Church Finances Redux: Why Should The Books Be Opened?

[ANACO]

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.

• 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.
  

I believe the IRS only recognizes your third point.

Edited July 14, 2012 by ANACO

[ERayR]

• 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.
  

I believe the IRS only recognizes your third point.

The IRS really doesn't care about any of them.

[selek1]

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.

Apples and oranges comparison.

The Bishop (and every other level of the Church) are subject to specific guidelines (legal and administrative) as to how they may disburse funds. They are subject to periodic review and audit to ensure that their stewardship is conducted in accordance with those legal and administrative guidelines, and they face legal, moral, and ecclesisastical repurcussions for failing to meet the high standards required of their posts.

You, by contrast, are an anonymous internet agitator whom we don't know from Soupy Sales.

Your argument about due diligence (an informed guess) is false. You do have adequate information to make an informed decision.

• You have the reputation of the Church and the fact that there has not been a financial scandal or major crisis in at least the last eight decades.
  
• You have the knowledge and assurance that the system involves multiple checks and balances.
  
• You have the knowledge and assurance that the Church is audited both internally and independently on at least an annual basis- and no major discrepancies have been found.
  
• You have the assurance that the State (i.e, the government) is regularly auditing the Church's books and has found no major discrepancies in at least the last fifty years.
  
• Most importantly (if you are a faithful Mormon) you have the guidance and the assurance of the Holy Spirit that the Church is what it claims to be.
  
• You have the witness of the Spirit that the Lord is at the head of the Church and that his servants will be held accountable before him (as well as before Earthly legal authorities) for their actions and decisions .
  

If those assurances aren't enough for you, then perhaps you should find another organization to donate your time and money to.

There are plenty of them out there who will be more than grateful for your contribution.

What you should not be doing, however, is presuming to lecture those of us for who those standards are sufficient.

If you don't wish to donate to the Church, that's your business.

That we do, is ours.

You have no right, no place, and no authority to tell us how we "should" handle things.

[yootaw]

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

True enough. My opinion will have no weight on how the church conducts it's business. You have stated the obvious. Now, can you address the question about why the church requires full financial disclosure for those requesting charitable funds from the church. Do you see this as a double standard?

[CASteinman]

I believe the IRS only recognizes your third point.

That would be a matter of faith and I am told I am not permitted to criticize people on their faith and beliefs.

[ANACO]

The IRS really doesn't care about any of them.

The IRS does when I file my tax returns. LOL.

[CASteinman]

Now, can you address the question about why the church requires full financial disclosure for those requesting charitable funds from the church.

Yes. They are stewards of the funds consecrated to the Lord. If, in the interest of getting the best value for their funds, they are going to hand these funds over to entities not directed nor controlled by the Lord's servants they must do so under the most stringent and pure standards.

Do you see this as a double standard?

No. How could it be?

[CASteinman]

The IRS does when I file my tax returns. LOL.

If so, you are paying your taxes to an IRS that is not valid. You may owe taxes to the real IRS.

[yootaw]

Apples and oranges comparison.

The Bishop (and every other level of the Church) are subject to specific guidelines (legal and administrative) as to how they may disburse funds. They are subject to periodic review and audit to ensure that their stewardship is conducted in accordance with those legal and administrative guidelines, and they face legal, moral, and ecclesisastical repurcussions for failing to meet the high standards required of their posts.

You, by contrast, are an anonymous internet agitator whom we don't know from Soupy Sales.

Your argument about due diligence (an informed guess) is false. You do have adequate information to make an informed decision.

• You have the reputation of the Church and the fact that there has not been a financial scandal or major crisis in at least the last eight decades.
  
• You have the knowledge and assurance that the system involves multiple checks and balances.
  
• You have the knowledge and assurance that the Church is audited both internally and independently on at least an annual basis- and no major discrepancies have been found.
  
• You have the assurance that the State (i.e, the government) is regularly auditing the Church's books and has found no major discrepancies in at least the last fifty years.
  
• Most importantly (if you are a faithful Mormon) you have the guidance and the assurance of the Holy Spirit that the Church is what it claims to be.
  
• You have the witness of the Spirit that the Lord is at the head of the Church and that his servants will be held accountable before him (as well as before Earthly legal authorities) for their actions and decisions .
  

