To Help Future Proper Use Of Church Funds...

[JCNowandForever]

'KevinG'

Standard accounting practices and outside auditors are used locally and world wide with the church.

-----------------------

I agree.

However, where's the full-disclosure and complete transparency responsibilities of the Church towards its members? It stopped in "1953" as one poster said. No auditing reports are every given out to members to account for the funds. Transparency is lacking. You expect member to take theirs words for it when it comes to financial activities? I'm guess we can do that. But that's not being responsible. Other non-profit organizations have disclosed their financial statements online for the public to see, not because they are beholden to the public but that they are being transparent and show good governance. So yes, it's an issue of transparency and accountability!

So I suggested what I suggested in this thread of CONDITIONAL DONATIONS. So let's focus on that topic and leave it out the door the ad-hominem and straw-man comments, it ain't going to detract from the current issue. The Mall thing is just given as an example.

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[KevinG]

I agree.

However, where's the full-disclosure and complete transparency responsibilities of the Church towards its members? It stopped in "1953" as one poster said. No auditing reports are every given out to members to account for the funds. Transparency is lacking. You expect member to take theirs words for it when it comes to financial activities? I'm we can do that. But that's not being responsible. Other non-profit organization have disclosed their financial statements online for the public to see, not because they are beholden to the public but that they are being transparent and show good governance. So yes, t's an issue of transparency and accountability!

So I suggested what I suggested in this thread of CONDITIONAL DONATION. So let's focus on that topic and leave it out the doors the ad-hominem and straw-man comments, it ain't going to detract from the current issue. The Mall thing is just given as an example.

OK Conditional donations are not tithing.

Any donation is not refundable.

While the Church will strive to send donations to the place where donors intended for the fiscal health of the entire organization they may be distributed to where the greatest need is.

Any other questions?

[ERayR]

I agree.

However, where's the full-disclosure and complete transparency responsibilities of the Church towards its members? It stopped in "1953" as one poster said. No auditing reports are every given out to members to account for the funds. Transparency is lacking. You expect member to take theirs words for it when it comes to financial activities? I'm we can do that. But that's not being responsible. Other non-profit organization have disclosed their financial statements online for the public to see, not because they are beholden to the public but that they are being transparent and show good governance. So yes, t's an issue of transparency and accountability!

So I suggested what I suggested in this thread of CONDITIONAL DONATION. So let's focus on that topic and leave it out the doors the ad-hominem and straw-man comments, it ain't going to detract from the current issue. The Mall thing is just given as an example.

Last call. Please answer my CFR.

[why me]

Why me:

There have been a couple of times when the Church was financially broke. However in anything approaching our time the Church has invested/spent its monies very wisely.

The Gospel is true regardless of the Church's financial status.

I know. But I was referring to modern times and not during the times of joseph smith. And I feel that at that time, the saints needed to be humbled. Plus, Joseph was a poor businessman. But now I see success. Why change a successful plan? I think that the OP is being irrational in their posting.

[JCNowandForever]

Last call. Please answer my CFR.

what's CFR and what's your question?

[KevinG]

Sure you can say 'trust the leaders,' but if they are spending the money well, there's no reason to hide it, right?

My argument there is that publishing the details of the funds and donations would open up a juge can of worms with every critic who desires to second guess the leadership of the church.

Keeping the private organizations finances private (even though we still use outside auditors) keeps that very likely problem from happening.

[KevinG]

what's CFR and what's your question?

It is Call for References. When you lay out an accusation or premise that is not substantiated or refuse to answer a question you will get a CFR. (See the board guidelines). It is considered bad form and can lead to your being banned from a thread or the board if you refuse to provide evidence for assertions or answer reasonable questions.

[DH]

My argument there is that publishing the details of the funds and donations would open up a juge can of worms with every critic who desires to second guess the leadership of the church.

Keeping the private organizations finances private (even though we still use outside auditors) keeps that very likely problem from happening.

The critics will criticize anyway, so what's the difference? If the Church is spending the money wisely, it shouldn't be too difficult to defend.

As things are now, there is no disclosure, and the critics are free to make any claims they want. Whereas if there was financial disclosure, the Church could say "No, you're wrong. See here on Line 103a." Or not respond at all, if they want, and let others figure it out.

