Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

Who cares about  "complete transparency"?  Seriously, even something like what the SVA's do would be fantastic:

 

 

It's not that hard, or monumental.  It's just a simple accounting.

 

cinepro you would probably be alright with something like that but do you seriously think the cricket chorus would then be silent.  It doesn't give enough detail to see where "my" money was spent.  It wasn't really my money I gave it to the Church so it is no longer mine.

Edited August 7, 2014 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

Then you don't really want full disclosure do you.  Whose to say what will satisfy someone else who may want full disclosure.  Can you even imagine printing and distributing a donor list with several million names.

Name one charity or organization that does that.  Specific to what you mention in your post here.

[ERayR]

I think this is the operating principle.

 

I don't see what that has to do with full disclosure of finances.

 

As an individual, financial transparency occurs between me and those to whom I am indebted. Before the bank will loan me money to buy a house, for example, I must surrender to the bank a complete report of my finances. My neighbor does not see that report.

 

I am in charge of a school group that requires that fees be paid to cover necessary expenses such as buses, entry fees, equipment, etc. I keep a spreadsheet of everything. A few years ago a parent questioned the finances. I printed the spreadsheet and we met with the assistant principal. The parent studied the spreadsheet, then left without saying much. It was a short meeting. I inform the parents each year that if they ever have questions about the finances, they are welcome to see the books. It is their money, after all, that I am using to run the program.

 

Would this satisfy you?

 

2012Contributions In US Dollars

Tithe - $2,314,826,002.

Tithe Per Capita - $134.72

Sabbath School Mission Offerings - $73,275,709.

Ingathering - $9,189,884.

Total Tithe and Offerings - $3,276,600,259.

Total Tithe and Offerings Per Capita - $190.69

Adventist Development and Relief Agency International (ADRA)

Countries and Areas of the World Where ADRA is Present* more than - 120

Total Projects Funded* - 1,294

Beneficiaries of Projects* - 12,536,522

Total Value of Aid* - $246,088,214

( * Supporting and Implementing)

[ERayR]

Name one charity or organization that does that.  Specific to what you mention in your post here.

 

I guess they don't really want full disclosure either. 

 

Going from memory didn't Calif Prop 8 donor list get made public?

[wenglund]

As an individual, financial transparency occurs between me and those to whom I am indebted. Before the bank will loan me money to buy a house, for example, I must surrender to the bank a complete report of my finances. My neighbor does not see that report.

 

I see you describing a pragmatic economic principle, not an ethical principle (which is what I was inquiring about). 

 

I am in charge of a school group that requires that fees be paid to cover necessary expenses such as buses, entry fees, equipment, etc. I keep a spreadsheet of everything. A few years ago a parent questioned the finances. I printed the spreadsheet and we met with the assistant principal. The parent studied the spreadsheet, then left without saying much. It was a short meeting. I inform the parents each year that if they ever have questions about the finances, they are welcome to see the books. It is their money, after all, that I am using to run the program.

 

 

There is an important difference between disclosing privately the use of mandatory fees paid on a local level to a secular organization by parties to whom the secular organization is accountable, as contrasted with publicly disclosing the use of alms paid on a national level to a religious organization by parties to whom the religious organization is not accountable. 

 

Even still, you are exemplifying a reasonable economic principle rather than an ethical principle about which I asked.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Gervin]

Just a bump for my question.

For those calling for complete transparency are you comfortable with your name and amount donated on a publicly  distributed report?  That is what complete transparency would require.  Just think what can and has been done with such lists.]

 

 

No, complete transparency requires the removal of all articles of clothing.  I don't advocate that presently, but I'd be inclined to observe some adherents before deciding for sure.  

Seriously.

I don't know of any church, 501c3, "tax-deductible-charity-organizations" (Bob) that would publish the names of donors and the amount given without first getting permission from said donor.

Do you?

[wenglund]

No, complete transparency requires the removal of all articles of clothing.  I don't advocate that presently, but I'd be inclined to observe some adherents before deciding for sure.  

Seriously.

I don't know of any church, 501c3, "tax-deductible-charity-organizations" (Bob) that would publish the names of donors and the amount given without first getting permission from said donor.

Do you?

