To Help Future Proper Use Of Church Funds...

[ERayR]

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.

That statement is an implication that FO funds are being used for the mall. Provide references that this is being done.

[USU78]

I have no right to see specifically how my donated funds are used once I donate them. If I want to donate them for a specific purpose, I do so.

If I so despise or distrust the person I'm donating to that I make a conditional gift, I'm not really gifting, am I?

What has been proposed in this thread, conditional giving as a means to compel a change in Church policy on public disclosure of the use of donated i.e. tithing funds, is nothing short of an attack upon Church leadership's [the Presiding Bishopric's] integrity.

Failing to accept the word of GBH on the subject of the source of Mall funding is to challenge his integrity.

I ask again: Is there evidence to support the proposition that both GBH and the Presiding Bishopric lack integrity? If so, what is it? If none exists, please say so.

[CASteinman]

That statement is an implication that FO funds are being used for the mall. Provide references that this is being done.

Well.. he has been all over the deck on this stuff, with conditional notes for tithing on the back of checks...now down to the relatively minor issue of wanting to be sure that fast offerings go to help the hungry and needy.

Regardless of his "wants", his proposals do not have an ear in the councils of the Church and are frivolous hand-wringing merged with suspicion and casting aspersions on the honesty and integrity of the authorities of the Church.

[DH]

I ask again: Is there evidence to support the proposition that both GBH and the Presiding Bishopric lack integrity? If so, what is it? If none exists, please say so.

I do not have evidence that Church leaders are misspending money. Neither do I have evidence that they aren't. That's the problem, there's no way for us to know.

If people want to give lots of money to an organization that won't tell them how the money is spent, that's their business. But it seems to me that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for the Church to tell people their eternal salvation is in jeopardy if they don't donate ten percent of their income, and then refuse to say how the money is spent.

Again, if everything is on the up and up, why not show it?

Edited August 22, 2012 by DH

[ERayR]

Well.. he has been all over the deck on this stuff, with conditional notes for tithing on the back of checks...now down to the relatively minor issue of wanting to be sure that fast offerings go to help the hungry and needy.

Regardless of his "wants", his proposals do not have an ear in the councils of the Church and are frivolous hand-wringing merged with suspicion and casting aspersions on the honesty and integrity of the authorities of the Church.

I just want him to prove his assertions or back them up. His amateur accounting advice if followed could cause some unsuspecting person some real problems, though I doubt anybody who does their own taxes is dealing in significant numbers to make much difference. If they did it would serve them right for taking tax advice from a religion discussion board.

[KevinG]

I do not have evidence that Church leaders are misspending money. Neither do I have evidence that they aren't. That's the problem, there's no way for us to know.

There is a way for us to know. The outside auditors and tax officials would correct and/or fine the church for misusing funds. Any officer in the church misusing funds will be excommunicated (the #1 reason for excommunications of Bishops outside the US and #2 inside the US). Any LDS headquarters General Manager who makes bad decisions regarding funds will be called on the carpet in front of the Quorum of the 12.

There are many safeguards in place to correct those who abuse or misuse funds. You just won't be on the jury or receive a report of things that frankly aren't your business.

Unless someone is advocating public punishment of those who err concerning church finances or is arguing that there is corruption at the head of the church (Presiding Bishopric, First Presidency or Quorum of the 12 Apostles) these arguments have no merit.

[JCNowandForever]

That statement is an implication that FO funds are being used for the mall. Provide references that this is being done.

The only reference I can give is this website (Special Issues Relating to Implementation of FASB Statements 116, 117, and 124

www.bap.org/fasb.aspx) that talks about revenue recognition by charitable organizations:

"Frequently, donors stipulate how their gifts are to be used by placing restrictions on them. SFAS No. 116 requires

recognition of contribution revenue upon the transfer of an economic benefit, usually the receipt of either the

contribution (cash or other economic benefit) or a pledge (a promise to make a contribution in the future). Restrictions

may be permanent, such as the establishment of an endowment in perpetuity, or they may be temporary, such as for

next year's operations or a specific project.

The underlying concept of SFAS No. 116 is that receipt of restricted contributions does not amount to incurring a

liability, but merely accepting limits on the future use of the contributions. The concept is based on the belief that

adequate disclosure of donor-imposed restrictions and properly stated liabilities is more important than matching

revenue and expenses."

