliciting donations, then my finances relative to the donations ought to become public, or at least available to those who donate. Until then, my finances ought to remain private. This seems like a clear difference between personal finances and church finances. I don't think we need to know all of the details, but more than just "trust us". Even if the trust is fully deserved.

Why? See my post # 66

[CASteinman]

That does not jive well with what the church teaches. I have been told to study and think it out in my mind(etc.). That is actually a part of the Church I am grateful for. Without a financial statement I do not have all the pieces to study it out in mind.

It is the Gospel you are supposed to study out in your mind. Not the Church financial statement.

[CASteinman]

As soon as I start soliciting donations, then my finances relative to the donations ought to become public, or at least available to those who donate. Until then, my finances ought to remain private. This seems like a clear difference between personal finances and church finances. I don't think we need to know all of the details, but more than just "trust us". Even if the trust is fully deserved.

Why? Just because?

[Analytics]

This is simply ridiculous. These organizations provide financial statements to the IRS and other regulatory agencies. They are often audited and if anything is wrong the regulatory agencies take care of the problems. When one donates to one of these organizations they "give" it to them. That is what charitable giving is...

What I’m saying isn’t ridiculous. It isn’t even controversial. Defining what it means to donate has nothing to do with it. Everybody who gives advice about how to responsibly give agrees with me. For example, standard 11 of the BBB’s Standards for Charity Accountability says:

Make available to all, on request, complete annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. When total annual gross income exceeds $500,000*, these statements should be audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $500,000*, a review by a certified public accountant is sufficient to meet this standard. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $250,000*, an internally produced, complete financial statement is sufficient to meet this standard.

http://www.bbb.org/us/standards-for-charity-accountability/

[CASteinman]

What I’m saying isn’t ridiculous. It isn’t even controversial. Defining what it means to donate has nothing to do with it. Everybody who gives advice about how to responsibly give agrees with me. For example, standard 11 of the BBB’s Standards for Charity Accountability says:

But the Church is not a charity.

[Analytics]

But the Church is not a charity.

In an analysis how Mormons compare to everybody else when it comes to charitable giving, I doubt you’d say tithing doesn’t count because the church isn’t a charity.

In any case, the principle is the same.

[selek1]

The peace of mind that would come from a financial statement would be invaluable. It would make me more willing to teach my children the gospel without reservations.

Other than signing "Analytics" to a post you hope to have taken seriously, this has got to be the single largest admission against interest I've ever seen on these boards.

Your willingness to teach the Gospel is predicated on a financial statement!?!

Whose heart then is set on "riches"?

I got news for ya buddy- if the lack of a "transparent financial statement" is coming between you and the fullness of the Gospel, you need to rethink the priorities in your life.

Edited July 14, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

In an analysis how Mormons compare to everybody else when it comes to charitable giving, I doubt you’d say tithing doesn’t count because the church isn’t a charity.

In any case, the principle is the same.

Oh I disagree. I do not consider the Church to be a charity and even more -- I absolutely do not consider the principle to be the same at all.

A charity receives its money under the auspices of using it to help other people. The Church receives its money under the auspices of it being a commandment of God and being used to further the mission of the Church.

A totally different principle.

[selek1]

Few critics think that way, and you are totally missing the point. As a general principle, every church or organization that solicits donations from the public should provide their audited financial reports to anybody who asks. That is simply the right thing to do, irrespective of whether or not I or anybody else agrees or disagrees with the organization’s mission and how it goes about pursuing it.

Unitarian churches ought to disclose their financials to everybody who asks. Evangelical Churches ought to disclose their financials. NPR radio stations ought to. The United Way ought to. The Red Cross ought to. Harvesters Food Bank ought to. And the Mormon Church ought to.

I have no reason to believe that any of these organizations are doing anything unscrupulous with their money. But that doesn’t change the fact that like all organizations that ask for donations from the public, they ought to provided audited financial reports to anybody who asks, because doing is the right thing to do.

IN YOUR OPINION.

Unfortunately, your opinion is not binding on the rest of us.

One can be rationale, honest, open-minded and still disagree with your opinion.

We have already offered a plethora of very good reasons to keep the books closed.

Those reasons are not invalidated simply because you don't like them.

What I’m saying isn’t ridiculous. It isn’t even controversial.