If those assurances aren't enough for you, then perhaps you should find another organization to donate your time and money to.

There are plenty of them out there who will be more than grateful for your contribution.

What you should not be doing, however, is presuming to lecture those of us for who those standards are sufficient.

If you don't wish to donate to the Church, that's your business.

That we do, is ours.

You have no right, no place, and no authority to tell us how we "should" handle things.

Wow. I guess that you are not interested in discussing this then. I have tried to be respectful. I have tried to be very clear that what I post is my opinion only. I have even said that I respect the decision of those that donate without this information. It seems clear to me that you aren't interested in learning any other viewpoints. I will respectfully bow out of the conversation and let those who all share the same opinion congratulate themselves accordingly.

[CASteinman]

Wow. I guess that you are not interested in discussing this then. I have tried to be respectful. I have tried to be very clear that what I post is my opinion only. I have even said that I respect the decision of those that donate without this information. It seems clear to me that you aren't interested in learning any other viewpoints. I will respectfully bow out of the conversation and let those who all share the same opinion congratulate themselves accordingly.

I understand that there are people who feel that they should still have a string on money that is tithed.

On the other hand, the position of people like myself is -- not only do you not have that right, but even the feeling that you should have that right is not in harmony with the concept of the Church.

With that kind of divide, I am not sure what benefit there is in sharing opinions. Do we really misunderstand each other anyway?

So maybe you are right.. maybe this is a good conversation to drop.

[selek1]

Wow. I guess that you are not interested in discussing this then. I have tried to be respectful. I have tried to be very clear that what I post is my opinion only. I have even said that I respect the decision of those that donate without this information. It seems clear to me that you aren't interested in learning any other viewpoints. I will respectfully bow out of the conversation and let those who all share the same opinion congratulate themselves accordingly.

The whinge might be more authentic if I hadn't been responding to your argument.

You were attempting to that the Church's conduct is hyprocritical and doing so on false premises.

I attacked your premises.

I'm sorry if you find that personally disturbing.

Edited July 14, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

The IRS does when I file my tax returns. LOL.

let me get this straight the IRS cares about your tax return so that affects the church on helping the saints??????????? Nope not following.

[ERayR]

Wow. I guess that you are not interested in discussing this then. I have tried to be respectful. I have tried to be very clear that what I post is my opinion only. I have even said that I respect the decision of those that donate without this information. It seems clear to me that you aren't interested in learning any other viewpoints. I will respectfully bow out of the conversation and let those who all share the same opinion congratulate themselves accordingly.

But will you respect the decision of those who you haves sustained, to not issue public financial statements?

[ANACO]

let me get this straight the IRS cares about your tax return so that affects the church on helping the saints??????????? Nope not following.

A "charity" is a legally-defined entity. CA Steinman was claiming the Church is NOT a charity, but the IRS recognizes it as being one.

CA Steinman is claiming the Church is NOT a charity because it's main goal is not helping people, which he believes a charity should be. CA Steinman was wrong, per the law, and wrong, per the welfare efforts of the Church.

Follow?

[Analytics]

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

Seriously? I could find any number of statements from respectable organizations that agree with the principle reflected in the BBB standard I quoted. If you really hold Mormon CPA’s in such low regard as to think they’d disagree with this established, mainstream wisdom, then I withdraw the claim.

[ERayR]

A "charity" is a legally-defined entity. CA Steinman was claiming the Church is NOT a charity, but the IRS recognizes it as being one.

CA Steinman is claiming the Church is NOT a charity because it's main goal is not helping people, which he believes a charity should be. CA Steinman was wrong, per the law, and wrong, per the welfare efforts of the Church.

Follow?

I see now where you come from on this and I can't argue with your legal definition. What I have trouble with is your assertion that 99% of CPA's would support your assertion of open books. Being in the field I know a great many who would support your assertion but I also know just as many who would not. So, I think your appeal to authority is at best a draw.

[ANACO]

I see now where you come from on this and I can't argue with your legal definition. What I have trouble with is your assertion that 99% of CPA's would support your assertion of open books. Being in the field I know a great many who would support your assertion but I also know just as many who would not. So, I think your appeal to authority is at best a draw.

I made no assertions about CPAs. That was another poster.

I have no problem with the Church not revealing its finances.

