Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[cinepro]

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-

Really?  

 

Honestly, if that's the level of thinking you bring to the subject, the I don't blame you for feeling the way you do.

 

How about this.  What was good enough for the members in 1957 is good enough for now.  Just have the Church do now what they did then.

 

Edited August 8, 2014 by cinepro

[USU78]

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?

 

Not correct.  The earliest extant Christian document is the St John Fragment, which dates to between 100-150 AD/CE: http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/ .  The DSS, to which I believe you are referring, are not Christian documents.

[wenglund]

Really?  

 

Honestly, if that's the level of thinking you bring to the subject, the I don't blame you for feeling the way you do.

 

My acknowledging that a line has been drawn between transparency and privacy, and asking for the basis upon which that line was drawn, can in no rational sense be consider an argumentum absurdum. Rather, claiming that it is such simply manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of the conventions of logic, if not also some serious comprehension challenges.

 

How about this.  What was good enough for the members in 1957 is good enough for now.  Just have the Church do now what they did then.

 

That might make some sense in an unchanging world. In principle it is akin to suggesting that since rotary/corded phones were good enough in 1957, they are good enough today, or if it was good enough to go to war against Japan in 1941 then it is good enough to go to war against Japan today.

 

As you say...really?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

Not correct.  The earliest extant Christian document is the St John Fragment, which dates to between 100-150 AD/CE: > http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/ .  The DSS, to which I believe you are referring, are not Christian documents.

 

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm

 

Quote from the article, the whole of it very interesting...

 

"Finally, after a public relations campaign demanded the release of the unpublished scrolls to other scholars, the last of the unpublished scrolls were released to the academic world. To the great joy and surprise of many scholars, the scrolls contain definite references to the New Testament and, most importantly, to Jesus of Nazareth. In the last few years several significant scrolls were released that shed new light on the New Testament and the life of Jesus. One of the most extraordinary of these scrolls released in 1991 actually referred directly to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ."

Edited August 8, 2014 by Tacenda

[USU78]

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm

 

Quote from the article, the whole of it very interesting...

 

"Finally, after a public relations campaign demanded the release of the unpublished scrolls to other scholars, the last of the unpublished scrolls were released to the academic world. To the great joy and surprise of many scholars, the scrolls contain definite references to the New Testament and, most importantly, to Jesus of Nazareth. In the last few years several significant scrolls were released that shed new light on the New Testament and the life of Jesus. One of the most extraordinary of these scrolls released in 1991 actually referred directly to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ."

 

From a review of Jeffrey's book, which is based upon the same information as the online article you cite:

 

Jeffrey claims that Jesus is mentioned in the scrolls. This is not true. There are prophecies about the messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but no specific mention of Jesus. Most date before Christ was born. The "Pierced Messiah" text, 4Q285 is highly questionable (See BAR 18:4, 80-82). 4Q246 is a Messianic pseudo-Daniel fragment in Aramaic that mentions "son of God" who is extremely warlike (Eisenman & Wise 1992, 68-69). This is hardly a description of Jesus and his ministry.

Jeffrey claims that the New Testament is quoted in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He claims there is a fragment of Mark 6:52-53 and several other New Testament verses. He refers to an article in Bible Review (December 1995), but this article is refuting his view. The best scholars who have analyzed the texts do not see any New Testament quotes in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

Linkee:  https://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/jeffrey.htm

[Scott Lloyd]

So, I noticed today that Daniel Peterson has posted on my Interpreter Foundation birthday thread.

He said there that Interpreter is financially transparent, and he posted a link to a financial statement.

Having been in this thread, I reflected that someone might use this as an occasion to say, "If it's OK for Daniel Peterson and Interpreter, why not for the Church of Jesus Christ?"

Then, I reflected on this rather ambient assumption that there is some sort of transcendent moral or ethical imperative for an organization or entity that receives donations to tell anyone and everyone how the money is spent in detail.

I gotta say, I still don't see it.

I'm a contributor to Interpreter. I asked myself whether I would have contributed had there been no public financial disclosure. The answer is yes. If Dan and his team want to be transparent, that's fine, but it has no bearing on my decision to donate. Why? Because I trust them to use the money in alignment with their mission, a mission of which I wholeheartedly approve.

Yesterday, I made my donation to FairMormon. I have no idea whether they make their financials public; I don't care whether they do. I know Scott Gordon and several of the FairMormon officers, and I trust them implicitly to use donated funds in a mission-aligned way, and I approve of the mission.

