L D S Membership Numbers

[Calm]

For those that support the current reporting status quo...and would prefer that things be left just the way they are, that you have all the information that you or anyone else would ever need... I ask these questions:

What exactly are you afraid of?

Why assume one is afraid? Are there really no other possibilities in your mind on why it could be....such as perfectly happy to leave the decision in someone else's stewardship?

[ERayR]

For those that support the current reporting status quo...and would prefer that things be left just the way they are, that you have all the information that you or anyone else would ever need... I ask these questions:

What exactly are you afraid of? When is releasing additional information not a good thing? When is light shown into a dark place a bad thing...unless there is something that needs to be hidden. So what is the reason to hide this information? Would you be ok with your government hidding its statistics and financial information and just saying trust us...we have your best interests in mind.

I just don't understand the push back...I would think that we all could agree that making more information about the realities of the church more available to the public would be a good policy...unless there is a something they are trying to hide from the membership.

You are making assumptions not in evidence. Produce the evidence that it is out of fear. While your at it produce the evidence that there is a need for additional information. In the case of government there is ample evidence that additional evidence is needed.

All in all it just doesn't make any sense to produce reams and reams of information for you to look through for things that are none of your business. The rest of us trust those whose stewardship it is.

[rockpond]

The rest of us trust those whose stewardship it is.

I think that's your answer Johnnie Cake... It's not a matter of fear. I think the issue is that those who do not see a need for the church to release additional information on membership may feel that asking for it is to display a lack of trust in the Brethren.

[Thinking]

What is the real purpose of gathering numbers? Frankly, I think we put far less confidence in them than our friendly Exmos that make all the fuss about membership numbers. They create a standard no organization meets, cry foul at how brazenly the LDS Church does not meet their standard, while of persecution should another dare demonstrate how stupid their pursuit for these specific numbers, and then if they were created just to shut them up, they would tell the story of how controlling the LDS Church is. This is black while of whining that will never end. The Church handles it well by firmly ignoring them.

It's very simple. The LDS Church publishes its total membertship, but not its attendance. It publishes its donations to humanitarian relief, but not its incoming donations. It uses phrases like modest living allowance, but doesn't define what modest is. In short, it only publishes half of the information, which raises questions and encourages speculation.

[Johnnie Cake]

You are making assumptions not in evidence. Produce the evidence that it is out of fear. While your at it produce the evidence that there is a need for additional information. In the case of government there is ample evidence that additional evidence is needed.

All in all it just doesn't make any sense to produce reams and reams of information for you to look through for things that are none of your business. The rest of us trust those whose stewardship it is.

I'm merely asking questions...so if not fear...why not just open the books? There may be other legitimate reasons for keeping this information among the top 15...that’s ok...why not share the reasons why?

I ask these questions knowing that in the long and short run it will make no difference...things will continue along in their merry way

I acknowledge that members of the church trust church authories...I too believe that they are worthy of that trust...but why doesn't the church trust its members in the same way...by respecting them enough to trust them with this information

Edited June 10, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

may feel that asking for it is to display a lack of trust in the Brethren.

Not that either....but I don't ask because I do trust. I assume that others are curious for a variety of reasons, some of which are valid and some are just inappropriate.

[Calm]

I'm merely asking questions...so if not fear...why not just open the books?

Why must the first reason always be fear?

I don't know why they don't open the books, I don't care why...I am not particularly interested in my own accounts, for those that do, feel free to write and ask them the reason. Anything else would be speculation and hardly satisfying and certainly not able to be used to dismiss someone's claim that it is all fear motivated since they can just ignore any reason as speculation.

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I'm merely asking questions...so if not fear...why not just open the books? There may be other legitimate reasons for keeping this information among the top 15...that’s ok...why not share the reasons why?

I ask these questions knowing that in the long and short run it will make no difference...things will continue along in their merry way

I acknowledge that members of the church trust church authories...I too believe that they are worthy of that trust...but why doesn't the church trust its members in the same way...by respecting them enough to trust them with this information

All your sophistry to the contrary you are merely stirring the pot. Your concern for all of the poor benighted souls who haven't enough intelligence to take care of ourselves is noted. However, I would ask that in the interest of full disclosure that your publish here why your interest. In the meantime in the vernacular of my backwoods ancestors you are one trouble makin dawg so git off the porch.

