Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[Scott Lloyd]

The church has to produce and make public it's financial accounts here in the UK. All registered charities do.

Obviously, the accounts are limited to it's UK operations only. The British authorities have no interest in the church's financial activities elswhere.

So I take it, then, that you can't produce a spreadsheet in the UK that shows, say, the income of the Church of Jesus Christ at a headquarters level, how much money is spent for this or that purpose, etc. And thus, JohnnyCake's challenge is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Alan]

So I take it, then, that you can't produce a spreadsheet in the UK that shows, say, the income of the Church of Jesus Christ at a headquarters level, how much money is spent for this or that purpose, etc. And thus, JohnnyCake's challenge is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

 

So I take it, then, that you can't produce a spreadsheet in the UK that shows, say, the income of the Church of Jesus Christ at a headquarters level, how much money is spent for this or that purpose, etc. And thus, JohnnyCake's challenge is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I don't think he said one could. As far as I can see he was merely pointing out that the church in the UK, NZ, Australia and elsewhere does almost exactly what many people think it should do at a headquarters church-wide level.

I don't really understand your point.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think he said one could. As far as I can see he was merely pointing out that the church in the UK, NZ, Australia and elsewhere does almost exactly what many people think it should do at a headquarters church-wide level.

I don't really understand your point.

My point is that the extent of information  the Church is forced to disclose in foreign countries is, by your own admission, quite limited; too limited, perhaps, for the Church's enemies to wreak the sort of havoc they might attempt if they had access to the books at headquarters.

[Alan]

My point is that the extent of information  the Church is forced to disclose in foreign countries is, by your own admission, quite limited; too limited, perhaps, for the Church's enemies to wreak the sort of havoc they might attempt if they had access to the books at headquarters.

 

My point is that the extent of information  the Church is forced to disclose in foreign countries is, by your own admission, quite limited; too limited, perhaps, for the Church's enemies to wreak the sort of havoc they might attempt if they had access to the books at headquarters.

 

OK.

Yes, I think you're right.

[Analytics]

One would have to strain mightily to miss the point, and here you have succeed. Such a feat is only possible for those stridently intent on finding fault with the restored gospel.

 

There is a reason it sticks in you craw whether churches you don't belong to publicize their finances or not, and it has nothing to do with you being the paragon of ethics, though it may have much to do with you failing to get a life.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Ad hominem; nice.

 

Personally, I really don’t care if your church is financially transparent—much less how it spends its money.  I really don’t.

 

So what is my point on this thread? 

 

At the top of this thread, Gervin said he couldn’t get his mind around why a church or charity wouldn’t embrace the concept of accountability, and went on to clarify that accountability does in fact mean being financially transparent, i.e. making your balance sheet and income statement available for all to see.  Those are in fact mainstream sensibilities.

 

Scott Lloyd responded that that notion is, “absolutely ridiculous on its face.”

 

I found his comment so upside down I was a bit shocked.  I entered the thread with the single point that this concept isn’t at all ridiculous—it is a mainstream view of how churches and charities ought to operate.

 

What I would hope is that the next time somebody says, “I don’t get why the LDS Church chooses not to be transparent,” that the apologetic response will be, “That’s a good question—financial transparency is in fact something that more and more people expect out of churches and charities.  Our church chooses not to be financially transparent because…”

 

Finance and corporate governance are big parts of my life, and the governance of churches is a closely related issue.  I happen to find this issue interesting, and thought it would be fun personal challenge to see if I could explain these principles to a defensive and hostile audience.

 

Explaining mainstream thought on the best practices regarding the transparency and accountability of churches and charities is not the same thing as finding fault with your particular religion.

[ERayR]

Yes, the bishop cannot delegate receiving those tithing declarations.  In my dialogue with thesometimesaint, I was referring specifically to the process of making sure that an individual's recorded payments match what the church has recorded.  Than can, and often is, done between member & clerk without the involvement of the bishop.

 

[Tacenda]

My Catholic ex-husband was required to annually pledge to the church how much money he was going to put in the offering plate each week. This was tracked closely and if you fell short of your pledge, there were consequences.

As a Jew, whatever synagogue I desired to be a member of, set an amount that was required as "dues". This amount was the same for every member of that synagogue, whether you made minimum wage or millions. If you didn't pay, you were not a member "in good standing". Again, every penny was tracked. Indeed, you received a bill every month. If you felt that you couldn't pay the same dues as the person who made ten times as you, you had to appeal to the powers that be and open up every detail of your finances. You were likely to be turned down.

In both of these situations, there were also charges for practically everything....Sunday School...life passages and the equivalent of our ordinances ($1000 dollars to the rabbi for a wedding ritual that took minutes).....having to buy tickets to attend High Holiday services...the list gos on and on.

I have no problem with my bishop asking annually if I am a full-tithe payer. All I have to do is say yes or no.