I see this as comparable to making donations to the Church. I don't want or need a detailed accounting of expenditures. I'm not concerned about that. It's not why I donate. I do it primarily to fulfill a commandment from God. Once the donation is made, my responsibility is discharged. It is between God and His authorized servants to determine how to spend the funds. I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about it. I have enough on my plate as it is.

We might occasionally see an anomaly here and there, but it is my impression that an overwhelming majority of faithful Latter-day Saints feel as I do on this matter.

It may be prudent for Interpreter or Billy Graham or Protestant churches or others to be financially transparent, for one thing, to assuage or calm the apprehensions of otherwise wary potential donors. But that is a pragmatic, not an ethical, consideration. If the entity is honest and ethical in the way it uses donated funds, and if enough donors can be convinced of that, then all is copacetic, with or without financial transparency.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

...Then, I reflected on this rather ambient assumption that there is some sort of transcendent moral or ethical imperative for an organization or entity that receives donations to tell anyone and everyone how the money is spent in detail.

I gotta say, I still don't see it.

 

Regarding “why”, there are many reasons.  Here are two big ones:

 

First, just as a teenage boy would probably have different Internet habits if he surfs the Internet in the family room on a computer that logs every website visited than he’d have on a private computer in his locked bedroom, a church or charity would probably spend its money differently if their donors and potential donors know the details of its financial statements than it would if such things were held private.  (Whether the LDS Church would behave differently if it were financially transparent is a matter of pure speculation that I’ll refrain from speculating on.)

 

Second, like everybody else, LDS members should consider the wise stewardship of their financial resources a moral obligation.  Being a wise steward entails only donating money to transparent churches and charities, and making sure that you are okay with how that church or charity handles its finances. 

 

The fact of the matter is that there are many churches and charities that aren’t financially transparent.  Dave Ramsey often comments about this on his radio show and says if a church or charity doesn’t want to be financially transparent that’s fine; that’s their right.  But he follows up by saying that it is his right to choose not to donate to financially opaque organizations, and that he never does, and that he never will. 

 

Every organization that is financially opaque has its excuses: the public wouldn’t understand, it would be distracting to the work, etc.  All of those organizations ask people to trust them based on blind trust, emotions, prayer, etc.  Many of these organizations actually spend the money they collect very differently than what their donors assume.

 

The LDS Church puts its members who are wise financial stewards in an awkward, compromising situation.  It solicits donations without giving the people from whom it solicits the information necessary to do so as wise stewards who trust, but verify.  Putting people in this type of compromising situation is not of the highest ethics.

[Helmuth]

I'm not too worried about this, certainly, but I do agree with Analytic's last post.  It would be nice if the Church gave a report of what it was spending its money on.  It used to, of course, until the 60s.  It would be nice to get back to doing that.  I'd support it.

[ERayR]

I'm not too worried about this, certainly, but I do agree with Analytic's last post.  It would be nice if the Church gave a report of what it was spending its money on.  It used to, of course, until the 60s.  It would be nice to get back to doing that.  I'd support it.

Don't you get a clue when you go to church in a nice building with ample instructional material and don't have a budget assessment?  When you go to a temple not far from where you live and participate in temple worship in beautiful surroundings.  When someone needs help and gets food and supplies to help them through.  When a natural disaster occurs and truck loads and plane loads arrive very quickly to render aid.  Or did you think that just happens?

[cinepro]

The really odd thing is that we're supposed to pretend that the Church has always been a wise steward of the Lord's money.  This hasn't always been the case.  As recently as the 1960s, even a well-meaning leader such as President Henry Moyle could make bad financial decisions.
 
Now, even if we acknowledge the possibility, I guess it still doesn't make that much of a difference.  A can't imagine a faithful LDS not paying tithing based on the disposition of the funds, and from what I can tell there's nothing the Church can do to get people who don't want to pay their tithing to start doing so.  I mean, when you're making an argument for why the poorest people especially need to pay tithing by promising them they'll "always have food on their tables" when that really isn't true, there's not much more to say.

[cinepro]

Don't you get a clue when you go to church in a nice building with ample instructional material and don't have a budget assessment? 

 

For the majority of the Church's existence, members did pay a "budget assessment" to get Temples and meetinghouses built.  And that was above and beyond their tithing. 

[ERayR]

For the majority of the Church's existence, members did pay a "budget assessment" to get Temples and meetinghouses built.  And that was above and beyond their tithing. 

 

That is my point.

[Teancum]

I am curious. To the vocal opponents of the church publishing it's financial statements and becoming more financially transparent, would you vocally oppose the church as voraciously as you are now in the area of financial transparency if tomorrow the church leaders decided to become more transparent and publish their financial statements?