Demonstrably false- it clearly is a controversy otherwise we wouldn't be seeing ardent and passionate defenders on both sides of the argument.

Defining what it means to donate has nothing to do with it.

No- but clarifying what legal rights you have when you donate does. And so far, nobody here has demonstrated a legal right- or even need- to pry into the private affairs of an organization, non-profit or otherwise.

Everybody who gives advice about how to responsibly give agrees with me. For example, standard 11 of the BBB’s Standards for Charity Accountability says:

http://www.bbb.org/u...accountability/

Falacious appeal to authority. "Everybody" does not agree with you.

These are recommended guidelines (and generally good ones). They are not, however, universal truths or immutable laws.

You are entitled to your opinion that all charities should open their books.

Unless and until the law changes, however, your authority to demand any such thing ends at the tip of your nose.

Edited July 14, 2012 by selek1

[ANACO]

Oh I disagree. I do not consider the Church to be a charity and even more -- I absolutely do not consider the principle to be the same at all.

A charity receives its money under the auspices of using it to help other people. The Church receives its money under the auspices of it being a commandment of God and being used to further the mission of the Church.

A totally different principle.

I thought the mission of the Church is to help people. The baptismal covenant comes to mind.

Kind regards.

[Analytics]

A charity receives its money under the auspices of using it to help other people.

According to the LDS Newsroom:

The Church exists to improve the lives of people across the world.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-financial-independence

That doesn't seem very different to me.

In any event, just as virtually all experts agree that charities ought to be financially transparent, they also agree that churches ought to be financially transparent.

[Analytics]

IN YOUR OPINION.

Unfortunately, your opinion is not binding on the rest of us.

I never said it was binding. I only said it was correct.

Among experts who talk about how churches and charities ought to be run, what I’m saying isn’t the least bit controversial. I’m sure if I were having this conversation in general terms with LDS CPA’s, 99%+ would agree with me without hesitation.

It’s only controversial on this board because the church you are defending chooses not to meet these standards.

[ANACO]

IN YOUR OPINION.

Unfortunately, your opinion is not binding on the rest of us.

One can be rationale, honest, open-minded and still disagree with your opinion.

We have already offered a plethora of very good reasons to keep the books closed.

Those reasons are not invalidated simply because you don't like them.

Demonstrably false- it clearly is a controversy otherwise we wouldn't be seeing ardent and passionate defenders on both sides of the argument.

No- but clarifying what legal rights you have when you donate does. And so far, nobody here has demonstrated a legal right to pry into the private affairs of an organization, non-profit or otherwise.

Falacious appeal to authority. "Everybody" does not agree with you.

These are recommended guidelines (and generally good one). They are not, however, universal truths or immutable laws.

You are entitled to your opinion that all charities should open their books.

Unless and until the law changes, however, your authority to demand any such thing ends at the tip of your nose.

I believe that's the Law in Canada - charities need to reveal their finances.

See: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/menu-eng.html

So by extension, the LDS Church must have to reveal charitable holdings in Canada.

From rumors I've heard, donations made by Canadian Church members, cannot leave Canada-due to Canadian Law.

The USofA? No. I'm sure the Church must for it's for-profit holdings, but I'm not certain.

That may have already been addressed in this thread, as I haven't read it entirely.

Kind regards

[ERayR]

According to the LDS Newsroom:

The Church exists to improve the lives of people across the world.

http://www.mormonnew...al-independence

That doesn't seem very different to me.

In any event, just as virtually all experts agree that charities ought to be financially transparent, they also agree that churches ought to be financially transparent.

And these two are connected how. Is the church somehow not blessing the lives of its people just because they do not issue public financial statements?

[ERayR]

I never said it was binding. I only said it was correct.

Among experts who talk about how churches and charities ought to be run, what I’m saying isn’t the least bit controversial. I’m sure if I were having this conversation in general terms with LDS CPA’s, 99%+ would agree with me without hesitation.

It’s only controversial on this board because the church you are defending chooses not to meet these standards.

CFR that 99% that LDS church CPA's agree with you.

[selek1]

I never said it was binding. I only said it was correct.

Which again, is a matter of blind opinion.

Said opinion is not backed by reason, by need, or by law.

It is simply the way you think things "ought to be" .