Well that puts things in perspective. My bishop just married my son and daughter in law!  He made mention they are not to get a fee of any kind.  Hopefully he isn't too upset with our thank you card with restaurant gift card.  We had a couple of them to give, but thought better to keep it at one gift card, because of the comment he had made, don't remember why that came up.  This will be the third bishop to have married my children.  That is an awesome service given to those that aren't getting married in the temple, which BTW, might be counterproductive. 

Edited August 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[omni]

The church makes certain decisions based on a measure of a unit's tithing worthiness. As the judge in Israel, the bishop is tasked to provide the church an accounting for each and every member of the ward.

If you don't attend, he has to make a decision. If you don't bother to show up, it may not be accurate.

I receive a statement every year detailing the amount of tithing I paid, whether I show up or not for tithing settlement. If there's something amiss, all I would have to do is inform the bishop.

[omni]

And if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you join them?

Well duh, if everyone else is doing it...

[rockpond]

My point is that the extent of information  the Church is forced to disclose in foreign countries is, by your own admission, quite limited; too limited, perhaps, for the Church's enemies to wreak the sort of havoc they might attempt if they had access to the books at headquarters.

 

Then here in the U.S. we could disclose to our membership the same type of limited information that is disclosed in the U.K.

 

And, since we are the Church of Christ on earth, our finances really ought to stand up to a little scrutiny.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ad hominem; nice.

 

Personally, I really don’t care if your church is financially transparent—much less how it spends its money.  I really don’t.

 

So what is my point on this thread? 

 

At the top of this thread, Gervin said he couldn’t get his mind around why a church or charity wouldn’t embrace the concept of accountability, and went on to clarify that accountability does in fact mean being financially transparent, i.e. making your balance sheet and income statement available for all to see.  Those are in fact mainstream sensibilities.

 

Scott Lloyd responded that that notion is, “absolutely ridiculous on its face.”

 

I found his comment so upside down I was a bit shocked.  I entered the thread with the single point that this concept isn’t at all ridiculous—it is a mainstream view of how churches and charities ought to operate.

 

What I would hope is that the next time somebody says, “I don’t get why the LDS Church chooses not to be transparent,” that the apologetic response will be, “That’s a good question—financial transparency is in fact something that more and more people expect out of churches and charities.  Our church chooses not to be financially transparent because…”

 

What struck me as silly -- and still does -- is the notion that there is some sort of moral or ethical imperative on a non-public society such as the Church of Jesus Christ to open its financial records to the gaze of anyone and everyone, including the most vicious detractor and most avowed enemy.

 

It seemed to compound it when you came along to rationalize it with ad populum arguments and self-righteous pronouncements about "a higher ethical standard."

 

Finance and corporate governance are big parts of my life, and the governance of churches is a closely related issue.  I happen to find this issue interesting, and thought it would be fun personal challenge to see if I could explain these principles to a defensive and hostile audience.

 

Explaining mainstream thought on the best practices regarding the transparency and accountability of churches and charities is not the same thing as finding fault with your particular religion.

 

Insinuations that the Church of Jesus Christ does not conform to your arbitrary notion of a "higher ethical standard" are indeed finding fault.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Then here in the U.S. we could disclose to our membership the same type of limited information that is disclosed in the U.K.

We do it in the U.K. to obey the law, not necessarily because we approve of it.

 

And, since we are the Church of Christ on earth, our finances really ought to stand up to a little scrutiny.

 

By fair-minded and non-malicious individuals.

 

Alas, we don't live in such a perfect world that we can expect everyone to be so trustworthy.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

We do it in the U.K. to obey the law, not necessarily because we approve of it.

 

By fair-minded and non-malicious individuals.

 

Alas, we don't live in such a perfect world that we can expect everyone to be so trustworthy.

 

I think this is the point that Analytics is making... Other charities and churches disclose their finances and they live in the same imperfect world as us.  Somehow they manage to be transparent even with these malicious individual's out there.  And yet some decades ago we decided that we couldn't or wouldn't disclose our use of consecrated funds to the membership for a sustaining vote.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this is the point that Analytics is making... Other charities and churches disclose their finances and they live in the same imperfect world as us.  Somehow they manage to be transparent even with these malicious individual's out there.  And yet some decades ago we decided that we couldn't or wouldn't disclose our use of consecrated funds to the membership for a sustaining vote.

And the point I've made repeatedly in the thread is that "other charities and churches" are not the Church of Jesus Christ and do not face the same circumstances and challenges that it does.

 

I also granted that, for some entities and under some circumstances, financial transparency may be prudent, but I added that is a pragmatic consideration, not an ethical one. Analytics intimated that the Church of Jesus Christ was following a lower ethical standard by not being like other churches in this respect. I reject that finding of fault.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

The question is WHY?  What is to be gained by opening private records to public view?  The Church is not handling someone elses money, only their own.  Before I get any ridiculous statement that it is your donation let me remind you that is only true until you make the donation.  Once the donation is made it is no longer yours.  Once given you relinquish ownership.