Edited August 22, 2012 by DH

[why me]

How are you defining "our time"? If I recall, the Church was last in dire financial straits in the 1960's.

Now. Why change a successful plan. If the critics are correct and the church is worth billions, why change the strategy?

[ERayR]

I'm not an accountant, but I don't think you're interpreting this right. I believe that clause is if you are giving your money to a non-charity as a gift with the intention that it be used by that non-charitable entity as a charitable donation. The church is a charitable organization. Your donations to the church are 100% deductible with no worry how the church will use it.

Also, I think I heard the church is changing donation slips to say that even though you mark certain categories, the church is free to use the money however it wants.

No it applies to charitable institutions but is exponentially more complex than the little blurb that was quoted. It is something that has kept accountants and attorneys awake at night. Literally thousands of pages of code and Irs regulations and instructions and hundreds, if not thousands of court cases.

[KevinG]

The critics will criticize anyway, so what's the difference?

Answering one general criticism of transparency vs. spending time tramping down every separate critique of some critic who doesn't like how we spent fuel for a cattle farm, or thought we could get a better deal on shipping clothing to Africa.

There is a huge difference.

And if they are going to criticize anyway why bend to pressure even once?

[JCNowandForever]

It is Call for References. When you lay out an accusation or premise that is not substantiated or refuse to answer a question you will get a CFR. (See the board guidelines). It is considered bad form and can lead to your being banned from a thread or the board if you refuse to provide evidence for assertions or answer reasonable questions.

OK so what exactly is your question? There's so many now in this thread..

[CASteinman]

If I recall, the Church was last in dire financial straits in the 1960's.

Request a source that the Church was in dire financial straits in the 1960's.

[KevinG]

OK so what exactly is your question? There's so many now in this thread..

It wasn't mine it was ERay's. I'm sure he can repeat the request for you.

Just a hint for your further participation on these boards. Keep track of your arguments. Don't throw the same thing up on three or four threads and hope it sticks somewhere. When asked a question of for a source honor those requests before continuing to throw up more comments.

This will help you avoid derailing your own topic and insure your credibility as a person who can discuss things rationally and not just troll or criticize without the ability to consider other sides of issues.

I've been around a while and this board is not full of suckers, unthinking Morgbots or people otherwise incapable of holding their own in a conversation or debate. You are well advised to read to understand not just to respond. You would have received answers to your questions if you had actually read the now closed Mall thread instead of just spamming your repeated post there.

Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG

[CASteinman]

I'm not an accountant, but I don't think you're interpreting this right. I believe that clause is if you are giving your money to a non-charity as a gift with the intention that it be used by that non-charitable entity as a charitable donation. The church is a charitable organization. Your donations to the church are 100% deductible with no worry how the church will use it.

Not if, for some reason, the Church were to accept it as a conditional donation. It is not deductible until the terms of the conditions are fulfilled.

[ERayR]

what's CFR and what's your question?

CFR is Call For References and I CFR'd your inference that the church had used fast offering funds for the mall project in post # 71. The procedure is to provide the references or retract.

[JCNowandForever]

It wasn't mine it was ERay's. I'm sure he can repeat the request for you.

Just a hint for your further participation on these boards. Keep track of your arguments. Don't throw the same thing up on three or four threads and hope it sticks somewhere. When asked a question of for a source honor those requests before continuing to throw up more comments.

This will help you avoid derailing your own topic and insure your credibility as a person who can discuss things rationally and not just troll or criticize.

I remember, someone asked for a reference I gave the IRS website as a reference? If I missed ERay's, can he please restate?

[DH]

Answering one general criticism of transparency vs. spending time tramping down every separate critique of some critic who doesn't like how we spent fuel for a cattle farm, or thought we could get a better deal on shipping clothing to Africa.

There is a huge difference.

Yes, but the Church is under no obligation to answer every criticism. If a critic thinks we could get a better deal on shipping clothing to Africa, the Church could simply ignore the criticism. Or make note of the better deal and save some money next year.

And if they are going to criticize anyway why bend to pressure even once?

For one thing, so people couldn't accuse them of not being transparent. Also, what non-Mormons think of Church finances is not really all that important (except for the IRS, obviously!). But it might be nice for members of the Church to know how the money they contribute is being spent.