Edited June 11, 2013 by ERayR

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

When I joined there were around 4,000,00 (most living in the West, now the South taking her place)...I liked being different. Still do, if you think about it other than the 4 years in Germany, the rest of the time in Georgia, so in a way I am an early pioneer. True I did not push a hand-cart...but did a lot to help establish Zion here. When I came home from Germany (West Germany then) there was only one Temple east of the Mississippi...many Temple trips. Was at groundbreaking, dedication, rededication...re-rededication of Atlanta Temple. Had to edit my last sentence...had no idea what IPad turned it into before.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bikeemikey]

I'm merely asking questions...so if not fear...why not just open the books? There may be other legitimate reasons for keeping this information among the top 15...that’s ok...why not share the reasons why?

I ask these questions knowing that in the long and short run it will make no difference...things will continue along in their merry way

I acknowledge that members of the church trust church authories...I too believe that they are worthy of that trust...but why doesn't the church trust its members in the same way...by respecting them enough to trust them with this information

I'm totally happy with the church disclosing more information, I am in favor of it. However, I am I am not inclined to agree with this "urgent need" johnnie cake is talking about.

So what do you want the additional information for? What are you hoping to find?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Johnnie Cake]

You're all correct...I have no right to ask anything...if y'all are happy not knowing...then I certainly shouldn't care

But wouldn't it be nice to know they cared enough to include members, cared enough to trust members...

Edited June 11, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[ERayR]

You're all correct...I have no right to demand anything...if y'all are happy not knowing...the I certainly shouldn't care

But wouldn't it be nice to know they cared enough to include members, cared enough to trust members...

You forget one principle of giving. The time to worry about these questions is before you give. Then if you are not satisfied, don't give. Once you have given you relinquish ownership to that gift and it becomes the property of the donee and you have no grounds to ask or demand anything.

If you want to get technical it might be argued that you didn't pay tithes and offerings at all. With that kind of donations you obviously took some very large tax deductions. That being the case it can be argued that your donations were subsidized by your tax breaks therefor the US of A made your donations for you. Contrast that with those who pay tithes without getting a tax deduction.

[Stone holm]

I really could care less about the numbers and my guess would be for most members the only numbers they think about, if they do think about it is how many active attending members and full tithepayers do we need to get a chapel expansion. I believe that to the extent we are basing our membership claims on members of record most actives would kind of think that a bit distorted since some of those people haven't darkened the doors of the Church in years. But who really cares?

[Thinking]

If you want to get technical it might be argued that you didn't pay tithes and offerings at all. With that kind of donations you obviously took some very large tax deductions. That being the case it can be argued that your donations were subsidized by your tax breaks therefor the US of A made your donations for you. Contrast that with those who pay tithes without getting a tax deduction.

A tax deduction is much different than a tax credit. A tax deduction reduces the taxable income. A tax credit is subtracted from the owed tax.

Suppose the tax rate is 20% and your income is $1000. 20% of $1000 is $200. Because you paid $100 in tithing you take a tax deduction. You are now only taxed on $900. 20% of $900 is $180. Your $100 tithing donation saved you $20 in tax. Tithing ($100) + Taxes ($180) = $280

If tithing was counted as a tax credit (which it isn't), the $100 in tithing would be subtracted from the owed tax ($200), reducing it to $100.

[Calm]

But wouldn't it be nice to know they cared enough to include members, cared enough to trust members...

And there is nothing to indicate that they don't just because they don't act according to the standards you have set for them.

[Johnnie Cake]

And there is nothing to indicate that they don't just because they don't act according to the standards you have set for them.

Yeah I agree...my standards would include full disclosure and open books..clearly not the standards they wish to go by

[Tacenda]

They take rolls, why would they need to do another count?

I guess I'm not understanding. So there is someone who passes a roll around in GD or GE class or stands there, like I did, and takes roll? I've never seen it. In the 80's I would take roll as the SS secretary every week and keep totals then report each month or every 3 months, my memory is foggy. So they still do this?

[ERayR]

A tax deduction is much different than a tax credit. A tax deduction reduces the taxable income. A tax credit is subtracted from the owed tax.