If it had to, under the law, it would, just as it does in Canada, as req'd by Canadian Law.

[CASteinman]

A "charity" is a legally-defined entity. CA Steinman was claiming the Church is NOT a charity, but the IRS recognizes it as being one

The IRS does not recognize Churches as "Charities". It recognizes Churches as "religious establishments". There are different rules for charities and religious establishments. In particular, a Church does not have to file for exemption from taxes. But a charity does. Not only that, but a Church does not have to file ANY paperwork with the IRS, but a charity does.

Not the same things.

[ERayR]

I made no assertions about CPAs. That was another poster.

I have no problem with the Church not revealing its finances.

If it had to, under the law, it would, just as it does in Canada, as req'd by Canadian Law.

So many posters, so many claims. How is an old man to keep them all straight.

By the way I looked at those Canadian tax returns and they are done on a local level. I am quite sure this is not what the critics have in mind. In addition there are parts of the return labeled confidential not for public release or something like that. Other than the enormous waste of money in preparing them and the waste of money for the IRS to review them it would accomplish nothing and the rabid critics would be totally dissatisfied. I can just see the tantrums now. Might be worth it just watch them howl and scream. Nah to much wasted effort for nothing.

[Analytics]

So many posters, so many claims. How is an old man to keep them all straight.

By the way I looked at those Canadian tax returns and they are done on a local level. I am quite sure this is not what the critics have in mind. In addition there are parts of the return labeled confidential not for public release or something like that. Other than the enormous waste of money in preparing them and the waste of money for the IRS to review them it would accomplish nothing and the rabid critics would be totally dissatisfied. I can just see the tantrums now. Might be worth it just watch them howl and scream. Nah to much wasted effort for nothing.

Given that the Church already prepares financial statements and its auditing team already audits them, how much would it cost the church to put it on its website? Perhaps $100 a year?

In any case, it's strange that you think this is about "satisfying" critics.

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

[CASteinman]

In any case, it's strange that you think this is about "satisfying" critics.

And then you go and quote a site that is critical of Churches that don't do what they -- in their secular opinion -- consider to be right.

[selek1]

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.

A classic example of both question-begging and the No-True-Scotsman fallacy.

You are to be congratulated on the purity of your dogma, but not its relevance in the real-world.

[Analytics]

A classic example of both question-begging and the No-True-Scotsman fallacy.

You are to be congratulated on the purity of your dogma, but not its relevance in the real-world.

If I said, “Christian organizations provide current financial statements. The Mormon Church doesn’t do so, therefore Mormons aren’t real Christian,” that would be an example of the no-true Scotsman fallacy. But that wasn’t my point. If I said, “Christian organizations provide current financial statements because Christian organizations provide current financial statements,” that would be begging the question. That wasn’t my point either.

I cited this quote because it eloquently explains why the vast majority of reputable churches subscribe to these standards of financial transparency.

In any case, it’s funny that you think the Better Business Bureau’s Charity Accountability Standards have no real-world relevance.

[ERayR]

If I said, “Christian organizations provide current financial statements. The Mormon Church doesn’t do so, therefore Mormons aren’t real Christian,” that would be an example of the no-true Scotsman fallacy. But that wasn’t my point. If I said, “Christian organizations provide current financial statements because Christian organizations provide current financial statements,” that would be begging the question. That wasn’t my point either.

I cited this quote because it eloquently explains why the vast majority of reputable churches subscribe to these standards of financial transparency.

In any case, it’s funny that you think the Better Business Bureau’s Charity Accountability Standards have no real-world relevance.

And in your eyes the LDS church is not reputable?

[selek1]

If I said, “Christian organizations provide current financial statements. The Mormon Church doesn’t do so, therefore Mormons aren’t real Christian,” that would be an example of the no-true Scotsman fallacy. But that wasn’t my point.

But it was precisely the point being made by the source you quoted.

I cited this quote because it eloquently explains why the vast majority of reputable churches subscribe to these standards of financial transparency.

The "vast majority of reputable churches". Are you finally admitting that the standard you propose is not, in fact universal?

In any case, it’s funny that you think the Better Business Bureau’s Charity Accountability Standards have no real-world relevance.

Again, your mind-reading skills are more than a little sub-par. My quarrel is with your new catechism, not the Better Business Bureau.

Better stick to your day job.