Among experts who talk about how churches and charities ought to be run, what I’m saying isn’t the least bit controversial. I’m sure if I were having this conversation in general terms with LDS CPA’s, 99%+ would agree with me without hesitation.

Again- this is a fallacious appeal to authority.

You are simply asserting that it is so- without addressing any of the reasons given for keeping the books closed.

It’s only controversial on this board because the church you are defending chooses not to meet these standards.

Yet another iteration of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Also a bit of tendentious (and just plain wrong) mind-reading on your part.

I've yet to see any of those advocating for "keeping the books closed" espousing a "one rule for me, another for thee" rationale- that's the province of critics.

Rather, all of those I've seen arguing for the privilege of keeping private information private are doing so from the foundation that everyone should have that privilege, except where the law requires otherwise.

[ANACO]

Search for the name of the Church at http://www.cra-arc.g...s/menu-eng.html

You'll see multiple Canadian wards and branches listed with financial statements.

Does that make everybody happy now?

Edited July 14, 2012 by ANACO

[selek1]

Search for the name of the Church at http://www.cra-arc.g...s/menu-eng.html

You'll see multiple Canadian wards and branches listed with financial statements.

Does that make everybody happy now?

Of course not- the critics will wail and gnash their teeth as it can't be used as bludgeon against the Church as a whole.

[yootaw]

This is simply ridiculous. These organizations provide financial statements to the IRS and other regulatory agencies. They are often audited and if anything is wrong the regulatory agencies take care of the problems. When one donates to one of these organizations they "give" it to them. That is what charitable giving is. You relinquish claim. Charitable giving should be done when one agrees with the mission and purpose of the organization not because of a financial statement. If they are accomplishing their stated mission and you agree with that mission then give and get out of the way and let them operate. If you don't then just get out of the way.

Why? Just because?

Why? Because it is the right thing to do (in my opinion). If I go to my Bishop, and say that I have a serious need for 2K, is he going to just trust me? Or is he going to ask for details about how the money is going to be spent? What if I were to tell him that he really just needed to trust me. I will promise to use the money in a way that supports the mission of the church. The IRS will not have any problems with how I spend the money. Everything will be legal. Is the bishop nosing in where he shouldn't?

I agree that once the money is given, I shouldn't care exactly how it is used. But I should be able to make an informed decision in advance of giving the money. I don't see how that is possible without additional information.

[cinepro]

Of course not- the critics will wail and gnash their teeth as it can't be used as bludgeon against the Church as a whole.

I suspect that when the Church stopped publishing its financials in 1959, it wasn't because they were worried about what the critics would think...

[ERayR]

Search for the name of the Church at http://www.cra-arc.g...s/menu-eng.html

You'll see multiple Canadian wards and branches listed with financial statements.

Does that make everybody happy now?

Won't do those returns have sections of information marked "confidential not available to the public" They are not completely transparent.

[CASteinman]

I thought the mission of the Church is to help people. The baptismal covenant comes to mind.

The mission of the Church is to prepare the earth for the Return of Jesus Christ. There are some specific components to this overall goal, but that is the Overall Mission.

The components are:

Preach the Gospel to the World, administering the Ordinances of the Gospel to those who Believe

Redeem the Dead

Help the Saints in a path to Sanctification.

This latter element may include aspects of charity as the world uses that term. But now we are down to a subgoal of a subgoal. It is not the main purpose of the Church.

[CASteinman]

In any event, just as virtually all experts agree that charities ought to be financially transparent, they also agree that churches ought to be financially transparent.

Well, when they are called of God to lead the LDS Church, they will have a say.

[cinepro]

If you believe the Gospel is true, and, by extension, the LDS Church-- there are zero issues. Why? Because tithing is not about whether the Church uses it in a way you deem appropriate, but rather it is about faith and obedience.

The doctrine of the Church is to have "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." This "Faith that our fallible leaders are using tithing money in a way we deem appropriate" might be many good things, but it's not doctrine. Openness and accountability are also principles in the Church.

But even if that were not the case, it's quite possible that open books would require more faith from the tith-paying members, not less, so that would be a good thing.

[CASteinman]

Why? Because it is the right thing to do (in my opinion).

Well, when Jesus calls you to lead His Church, your opinion may have some weight in this matter. But this is not your Church.