In this case the Church has not adequately disclosed donor-imposed restrictions on FO donations, let alone it's whole financial statements. No financially audited information has been disclosed by the Church (yet). Thus the question still remains where did the development arm of the Church got its funding or where it came from, when restricted funds such as FO is accounted for by FAS 116 to be a restricted revenue, not to be mingled with other revenue (tithing, general church funds)?? Can you provide an audited statement from the church so we can look at it together?

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[ERayR]

I do not have evidence that Church leaders are misspending money. Neither do I have evidence that they aren't. That's the problem, there's no way for us to know.

If people want to give lots of money to an organization that won't tell them how the money is spent, that's their business. But it seems to me that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for the Church to tell people their eternal salvation is in jeopardy if they don't donate ten percent of their income, and then refuse to say how the money is spent.

Again, if everything is on the up and up, why not show it?

Look around. There is abundant evidence where it is being spent. There are 138 operating temples with 3 under renovation and 14 under construction. Attractive well maintained meeting houses numbering in the thousands, Church members numbering in the many thousands who receive welfare assistance. Humanitarian aid projects worldwide. Top quality educational programs and the list goes on.

I suppose you had thought all of this just happened by itself?

[thesometimesaint]

DH:

You can see at anytime you like the amount of donations you contributed. But most members wait till tithing settlement, or don't bother to find out. The Church is under no obligation to show even its members where the monies went.

[CASteinman]

There is a way for us to know. The outside auditors and tax officials would correct and/or fine the church for misusing funds.

The Church uses CPA's. CPA's will, at a minimum, lose their license if they should in any way fail to report such things to the proper authorities. (Proper Authorities may be Church leaders or may be government officials depending upon the situation).

[KevinG]

Just to flip this and see it from another perspective...

Is there a compelling reason to go to the effort of publishing (and inevitably defending) the church budget other than to assuage the doubts of critics?

- evidence of misuse of funds?

- evidence of tax laws broken?

- evidence of unwise distribution or application of funds?

- evidence of individuals being enriched or supported by donated funds?

- evidence of malfeasance of any kind?

Making policy based on hypothetical "well it could happen" is not a wise practice.

[CASteinman]

The underlying concept of SFAS No. 116 is that receipt of restricted contributions does not amount to incurring a

liability, but merely accepting limits on the future use of the contributions. The concept is based on the belief that

adequate disclosure of donor-imposed restrictions and properly stated liabilities is more important than matching

revenue and expenses."

In this case the Church has not adequately disclosed donor-imposed restrictions on FO donations

You now have one more CFR. These are stacking up dude and you are ignoring them.

The CFR this time is: "subject to FASB as you have quoted, what is the reference (ie I am calling for reference) that the Church has not adequately disclosed donor imposed restrictions on FO donations."

[ERayR]

The only reference I can give is this website (Special Issues Relating to Implementation of FASB Statements 116, 117, and 124

www.bap.org/fasb.aspx) that talks about revenue recognition by charitable organizations:

"Frequently, donors stipulate how their gifts are to be used by placing restrictions on them. SFAS No. 116 requires

recognition of contribution revenue upon the transfer of an economic benefit, usually the receipt of either the

contribution (cash or other economic benefit) or a pledge (a promise to make a contribution in the future). Restrictions

may be permanent, such as the establishment of an endowment in perpetuity, or they may be temporary, such as for

next year's operations or a specific project.

The underlying concept of SFAS No. 116 is that receipt of restricted contributions does not amount to incurring a

liability, but merely accepting limits on the future use of the contributions. The concept is based on the belief that

adequate disclosure of donor-imposed restrictions and properly stated liabilities is more important than matching

revenue and expenses."

In this case the Church has not adequately disclosed donor-imposed restrictions on FO donations, let alone it's whole financial statements. No financially audited information has been disclosed by the Church (yet). Thus the question still remains where did the development arm of the Church got its funding or where it came from, when restricted funds such as FO is accounted for by FAS 116 to be a restricted revenue, not to be mingled with other revenue (tithing, general church funds)?? Can you provide an audited statement from the church so we can look at it together?

Again, I asked for references for your implication that the church was mishandling funds. Specifically your implication that fast offering funds were being channeled into the mall project. I can read GASB's and FASB's and all the other thousands of governmental publications you want to mention and have read a lot of them. That does not support your implied accusation that the church is mishandling funds. Now please document the implied accusation or post a withdrawal of said accusation.