[Scott Lloyd]

The question is WHY?  What is to be gained by opening private records to public view?  The Church is not handling someone elses money, only their own.  Before I get any ridiculous statement that it is your donation let me remind you that is only true until you make the donation.  Once the donation is made it is no longer yours.  Once given you relinquish ownership.

The only good answer I can see to your question is to ease the minds of donors and to encourage more people to donate. (Pragmatic considerations, not ethical ones.)

 

And the point I have made here is that the Church of Jesus Christ does not need to offer such an incentive, because the people who donate (the faithful members of the Church) by-and-large repose great trust in the Church and the Church and its leaders deserve that trust.

[rockpond]

The question is WHY?  What is to be gained by opening private records to public view?  The Church is not handling someone elses money, only their own.  Before I get any ridiculous statement that it is your donation let me remind you that is only true until you make the donation.  Once the donation is made it is no longer yours.  Once given you relinquish ownership.

 

The question is why did we stop?

[rockpond]

The only good answer I can see to your question is to ease the minds of donors and to encourage more people to donate. (Pragmatic considerations, not ethical ones.)

 

And the point I have made here is that the Church of Jesus Christ does not need to offer such an incentive, because the people who donate (the faithful members of the Church) by-and-large repose great trust in the Church and the Church and its leaders deserve that trust.

 

For me the answer is not to ease the minds of donors nor encourage more donation.  For me the answer is to provide accountability, avoid corruption, and provide for reasonable common consent.

[rockpond]

And the point I've made repeatedly in the thread is that "other charities and churches" are not the Church of Jesus Christ and do not face the same circumstances and challenges that it does.

 

I also granted that, for some entities and under some circumstances, financial transparency may be prudent, but I added that is a pragmatic consideration, not an ethical one. Analytics intimated that the Church of Jesus Christ was following a lower ethical standard by not being like other churches in this respect. I reject that finding of fault.

 

The Church is following a lower ethical standard by not disclosing its finances to its donors.  That's a statement of fact though there could be reasons for choosing that policy.

 

How are the circumstances/challenges of other churches and charities different from ours?

[Scott Lloyd]

The question is why did we stop?

Circumstances change.

[ERayR]

The question is why did we stop?

 

You don't deflect that easily.  Please answer my question.

[ERayR]

For me the answer is not to ease the minds of donors nor encourage more donation.  For me the answer is to provide accountability, avoid corruption, and provide for reasonable common consent.

 

Those are internal concerns which the Church has already addressed, not a public one.  The Church does not handle public monies.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church is following a lower ethical standard by not disclosing its finances to its donors.

Why is it a lower ethical standard? (By the way, I reject that accusation as constituting unrighteous judgment.)

 

 That's a statement of fact though there could be reasons for choosing that policy.

 

It's not a statement of fact. It's a statement of opinion which you have not supported.

 

How are the circumstances/challenges of other churches and charities different from ours?

 

Instead of saying "our church," I choose to refer to it as the Church of Jesus Christ, because that reflects the fact that it is His Church that He governs it by revelation to His chosen servants.

 

That is the fundamental way in which the Church of Jesus Christ differs from other organizations, including other churches.

 

Another way is that the donors, by and large, are those who have made covenants to obey the law of tithing and to build the Kingdom of God and who accept the principle that once the donation is made it is no longer their property, but it belongs to God and that God's chosen servants are accountable to Him, not the donors, for the expenditure of the funds.

 

But all of this has been said before. As I understand it, this board has an asked-and-answered policy. Please read through the thread and demonstrate that you have grasped what has already been said here before asking repetitive questions.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

The Church is following a lower ethical standard by not disclosing its finances to its donors.  That's a statement of fact though there could be reasons for choosing that policy.

 

How are the circumstances/challenges of other churches and charities different from ours?

 

Public disclosure of private funds has nothing to do with ethics.  Disclosure is neither ethical nor unethical.  Public disclosure is for public entities where public funds need be accounted for.  

 

How other churches choose to handle their finances is up to them.

[Scott Lloyd]

For me the answer is not to ease the minds of donors nor encourage more donation.  For me the answer is to provide accountability, ...

The Lord is not accountable to you for how your donated funds are expended. You are accountable to Him for obeying His commandments. And his designated servants are accountable to Him, not you, for how the funds are expended.

 

avoid corruption,

 

What corruption? Through the church's history there has been no instance to speak of regarding misuse of tithing funds by Church leaders.

 

Corruption is prevented by the fact that leaders are called of God and know they cannot function except on principles of righteousness.

 

It's not your duty to police the leaders of the Church regarding their use of money; the Lord does that.

 

Again, these points have already been made; please read through the thread.

 

and provide for reasonable common consent.

 

This strikes me as a misapplication of the principle of common consent. But you are welcome to cite chapter and verse, if you can.