Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[rockpond]

Get a copy of the audit.  You can print a blank audit program off of MLS or ask the bishop to let you look at the last audit.

 

You're talking about local finances.  Not the general church finances.  I already have clear visibility into my local ward's finances since I sign many of the checks and have access to all our records.  The scope of local unit finances is very limited, unlike our general church finances.

 

That said, if any member came to me asking to see the ward budget, I'd print them a copy without any hesitation.  Transparency.

[Helmuth]

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?

You seem very angry.  Angering you was not my intent.

 

Seeing all these things does not, in fact, give me an idea of what the pie-chart looks like as far as where the finances are going.  Neither does looking around at my house and possessions give me an idea of where all my personal funds are going.

 

I am happy to pay my tithing, and I believe it is going for good things.  I have an opinion that it would be nice if the Church gave a report of what it was spending its money on -- just as it used to do!  I do not think that my opinion is unreasonable.  It's not that radical an idea.  It's what the Church used to do, every other General Conference.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

[ERayR]

Not the same thing... you cannot sustain a person if you aren't even told who that person is.  Church finances are not being handled by common consent.  And "all things" in the church are to be handled by common consent per the D&C.

 

It's not about micromanaging, it's about following common consent.

 

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that those who handle the Lord's funds are capable of error but the Lord will handle it.  We don't need to know or be involved.  Right?

 

My position is that those who handle the Lord's funds are capable of error and that we have common consent for that reason.  Further, I believe that there was wisdom in the Brethrens' decision to disclose finances back when that was the practice.  I'm not sure why we stopped.

 

Common consent is that we sustain those called to a job and then get out of the way and let them do it.

[rockpond]

If individual leaders were left on their own, I would be concerned, but just as we have checks and balances in other areas we have it for finances and my experience is that these are the most rigid and thorough in place. There are watchdogs of watchdogs and probably watchdogs of them.

I prefer to leave the watchdogs who are trained in knowing was is and isn't financially appropriate in accountability to examine the process rather than those who more than likely would be easily confused by information they dont understand the importance and implications of. I have seen a couple of discussions over nonUS declarations of expenses and seen how wrong some were in their conclusions of how the Church was using funds...plus there are numerous examples on the Internet of people misusing partial information such as real estate holdings of church leaders. Why should I assume they would be more cautious in jumping to the wrong conclusions with more information given they show no restraint of building elaborate scenarios with little information?

 

Those outside the church will always criticize.  I assume that they will no matter what.

 

If there are " watchdogs of watchdogs and probably watchdogs of them" then I see no reason to fear the disclosure of our finances to church membership.  Nothing to fear.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not the same thing... you cannot sustain a person if you aren't even told who that person is.  Church finances are not being handled by common consent.  And "all things" in the church are to be handled by common consent per the D&C.

 

It's not about micromanaging, it's about following common consent.

 

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that those who handle the Lord's funds are capable of error but the Lord will handle it.  We don't need to know or be involved.  Right?

 

Good comments have been made here about checks being in place.

 

My position is that those who handle the Lord's funds are capable of error and that we have common consent for that reason.  Further, I believe that there was wisdom in the Brethrens' decision to disclose finances back when that was the practice.  I'm not sure why we stopped.

 

 

So you trust the dead prophets, just not the living ones.

 

Got it.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Those outside the church will always criticize.  I assume that they will no matter what.

 

If there are " watchdogs of watchdogs and probably watchdogs of them" then I see no reason to fear the disclosure of our finances to church membership.  Nothing to fear.

One of the points that has been made here is that it is difficult-to-impossible to provide transparent disclosure to members without making it accessible to everyone, including the most vicious enemies.

[rockpond]

Common consent is that we sustain those called to a job and then get out of the way and let them do it.

 

Section 104 describes the application of common consent within the United Order.  We no longer live that order but we do live the law of consecration.  

[rockpond]

One of the points that has been made here is that it is difficult-to-impossible to provide transparent disclosure to members without making it accessible to everyone, including the most vicious enemies.

 

I realize that.  Let our vicious enemies have access.  There is nothing in there that is not in line with what the Lord would have us do, right?  So no reason to fear letting others see it.

[rockpond]

Good comments have been made here about checks being in place.

