Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[CV75]

But then again, you have no way of knowing. Because you are relying on blind trust when it comes to church finances. You're "in the dark" since we have no disclosure.

p.s. The annual audit is irrelevant to my point since my request for disclosure is not driven by a concern over financial malfeasance (the purpose of the audit).

LOL! Quite the accuser here, not to mention mind-reader! Is this strategy all you have left? Seems so -- you haven't come up with a decent argument for pages!

[CV75]

I would know how we, as a church, are using the consecrated funds.

But that isn’t your job! You only need to know whether you have consecrated your funds according to covenant, which interestingly entails sustaining the brethren as part of your doing that. The only report you need to do that is your donation slip and tithing statement.

[rockpond]

LOL! Quite the accuser here, not to mention mind-reader! Is this strategy all you have left? Seems so -- you haven't come up with a decent argument for pages!

What have I accused you of?

And I'm not trying to argue with you. I feel that I made my point and sufficiently defended it long ago. I thought we were just discussing ideas at this point.

I haven't intended to accuse you of anything so I would like to know what you interpreted so that I can clarify.

[rockpond]

But that isn’t your job! You only need to know whether you have consecrated your funds according to covenant, which interestingly entails sustaining the brethren as part of your doing that. The only report you need to do that is your donation slip and tithing statement.

I didn't say it was my job. I just answered ERayR's question.

I pay my tithes and offerings and sustain the Brethren. But that isn't really germane to the question he asked of me.

[ERayR]

p.s. The annual audit is irrelevant to my point since my request for disclosure is not driven by a concern over financial malfeasance (the purpose of the audit).

 

You misunderstand the purpose of an audit.  An audit, unless it is a specifically designed fraud audit, is not to detect malfeasance.  The annual audits are to give reasonable assurance that the books are properly done according to proper accounting principle for the entity being audited.

 

So a regular audit may or may not detect malfeasance.

[CV75]

What have I accused you of?

And I'm not trying to argue with you. I feel that I made my point and sufficiently defended it long ago. I thought we were just discussing ideas at this point.

I haven't intended to accuse you of anything so I would like to know what you interpreted so that I can clarify.

I saw three examples of accusations and/or mind-reading when you claimed that: I cannot know that that the absence of financial reporting in GC equates to the intentional and deliberate withholding by Church leaders of information essential to my participation in common consent; and that I am thus relying on blind trust and am "in the dark." In each case, either I or the Church or both faced with the claim that we are doing something wrong. Do you consider these examples of a reasonable discussion of ideas? LOL!

 

I don’t expect any clarification because I’m laughing at it and enjoying it for what it is.

 

Now it might be a descent discussion if you could actually justify how financial reporting, as was done in the 1950’s, is a subject for common consent. The appeal to “all things” doesn’t really work.

 

I didn't say it was my job. I just answered ERayR's question.

I pay my tithes and offerings and sustain the Brethren. But that isn't really germane to the question he asked of me.

Just trying to help you out!

[rockpond]

I saw three examples of accusations and/or mind-reading when you claimed that: I cannot know that that the absence of financial reporting in GC equates to the intentional and deliberate withholding by Church leaders of information essential to my participation in common consent;

I didn't say (write) that. And I do not believe that (to the extent that I can understand what you've written there).

and that I am thus relying on blind trust and am "in the dark." In each case, either I or the Church or both faced with the claim that we are doing something wrong.

I feel like you may be interpreting the phrase "in the dark" to have a negative connotation that I did not intend - so I'd like to withdraw my use of that terminology.

But, are you not relying on blind trust when it comes to church finances? Isn't that what you are advocating for... That we trust the Brethren to make correct decisions regarding consecrated funds even though we have no visibility into those decisions? That we raise our hands to sustain them regardless of a lack of knowledge regarding budget matters? Have I misunderstood your position?

As for you, or I, or the Church doing something wrong, I have expressed a personal belief that we are failing to properly use common consent by not disclosing church finances.

Now it might be a descent discussion if you could actually justify how financial reporting, as was done in the 1950’s, is a subject for common consent. The appeal to “all things” doesn’t really work.

It certainly doesn't work for you. But my understanding of Sections 26 & 104 lead me to understand and believe otherwise. That's my justification.