 

It is encouraging to learn that your mind allows for some measure of privacy in relation to charitable organizations, though I wonder on what basis you draw the line between what ought to be transparent and what should be kept private. Perhaps you could share.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gervin]

It is encouraging to learn that your mind allows for some measure of privacy in relation to charitable organizations, though I wonder on what basis you draw the line between what ought to be transparent and what should be kept private. Perhaps you could share.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It doesn't have anything to do with what my mind allows.  There are privacy "standards," as it were, from HIPPA to attorney-client privileges, etc.  Except as a thank-you (end of the annual report sort of thing), I don't believe that organizations publish donor names and their contributions.

 

As for where I draw the line? Not to be flip, but it depends.  I probably make many dozen unconscious and conscious decisions every day about disclosing information - need to know, protection of business interests, personal decisions, etc.  I think that's the point.  Organizations recognize there are as many definitions of "transparency" as there are people and situations.  And no organization is immune from attempts by people to benefit themselves disproportionately (i.e., they covet and steal).  So, in reaction to this fact, principles were developed for organizations to follow.  Others here have done a good job of pointing these out.

[wenglund]

It doesn't have anything to do with what my mind allows.  There are privacy "standards," as it were, from HIPPA to attorney-client privileges, etc.  Except as a thank-you (end of the annual report sort of thing), I don't believe that organizations publish donor names and their contributions.

 

My mention of "allow" was in regards to your opinion and not in regards to your non-existent legal authority. Obviously.

 

While you don't have authority to dictate what charitable entities must do or not do, you have expressed your mind/opinion here on the matter. I was just pleased to learn that, in your opinion, you believe that charitable organization should have some measure of privacy, whereas before you seemed to opine boundless transparency.

 

 

As for where I draw the line? Not to be flip, but it depends.  I probably make many dozen unconscious and conscious decisions every day about disclosing information - need to know, protection of business interests, personal decisions, etc.  I think that's the point.  Organizations recognize there are as many definitions of "transparency" as there are people and situations.  And no organization is immune from attempts by people to benefit themselves disproportionately (i.e., they covet and steal).  So, in reaction to this fact, principles were developed for organizations to follow.  Others here have done a good job of pointing these out.

 

There have been some mention of general guidelines regarding WHAT various charitable entities should do in regards to transparency, but no meaningful explanation as to WHY those guidelines have been established and ought to be adhered to and should be preferred over other principles, let alone whether they necessarily apply to the Church and its finances  That is why I asked. If you haven't thought things through to the extent to which I have I queried and really can't answer my question, then please feel at liberty to say so and I will leave you be and not waste either of our time.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Thinking]

I see you describing a pragmatic economic principle, not an ethical principle (which is what I was inquiring about). 

 

There is an important difference between disclosing privately the use of mandatory fees paid on a local level to a secular organization by parties to whom the secular organization is accountable, as contrasted with publicly disclosing the use of alms paid on a national level to a religious organization by parties to whom the religious organization is not accountable. 

 

Even still, you are exemplifying a reasonable economic principle rather than an ethical principle about which I asked.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Should a self-described worldwide church be accountable to the world?

[Calm]

Tac: "Jesus said there is no more need for temples since he tore in half the curtain"

CFR please.

Still waiting on a CFR for this statement.

[Analytics]

No. Missionaries teach willing investigators about the gospel of Christ, and when the investigators are converted and wish to be baptized, they are instructed on what such a covenant relationship with Christ will entail. This, in no reasonable sense can be construed as the Church soliciting non-members for money. So, the CFR stands.

 

And, no, the distinction between public and private is not an equivocation (you defy your screen name with your clear misuse of terms like "equivocation"), but a perfectly rational categorization oft formally recognized even by the government:

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Private_Law_vs_Public_Law

http://www.allbusiness.com/business-planning/business-structures/2304-1.html

http://www.ssa.gov/section218training/documents/course_9.doc

http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/emerging-church/public-vs-private-schools/

 

See also:

http://www.zlien.com/articles/faq-is-a-church-a-public-project-or-a-private-commercial-project/

http://501c3.org/blog/public-charity-vs-private-foundation/

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

 

1- The solicitation happens when the missionaries ask the non-members to commit to donating 10% of their income to the Church for the rest of their lives.

 

Asked and answered.

 

2- It all depends on context.  In the context of the BBB Standards for Charity Accountability, members of the Church are a subset of the public, not distinct from the public.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Analytics

[Tacenda]

Still waiting on a CFR for this statement.