 

So you trust the dead prophets, just not the living ones.

 

Got it.

 

I believe in all the prophets.  And I can't reconcile why we would stop disclosing finances and cease to abide by our own scriptural declarations without any clarification provided by our Prophet.

 

Regarding the "checks" that are in place.  Can anyone cite what those are?  It's just a claim that we believe they exist.

Edited August 12, 2014 by rockpond

[Calm]

Those outside the church will always criticize.  I assume that they will no matter what.

 

If there are " watchdogs of watchdogs and probably watchdogs of them" then I see no reason to fear the disclosure of our finances to church membership.  Nothing to fear.

It is not fear IMO that has led to the decision.

That there are those who make this assumption underlines for me the wisdom of privacy in this case.

[rockpond]

It is not fear IMO that has led to the decision.

That there are those who make this assumption underlines for me the wisdom of privacy in this case.

 

We don't know what led to the decision to stop disclosing finances in general conference.  They just stopped without any explanation.

[ERayR]

You seem very angry.  Angering you was not my intent.

 

Seeing all these things does not, in fact, give me an idea of what the pie-chart looks like as far as where the finances are going.  Neither does looking around at my house and possessions give me an idea of where all my personal funds are going.

 

I am happy to pay my tithing, and I believe it is going for good things.  I have an opinion that it would be nice if the Church gave a report of what it was spending its money on -- just as it used to do!  I do not think that my opinion is unreasonable.  It's not that radical an idea.  It's what the Church used to do, every other General Conference.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Not the least bit angry.  I just don't understand those who have a need to pry into things that are not their business.  To reiterate if you give knowing there is no public financial statements you should have no expectation of any disclosure.  Once given it is no longer yours and therefore none of your concern.  If you do not like the conditions or do not trust the donee do not give.

 

I have stated before I would have no problem if the Church should decide to issue financials.  My problem is with those who seem to think it is their right to have them.

 

If the Church were to print a simple set of general financial statements it still wouldn't be enough.  Those who are now clamoring for the statements would then eant a set of drill down detail statements.

[ERayR]

You're talking about local finances.  Not the general church finances.  I already have clear visibility into my local ward's finances since I sign many of the checks and have access to all our records.  The scope of local unit finances is very limited, unlike our general church finances.

 

That said, if any member came to me asking to see the ward budget, I'd print them a copy without any hesitation.  Transparency.

Church wide financials is just your ward financials multiplied 25,000 times plus temple expenses and GA travel and living expenses.

[ERayR]

We don't know what led to the decision to stop disclosing finances in general conference.  They just stopped without any explanation.

 

But you suspect the worst.  Gotcha.

[rockpond]

Church wide financials is just your ward financials multiplied 25,000 times plus temple expenses and GA travel and living expenses.

 

Exactly.

[Buzzard]

If our finances are handled above reproach then what exactly would this "bloody flag" be?

In reality, there isn't one. That won't stop our critics, internal and external, from inventing some, See: Mall, City Creek, GA and MP "compensation", percentage of funds used for charitable causes (what constitutes charitable to be defined by critics), Welfare farms in Florida, need I go on?

[rockpond]

But you suspect the worst.  Gotcha.

 

No, I expect us to try to live up to our own scripture.

[Buzzard]

We don't know what led to the decision to stop disclosing finances in general conference.  They just stopped without any explanation.

And they stopped before I was born, and I'm no spring chicken. Really....

Edited August 12, 2014 by Buzzard

[rockpond]

In reality, there isn't one. That won't stop our critics, internal and external, from inventing some, See: Mall, City Creek, GA and MP "compensation", percentage of funds used for charitable causes (what constitutes charitable to be defined by critics), Welfare farms in Florida, need I go on?

 

Al those are already criticized.  Why not put the criticisms to rest?

[Analytics]

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."

 

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

The fact of the matter is that your church doesn’t meet the BBB’s Charity Accountability Standards, and that following the BBB’s Basic Giving Tips precludes people from donating to your church.  I’m not insinuating anything; I’m stating facts.  These standards are adhered to by thousands of churches and thousands of charities.  Your repeated assertion that these standards are arbitrary proves you don’t understand them—the people who designed them know they are anything but arbitrary.