[Pahoran]

The only reference I can give is this website (Special Issues Relating to Implementation of FASB Statements 116, 117, and 124

www.bap.org/fasb.aspx) that talks about revenue recognition by charitable organizations:

"Frequently, donors stipulate how their gifts are to be used by placing restrictions on them. SFAS No. 116 requires

recognition of contribution revenue upon the transfer of an economic benefit, usually the receipt of either the

contribution (cash or other economic benefit) or a pledge (a promise to make a contribution in the future). Restrictions

may be permanent, such as the establishment of an endowment in perpetuity, or they may be temporary, such as for

next year's operations or a specific project.

The underlying concept of SFAS No. 116 is that receipt of restricted contributions does not amount to incurring a

liability, but merely accepting limits on the future use of the contributions. The concept is based on the belief that

adequate disclosure of donor-imposed restrictions and properly stated liabilities is more important than matching

revenue and expenses."

Which doesn't sound at all like "if I ever leave the Church you have to give back all my donations," does it?

In this case the Church has not adequately disclosed donor-imposed restrictions on FO donations, let alone it's whole financial statements. No financially audited information has been disclosed by the Church (yet). Thus the question still remains where did the development arm of the Church got its funding or where it came from, when restricted funds such as FO is accounted for by FAS 116 to be a restricted revenue, not to be mingled with other revenue (tithing, general church funds)?? Can you provide an audited statement from the church so we can look at it together?

Now I realise you imagine yourself too important to deign to notice anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, but the fact is that the Saints aren't buying what you're peddling.

You keep assuming that tithing, or maybe even Fast Offerings, were used to build the mall. You have not a shred of evidence that this is the case; all the evidence available to us shows that the mall was funded from the Church's investments.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, you have already admitted that your assumption that tithing was used is exactly that: an assumption, unsupported by any evidence. So what new evidence have you turned up, please?

Yes, this is a call for references (CFR). Under the rules of the forum, you are obliged to answer it. You don't get to slither out of it by claiming that the person asking is beneath your notice.

And, just so you know: you can't brush aside criticism of your arguments by chanting slogans about "straw man and ad hominem." You need to actually address what has been put before you. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JCNowandForever]

You now have one more CFR. These are stacking up dude and you are ignoring them.

The CFR this time is: "subject to FASB as you have quoted, what is the reference (ie I am calling for reference) that the Church has not adequately disclosed donor imposed restrictions on FO donations."

Here's the reference: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-financial-independence

Do you see in this reference where an adequate financial disclose was made by the Church to adequately disclosed donor imposed restrictions on FO donation? In terms of actual Dollars and Cents? And on a Financial Income and Expense format of it financial activities? Do you see it adequately disclosed here in this reference? I don't think so.

[ERayR]

Here's the reference: http://www.mormonnew...al-independence

Do you see in this reference where an adequate financial disclose was made by the Church to adequately disclosed donor imposed restrictions on FO donation? In terms of actual Dollars and Cents? And on a Financial Income and Expense format of it financial activities? Do you see it adequately disclosed here in this reference? I don't think so.

Read closely so as to comprehend. the CFR you have to deal with is what evidence do you have that shows the church used fast offering funds on the mall project. This is my last call if you do not provide said evidence or retract I will notify the mods.

[JCNowandForever]

You can ask for all CFRs you want.

But I ask just one CFR from anyone, particularly ERayR, Pahoran and CASteinman . Show me a reference to an Audited Financial Statement of the Church disclosing its Financial activity in terms of dollars and cents in a financial format recognized by GAAP.?? I'll be waiting.

[Tacenda]

Since 1985 the church has spent a total of $1.4 billion on relief for disasters such as Japan's earthquake and Ethiopian famine, and it operates 129 "bishops' storehouses" with food and household items for the needy.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1769539.html

I know the statistics end up showing that LDS end up only spending around $5.00 per member per year in humanitarian aid according to the figure above. Not sure how accurate that it is. So I would want more to go for humanitarian aid, which I hope in the future it will. I think it will.