[ERayR]

I am curious. To the vocal opponents of the church publishing it's financial statements and becoming more financially transparent, would you vocally oppose the church as voraciously as you are now in the area of financial transparency if tomorrow the church leaders decided to become more transparent and publish their financial statements?

 

Nope, in fact I don't oppose the Church publishing financial statements at all.  What I oppose is the critics and anti's constant clamor for something that is none of their business.  It is up to the GA's how they handle it. after all it is the Churches money once it is given the funds no longer belong to the donor.  That is why it is called giving.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ERayR

[Calm]

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?

No, it is the interpretations I am questioning.

[Guest]

To the OP...you can actually go online somewhere and see the homes that Prophets and Apostles have lived in, very modest. Also when you consider that most clergy get paid little to nothing I would think anything over $80,000 a year would be outrageous to others. Keep in mind that Apostles are not only ecclesiastical, but also oversee with the Presiding Bishop office the Churches commercial holdings with allow the Church to build debt free for the most part...well a LARGE part. Keep in mind when you speak of averages, you would roll into that the 10,000's of ministers, via all Priesthood holders who serve locally who get paid nothing. Most mega Churches who fund a lot of the efforts of others make $1,000,000's doing so. I would give a link, but I am not going to do what they do to us.

[Gervin]

Nope, in fact I don't oppose the Church publishing financial statements at all.  What I oppose is the critics and anti's constant clamor for something that is none of their business.  It is up to the GA's how they handle it. after all it is the Churches money once it is given the funds no longer belong to the donor.  That is why it is called giving.

 

Someone, earlier, wrote about the clamor the antis would create if the LDS books were opened.  It's nothing but constant clamoring from the antis, isn't it?  Which, if the case, means that nothing would be different, so the LDS has nothing to fear, right?

 

But really - what kind of numbers are we talking about here - the number of antis constantly clamoring for more disclosure?  Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  (None seemed to show up on this thread.) And what is the membership of the church?  

 

Enough rhetorical questions.  

[ERayR]

Someone, earlier, wrote about the clamor the antis would create if the LDS books were opened.  It's nothing but constant clamoring from the antis, isn't it?  Which, if the case, means that nothing would be different, so the LDS has nothing to fear, right?

 

But really - what kind of numbers are we talking about here - the number of antis constantly clamoring for more disclosure?  Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  (None seemed to show up on this thread.) And what is the membership of the church?  

 

Enough rhetorical questions.  

 

Answer to rhetorical questions (does that make it a rhetorical answer?) It is irrelevant how many there are, one or thousands it is none of there business they do not give anyway and if they did it is still irrelevant because once you give it is not yours anymore hence the term giving.  Do not to claim it is to decide if they want to give.  That is lame.

[Acretiondisc]

Didn't Elder Perry say in a recent GC address that he and his family live in a condo somewhere? I definately think someone should call Robin Leach, the host of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, over that one!

[Gervin]

Answer to rhetorical questions (does that make it a rhetorical answer?) It is irrelevant how many there are, one or thousands it is none of there business they do not give anyway and if they did it is still irrelevant because once you give it is not yours anymore hence the term giving.  Do not to claim it is to decide if they want to give.  That is lame.

Here's a question.  There have been three or four members of the LDS Church post on this thread say that they'd like to see the church be more open with their finances.  Can you provide the names of three or four antis that are 'constantly clamoring' for more disclosure?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Gervin

[ERayR]

Here's a question.  There have been three or four members of the LDS Church post on this thread say that they'd like to see the church be more open with their finances.  Can you provide the names of three or four antis that are 'constantly clamoring' for more disclosure?

 

I could but they might object to being called an anti and I don't want to get that debate started again..

Edited August 9, 2014 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

For the majority of the Church's existence, members did pay a "budget assessment" to get Temples and meetinghouses built. And that was above and beyond their tithing.

Yep, remember those days.

[Gervin]

I could but they might object to being called an anti and I don't want to get that debate started again..

oh.

good call.

[thesometimesaint]

Nope, in fact I don't oppose the Church publishing financial statements at all.  What I oppose is the critics and anti's constant clamor for something that is none of their business.  It is up to the GA's how they handle it. after all it is the Churches money once it is given the funds no longer belong to the donor.  That is why it is called giving.

 

Agreed.

[Jeanne]

If the church wants to make some points here and at least clarify to critics of their monetary allocations they should be more forthcoming.  Wouldn't you like to have one day where they don't call City Creek, the Jesus Mall?  If there is nothing to hide then what is the big deal?