 

When the church teaches that donations shouldn’t be based on things like the BBB’s Basic Giving Tips but rather on trust and the spirit, they are teaching members to be foolish with their money.  It isn’t a hard leap to see that this contributes to the relative susceptibility of Mormons to fraud.

 

http://universe.byu.edu/2014/06/16/affinity-fraud-continues-to-plague-utahns-and-mormons/

[Helmuth]

Not the least bit angry.

Ahh, what a relief.

 

I just don't understand those who have a need to pry into things that are not their business.

 

Yes, people prying into things that are not their business is, indeed, bad form.  I, like you, would perhaps frown at such behavior.

 

Could you explain to me why you are accusing me of prying into  things which are none of my business?  For your convenient review, here is the opinion that I gave which allegedly is so improprietously prying:

 

"I have an opinion that it would be nice if the Church gave a report of what it was spending its money on -- just as it used to do!  I do not think that my opinion is unreasonable.  It's not that radical an idea.  It's what the Church used to do, every other General Conference."

 

Thank you very much!  I do not want to continue being guilty of such obnoxious and bad behavior as I apparently am right now.

 

 

To reiterate if you give knowing there is no public financial statements you should have no expectation of any disclosure.  Once given it is no longer yours and therefore none of your concern. 

 

While I agree with the first sentence, the second sentence is obviously false.  People are concerned with things which are not theirs all the time.  This may be one of those times.

 

If you do not like the conditions or do not trust the donee do not give.

That is certainly one choice that donors have available to them!

 

 

I have stated before I would have no problem if the Church should decide to issue financials.  My problem is with those who seem to think it is their right to have them.

 

Perhaps you could explain, then, why it is you have a problem with me?  Why did you think that this was a relevant reply to me?  My opinion, again, is conveniently quoted above.  Why would you think that anything I said was expressing a misapprehension that I possessed some kind of "right" to have financials?  It does not seem to be there in my words.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Helmuth

[Storm Rider]

The fact of the matter is that your church doesn’t meet the BBB’s Charity Accountability Standards, and that following the BBB’s Basic Giving Tips precludes people from donating to your church.  I’m not insinuating anything; I’m stating facts.  These standards are adhered to by thousands of churches and thousands of charities.  Your repeated assertion that these standards are arbitrary proves you don’t understand them—the people who designed them know they are anything but arbitrary.

 

When the church teaches that donations shouldn’t be based on things like the BBB’s Basic Giving Tips but rather on trust and the spirit, they are teaching members to be foolish with their money.  It isn’t a hard leap to see that this contributes to the relative susceptibility of Mormons to fraud.

 

http://universe.byu.edu/2014/06/16/affinity-fraud-continues-to-plague-utahns-and-mormons/

 

Well golly gee.  Thank you for sharing about our church.  Your opinion on this matter is of infinite importance to each of us.  I know for me that it is vital to check out what the BBB's tips are in all things and I am glad that you are committed to this holy standard of right thinking.  It is also particularly important that we have seen our Church has such a vile reputation on spending money on all things since the very beginning of its inception to the present day.  

 

I also think you again are wise is making a direct correlation to individuals being susceptible to fraud.  I know the rest of world never is susceptible to such things.  Boy you are the voice of reason and use the same standard for all things.  

 

It is funny that I have never been the victim of fraud, but I am certain that I am the rare exception to this weakness as a member of our church.  

[sdc999]

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.

 

 

You forgot to mention that they are also accountable to the bishop (according to many many previous posts) during tithing settlement.

[Scott Lloyd]

You forgot to mention that they are also accountable to the bishop (according to many many previous posts) during tithing settlement.

But I think that is entailed in being accountable to the Lord in that the bishop acts as the Lord's agent in this respect.

[Tacenda]

What evidence do you have that the members, by and large, are so distrustful of the Church and its leaders that they are demanding such accountability?

Well there is a group or several that have started petitioning for transparency. I searched for them because I've run across them in the past. I think this group is behind it, the website called mormonreform.com, hopefully they don't have temple content.

Scott, why would Pres. Hinckley give the impression, during his interview on 60 Minutes I believe, that the transparency is there for the members, just not the public, which was clearly not true. Did he not understand the question?