But I have to say that one thing I love is that the church is spending on temples, meetinghouses etc. So for our use. I believe the commercial end is what will help in the future. As much as I don't like it and sometimes it feels like it's a corporation over a church. It brings me security that the church knows what they are doing. Now with all the monies they take in I think the money will be spread out better than in the past. Remember that taking care of the poor was added to our cannon a short while ago. This gives me hope. I've seen in the church news of the strides they are making in this area also. I'm also aware that some dictators in some of these third world countries are so evil they wouldn't even use the money from the church to save their own people, it would go to themselves.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Tacenda

[KevinG]

I'm not an accountant and I don't play on on TV but did JCNAF just ask to prove a negative in order to deflect from providing evidence for his accusation that the church may be using general funds to support the City Creek Mall project?

[Pahoran]

I'm not an accountant and I don't play on on TV but did JCNAF just ask to prove a negative in order to deflect from providing evidence for his accusation that the church may be using general funds to support the City Creek Mall project?

Yep.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

Here's the reference: http://www.mormonnew...al-independence

This reference does not support your contention that under FASB the Church has not adequately disclosed donor imposed restrictions on FO donations.

Again... I am asking you to show the source of your accusations toward the Church and its authorities. Will you do it?

Do you see in this reference where an adequate financial disclose was made by the Church to adequately disclosed donor imposed restrictions on FO donation?

No, but that is irrelevant. There is also no such explanation in the Book of Exodus either -- and that's an official document of the Church. Merely finding one document that does not disclose this is not sufficient.

Let me give you a hint: You claimed that there was insufficient financial disclosure and you cited FASB. So here's where you have to go: Look in FASB and find out what is sufficient disclosure in this case.

You see.. the point I am making here is that you run all over this board, building multiple threads on the same subject: Accusing the Brethren of Financial Dishonesty by innuendo -- and you do not even know what you are talking about when it comes to financial management.

You have yet to support your statement that there has not been sufficient disclosure. But perhaps that was unfair of me... So rather than show that there has not been sufficient disclosure... I reconfigure my CFR this way: Cite the source that describes what exactly is sufficient, required financial disclosure under FASB.

That should be much easier than trying to prove a negative.

[KevinG]

Since 1985 the church has spent a total of $1.4 billion on relief for disasters such as Japan's earthquake and Ethiopian famine, and it operates 129 "bishops' storehouses" with food and household items for the needy.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1769539.html

I know the statistics end up showing that LDS end up only spending around $5.00 per member per year in humanitarian aid according the figure above. Not sure how accurate that it is. So I would want more to go for humanitarian aid, which I hope in the future it will, I think it will.

But I have to say that one thing I love is that the church is spending on temples, meetinghouses etc. So for our use. I believe the commercial end is what will help in the future. As much as I don't like it and sometimes it feels like it's a corporation over a church. It brings me security that the church knows what they are doing. Now with all the monies they take in I think the money will be spread out better than in the past. Remember that taking care of the poor was added to our cannon a short while ago. This gives me hope. I've seen in the church news of the strides they are making in this area also. I'm also aware that some dictators in some of these third world countries are so evil they wouldn't even use the money from the church to save their own people, it would go to themselves.

The vast majority of charitable donations go to local wards and stakes. I am a recipient of fast offering funds and hope to again be a donor in the near future as my employment situation improves. The vast majority of tithing goes to operate the physical facilities and programs of the church on the local level from light bulbs to electric bills.

Anyone wanting more dollars to go to humanitarian aid can volunteer to repair and clean ward buildings so the church doesn't have to pay contractors to do it.

Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

dup

Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG

[CASteinman]

But I ask just one CFR from anyone, particularly ERayR, Pahoran and CASteinman . Show me a reference to an Audited Financial Statement of the Church disclosing its Financial activity in terms of dollars and cents in a financial format recognized by GAAP.?? I'll be waiting.

I can show you a reference to it.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/05/church-auditing-department-report

But I suspect you wanted to see the actual financial statements of the Church. You can't ask for that as a CFR because no one has claimed that they are available.

[KevinG]

You can ask for all CFRs you want.

But I ask just one CFR from anyone, particularly ERayR, Pahoran and CASteinman . Show me a reference to an Audited Financial Statement of the Church disclosing its Financial activity in terms of dollars and cents in a financial format recognized by GAAP.?? I'll be waiting.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/church-auditing-department-report-2011?lang=eng

"Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2011 have been recorded and administered in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, approved budgets, and Church policies and procedures."

Answered.