Does this help?  It's just stuff the non LDS Christians tend to believe, can you name any other Christian faith with temples, besides the CoC temple?  But we should get back on topic.   

 

The Temple Curtain’s Purpose http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/tearing-of-the-temple-curtain-why-was-this-significant/

The veil was a long, woven curtain that was purple, scarlet and blue.  This curtain or veil was for the purpose of separating the Most Holy Place which held the Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy Seat.  Sitting on top of the Ark was a gold lid.  This was the place for the propitiation of sins by the sprinkling of the innocent sacrifice’s blood.  Only the High Priest could enter this Most Holy Place and only then, once a year on the Day of Atonement.  Propitiation simply means the appeasing of the wrath of God for the sins of mankind.  It provided satisfaction for God for the sinfulness of sin.  If anyone simply walked behind the veil and they were not the High Priest and they did not do so on the Day of Atonement, that person would immediately die.  It was a protection against a casual act of infringing upon the Most Holy Place which represented the very real presence of God.  No one could look at God and live (Exodus 33:20) because He is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29).  The Shekinah-glory that was shining above the Mercy Seat would annihilate anyone but the High Priest and so the temple’s veil protected humans from instant death.  The veil was a symbol of the separation of God from sinful mankind.  It marked the boundary between God’s pure holiness and the wickedness of mankind.  It was not possible to go beyond the veil because our sins have separated us from a Holy God. The profane and the Holy can not be joined together.

 

Jesus died at the exact moment that the sacrifice for Passover was held.  At that same time that Jesus breathed His last breath, the temple veil was rent.  The veil’s being torn, by God Himself, symbolized the fact that mankind’s separation from God had been removed by Jesus’ supreme sacrifice at Calvary.  Since Jesus was without blemish, without sin, and kept the Law perfectly for us, His death was the propitiation or satisfaction of the wrath of God against humanities sins.  Isaiah 59:2 declares that “your iniquities [or sins] have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear you.” Now that Jesus’ once and for all sacrifice was given, we now have access to the very throne of God.  Before, He would not even hear us, not to mention allow us to approach Him.

 

 

http://www.templemount.org/whytemp.html

 

The New Testament also teaches that God corporately in the midst of the gathered community of his people. Each believer, a living stone, has been fitted into an invisible building which constitutes a dwelling place for God in the Spirit:

 

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands---remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:11-22)

Edited August 8, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

So there is nothing that Jesus actually said about this, just conclusions drawn from their interpretations of others' words.

[wenglund]

Should a self-described worldwide church be accountable to the world?

 

No. Both are accountable to God, and the church is designed to enable the world to give a good accounting to God. For whatever reason, much of the world seems to view this upside-down--i.e. where God and his church are accountable to the world.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1- The solicitation happens when the missionaries ask the non-members to commit to donating 10% of their income to the Church for the rest of their lives.

 

Asked and answered.

 

2- It all depends on context.  In the context of the BBB Standards for Charity Accountability, members of the Church are a subset of the public, not distinct from the public.

 

Wrong and wrong as previously demonstrated. However, you seem intent on not getting it and in repeating your errors, and so it would be pointless to continue in this vein with you. Have a nice day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

So there is nothing that Jesus actually said about this, just conclusions drawn from their interpretations of others' words.

So the bible is wrong, yet we have the actual scrolls from when Jesus walked the earth. Or we don't trust the scribe, as much as the scribe and prophets that didn't live while Jesus walked the earth?

[saemo]

So there is nothing that Jesus actually said about this, just conclusions drawn from their interpretations of others' words.

There are multiple reasons for viewing the Jewish temple as no longer needed:

 

- Jesus called Himself the Temple, that would be raised in 3 days.

- The only time the NT records Jesus saying the word covenant, is at the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted HIMSELF as the New Covenant and all who have been baptized as belonging to this Covenant. Again, an indicator that the Jewish temple, and its sacrificial rites, are fulfilled in Him.

- That gentiles were not required to become Jews, to adhere to the Law, is an indication that the Jewish temple was not required for Christian practice or worship. If it were, then non-Jew converts to early Christianity would have been required to become Jewish before becoming Christian. This means that non-Jews who had converted to Christ would have been denied temple entrance, and if the temple were required for Christian practice, this would have been a sign that they weren't really Christian after all.