[DH]

Besides, there are countries where the Church does reveal more about its finances, such as in Canada, and the U.K. It hasn't hurt the Church in those places, as far as I know, so why would it be so terrible in the U.S.?

[KevinG]

Yes, but the Church is under no obligation to answer every criticism. If a critic thinks we could get a better deal on shipping clothing to Africa, the Church could simply ignore the criticism. Or make note of the better deal and save some money next year.

For one thing, so people couldn't accuse them of not being transparent. Also, what non-Mormons think of Church finances is not really all that important (except for the IRS, obviously!). But it might be nice for members of the Church to know how the money they contribute is being spent.

I think they chose to draw that line of answering criticisms at opening the finances up to critique at all. as has been discussed ad nausea in other threads I'm pretty comfortable with the Church is performing well under the laws of the various countries it is established in and does not need to apply Canadian tax law to its American holdings in order to satisfy the critics who no longer or never did contribute to its funding.

Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG

[CASteinman]

In the world of Accounting Auditing, when an entity claims that no tithing funds were involved, the auditors, to pass the thresholds of auditing standards, usually ask for financial documents such bank statements and General ledgers and they compare the General Ledger against banks statements to test the claim proposed by the entity. I'm pretty sure that Taubman would employ outside auditors to audit the books of the Mall in compliance with SOX. That will be interesting to see if the development funds to construct the Mall really didn't come from the Commercial Development arm of the Church through the Church's general tithing fund.

Taubman's auditors will not have access to internal accounting documents of the Commercial Development group.

[CASteinman]

So yes, t's an issue of transparency and accountability!

Actually its an issue of accepting the authority of the Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles and the Presiding Bishopric.

This fussing over the purse is not that far removed from the complaint of Judas during the time of Christ.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[DH]

I think they chose to draw that line of answering criticisms at opening the finances up to critique at all. as has been discussed ad nausea in other threads I'm pretty comfortable with the Church is performing well under the laws of the various countries it is established in and does not need to apply Canadian tax law to its American holdings in order to satisfy the critics who no longer or never did contribute to its funding.

As I said, it's not about the non-member critics. It's about contributing Church members knowing how the money is spent.

[JCNowandForever]

CFR is Call For References and I CFR'd your inference that the church had used fast offering funds for the mall project in post # 71. The procedure is to provide the references or retract.

Ok I see your CFR. I think you misunderstood my post #71. Here's what it says.

No, I don't have a problem with the fast offering funds to go from ward, and the excess to the stake or to the worldwide fast offering fund or back to stake and ward if there's short fall, as long as that fund is specifically used for the poor and the needy and NOT FOR THE MALL!

It means I don't mind the Fast Offering funds to go from ward, stake, worldwiide and back to stakes, wards, as long as fast offering funds stays in that specific category of FAST OFFERING and not mingled/moved it to a GENERAL Church funds where mulltiple uses of that general fund can be use to including possible funelling of it to a commercial entity of the Church, including the Mall..

I'm perfectly fine for the GENERAL church funds to be use for multiple use, including commercial enterprise, such as malls, factories, etc. It's not ok to co-mingle restricted funds (such as FAST OFFERING) with other General Church funds.

Hope this clarifies this post. Any more question just let me know.

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[KevinG]

Ok I see your CFR. I think you misunderstood my post #71. Here's what it says.

No, I don't have a problem with the fast offering funds to go from ward, and the excess to the stake or to the worldwide fast offering fund or back to stake and ward if there's short fall, as long as that fund is specifically used for the poor and the needy and NOT FOR THE MALL!

It means I don't mind the Fast Offering funds to go from ward, stake, worldwiide and back to stakes, wards, as long as fast offering funds stays in that specific category of FAST OFFERING and not mingled/moved it to a GENERAL Church funds where mulltiple uses of that general fund can be use to including possible funelling of it to a commercial entity of the Church, including the Mall.. Hope this clarifies this post. Any more question just let me know.

So answer the CFR. Do you have any evidence at all that moneys from charitable donations ever end up in The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for any purpose other than investment to increase those charitable donations and return them with interest to the coffers of the charitable and operations arms of the church?

If not you should withdraw the accusation of "possible" funneling of money to commercial entities of the Church.

Or admit you are blowing smoke when it comes to such hypothetical possibilities.