Suppose the tax rate is 20% and your income is $1000. 20% of $1000 is $200. Because you paid $100 in tithing you take a tax deduction. You are now only taxed on $900. 20% of $900 is $180. Your $100 tithing donation saved you $20 in tax. Tithing ($100) + Taxes ($180) = $280

If tithing was counted as a tax credit (which it isn't), the $100 in tithing would be subtracted from the owed tax ($200), reducing it to $100.

I know exactly what a deduction is and what a credit is. You need not lecture me on taxes, I do them for a living. In your hypothetical you would not be paying $100 in tithing. $100 - $20 tax savings = $80 you paid $20 being reimbursed by tax savings. The tithing check was $100 but who really paid it. Don't get me wrong I am not advocating turning down the deduction. In Johnny's case if he is accurate in his claims of $100,000's of thousands of dollars his tax rate would have been closer to 35%,

Edited June 11, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

I guess I'm not understanding. So there is someone who passes a roll around in GD or GE class or stands there, like I did, and takes roll? I've never seen it. In the 80's I would take roll as the SS secretary every week and keep totals then report each month or every 3 months, my memory is foggy. So they still do this?

Yes.

[Tacenda]

Yeah I agree...my standards would include full disclosure and open books..clearly not the standards they wish to go by

Saw this petition online, http://bycommonconsent.org/ it's to open up the financial records of the church. Thought you'd like to know.

[seriously honestly]

Themselves? No.

Obviously as long as their names are on the records the active LDS would consider all 14m to be LDS (it's just that they're currently a 'lost sheep')

Are there any records that would show what the number of active LDS is compared to inactive?

[Sleeper Cell]

For those that support the current reporting status quo...and would prefer that things be left just the way they are, that you have all the information that you or anyone else would ever need... I ask these questions:

What exactly are you afraid of? When is releasing additional information not a good thing? When is light shown into a dark place a bad thing...unless there is something that needs to be hidden. So what is the reason to hide this information? Would you be ok with your government hidding its statistics and financial information and just saying trust us...we have your best interests in mind.

I just don't understand the push back...I would think that we all could agree that making more information about the realities of the church more available to the public would be a good policy...unless there is a something they are trying to hide from the membership.

Saw this petition online, http://bycommonconsent.org/ it's to open up the financial records of the church. Thought you'd like to know.

Perhaps the Church should disclose the membership status and tithing status (and even the amount of tithing paid) for each person who signs this petition. After all, what are the petition signers afraid of? When is light shown into a dark place a bad thing, unless there is something that needs to be hidden? I would think that we could all agree that making more information available to the public would be a good thing, unless there is something the petition signers are trying to hide from the membership.

Perhaps the next such petition should require each signer to append a copy of his canceled checks and other tithing documents. After all, a petition singed by a thousand full tithe payers would have far more credibility. (and potential influence) than one that could be signed by anybody, including non-members.

The only proper answer to the question/innuendo “What have you got to hide? is “none of your business.”

Would you be ok with your government hidding its statistics and financial information and just saying trust us...we have your best interests in mind.

For starters, paying tithing is a voluntary act of faith. Paying taxes is not. Being subject to Church jurisdiction (Church membership) is voluntary. Being subject to governmental jurisdiction is not.

[Thinking]

I know exactly what a deduction is and what a credit is. You need not lecture me on taxes, I do them for a living. In your hypothetical you would not be paying $100 in tithing. $100 - $20 tax savings = $80 you paid $20 being reimbursed by tax savings. The tithing check was $100 but who really paid it. Don't get me wrong I am not advocating turning down the deduction. In Johnny's case if he is accurate in his claims of $100,000's of thousands of dollars his tax rate would have been closer to 35%,

Sorry, but what else am I to think when you say

If you want to get technical it might be argued that you didn't pay tithes and offerings at all.

[ERayR]

Sorry, but what else am I to think when you say

Am I not allowed a little hyperbole?

[Thinking]

Am I not allowed a little hyperbole?

Having explained the difference between a deduction and a credit to countless (there's my hyperbole) people, and with many of them believing that a deduction acted like a credit, I would say that using hyperbole in this context is inappropriate.