- In the Letter to the Hebrews explanation is given for how Jesus fulfills the role of the High Priest, who made sacrifices at the temple on behalf of the People of God. The temple sacrifice was done as an atonement for the sins of the people. Approaching the Father, in the Holy of Holies, and offering sacrifices on behalf of the people is fulfilled entirely, once and for all, in Jesus Christ. He is our High Priest forever. We approach God through Christ and all nations are made a Holy People, through Him.

- At the institution of the New Covenant, Jesus places Himself forever in our midst in the Eucharist. Jesus, who is God, dwells Body and Blood, in every Catholic and Orthodox Church. Obviously, this is Catholic/Orthodox, but also obvious, is this is an ancient practice, rooted in the institution of the New Covenant at the Last Supper.

- St. Paul teaches that the baptized are the living stones of God's temple. How can this be so, other than an understanding the Jesus, who is God, incorporates us into Himself, Body and Blood, and so we become what He is. The Body of Christ, His Church, is the temple of God.

 

Hope that helps.

[ERayR]

Should a self-described worldwide church be accountable to the world?

 

Deleted

Edited August 8, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

So the bible is wrong, yet we have the actual scrolls from when Jesus walked the earth. Or we don't trust the scribe, as much as the scribe and prophets that didn't live while Jesus walked the earth?

I was waiting for your CFR answers also:  For me this is a non-answer but I'll leave it to Cal as to whether her CFR was answered.

[wenglund]

There are multiple reasons for viewing the Jewish temple as no longer needed:

 

- Jesus called Himself the Temple, that would be raised in 3 days.

- The only time the NT records Jesus saying the word covenant, is at the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted HIMSELF as the New Covenant and all who have been baptized as belonging to this Covenant. Again, an indicator that the Jewish temple, and its sacrificial rites, are fulfilled in Him.

- That gentiles were not required to become Jews, to adhere to the Law, is an indication that the Jewish temple was not required for Christian practice or worship. If it were, then non-Jew converts to early Christianity would have been required to become Jewish before becoming Christian. This means that non-Jews who had converted to Christ would have been denied temple entrance, and if the temple were required for Christian practice, this would have been a sign that they weren't really Christian after all.

- In the Letter to the Hebrews explanation is given for how Jesus fulfills the role of the High Priest, who made sacrifices at the temple on behalf of the People of God. The temple sacrifice was done as an atonement for the sins of the people. Approaching the Father, in the Holy of Holies, and offering sacrifices on behalf of the people is fulfilled entirely, once and for all, in Jesus Christ. He is our High Priest forever. We approach God through Christ and all nations are made a Holy People, through Him.

- At the institution of the New Covenant, Jesus places Himself forever in our midst in the Eucharist. Jesus, who is God, dwells Body and Blood, in every Catholic and Orthodox Church. Obviously, this is Catholic/Orthodox, but also obvious, is this is an ancient practice, rooted in the institution of the New Covenant at the Last Supper.

- St. Paul teaches that the baptized are the living stones of God's temple. How can this be so, other than an understanding the Jesus, who is God, incorporates us into Himself, Body and Blood, and so we become what He is. The Body of Christ, His Church, is the temple of God.

 

Hope that helps.

 

That is a reasonable way of looking at it, though not the only reasonable consideration. After all, early church fathers continued to attend the temple following Christ's death and resurrection. 

 

And, its not necessarily that Christ did away with certain laws like sacrifice and circumcision, but rather he changed the way in which those laws were to be expressed, ritually or otherwise. I don't have time to look up biblical citation in support thereof, but at least that is how I see it.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Sleeper Cell]

Should a self-described worldwide church be accountable to the world?

Considering how the world has treated the prophets and apostles,  no. 

[ERayR]

Should a self-described worldwide church be accountable to the world?

 

Whose Church is it?  The worlds or God's?

[Vance]

So the bible is wrong, yet we have the actual scrolls from when Jesus walked the earth. Or we don't trust the scribe, as much as the scribe and prophets that didn't live while Jesus walked the earth?

So, in other words, no where in scripture is it recorded that Jesus said what you claimed he said.

Got it.

[Vance]

Post resurrection Christian usage of the temple.

Act 3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

2 And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.

• • •

8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

Acts 5:20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.

21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.

• • •

24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.

25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.

• • •

42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

Acts 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

Acts 24:18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.

Acts 26:21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.