[rockpond]

You misunderstand the purpose of an audit.  An audit, unless it is a specifically designed fraud audit, is not to detect malfeasance.  The annual audits are to give reasonable assurance that the books are properly done according to proper accounting principle for the entity being audited.

 

So a regular audit may or may not detect malfeasance.

That's basically what I meant. And so I stand by my statement that the annual audits are irrelevant to the point I was making.

[CV75]

I feel like you may be interpreting the phrase "in the dark" to have a negative connotation that I did not intend - so I'd like to withdraw my use of that terminology.

Great—that is a smart thing to do.

 

But, are you not relying on blind trust when it comes to church finances? Isn't that what you are advocating for... That we trust the Brethren to make correct decisions regarding consecrated funds even though we have no visibility into those decisions? That we raise our hands to sustain them regardless of a lack of knowledge regarding budget matters? Have I misunderstood your position?

On the other hand, mischaracterizing my faith is not a smart thing to do. As much as we express and justify our beliefs in order to influence others to believe the same, I critique only your poor justification of your ideas. Labeling mine as blind faith is an ineffective substitute for properly critiquing my justifications, which you haven’t been able to do—very telling after 23 pages!

 

As for you, or I, or the Church doing something wrong, I have expressed a personal belief that we are failing to properly use common consent by not disclosing church finances.

Which does carry a negative connotation...

 

I’m not sure why you are as interested in accusing me of blind faith as you are of accusing the Church of failing to properly employ common consent by not disclosing church finances. Why won’t you actually justify how financial reporting, as was done in the 1950’s, is a subject for common consent in the first place? I invited you to expand on this and you haven't. The appeal to “all things” doesn’t really work.

[rockpond]

On the other hand, mischaracterizing my faith is not a smart thing to do. As much as we express and justify our beliefs in order to influence others to believe the same, I critique only your poor justification of your ideas. Labeling mine as blind faith is an ineffective substitute for properly critiquing my justifications, which you haven’t been able to do—very telling after 23 pages!

 

Where have I said that you have blind faith?  Hint:  I haven't.

 

I said that you have blind trust in the Brethren to handle the church finances.  Is that a true or false statement?  As far as I can tell, it is the position you are advocating for.

 

 

I’m not sure why you are as interested in accusing me of blind faith as you are of accusing the Church of failing to properly employ common consent by not disclosing church finances. Why won’t you actually justify how financial reporting, as was done in the 1950’s, is a subject for common consent in the first place? I invited you to expand on this and you haven't. The appeal to “all things” doesn’t really work.

 

I've expanded and justified as much as I can for you.  You disagree and I don't have the ability to change your mind.  My understanding of D&C 26 & 104 is the justification.  Simple logic that I cannot consent to that which I do not know is further justification (for me, not for you).  And the D&C counsel on leadership to me suggests that we would be better off disclosing our finances.  I've explained all of that.  You disagree.  It "doesn't really work" for you and that's fine.  But it is quite clear for me.

 

Finally, I understand your justifications for your positions to the extent that I properly understand them.  As far as I can tell, you believe that common consent only has to do with sustaining the Brethren in their positions.  After we have done that, we should let them act in those positions without asking questions.  In the case of church finances, they have decided not to share that information and for you that is okay because you trust that they are doing the Lord's will.

Edited September 8, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

Where have I said that you have blind faith?  Hint:  I haven't.

 

I said that you have blind trust in the Brethren to handle the church finances.  Is that a true or false statement?  As far as I can tell, it is the position you are advocating for.

What do you see as the difference between blind faith and blind trust --  (Google) “faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something… synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; optimism, hopefulness, hope.” I am not advocating for blind trust (or blind faith).

 

I am advocating that common consent does not apply to the proposing of financial decisions or the presentation of financial reports for the sustaining vote of the membership, but applies to proposing and setting apart to office of Church leaders, and to proposing and establishing the canon of revelations.

 

And the D&C counsel on leadership to me suggests that we would be better off disclosing our finances.

Where does the D&C counsel leadership to disclose financial reports? Its sole inclusion as “all things” excludes so much else, and no where does D&C say that “all things” that leadership does in every action taken in governing the kingdom are to be disclosed. How would you propose that to be done, anyway?

 

Why do you consider the Church’s finances to be “our” finances, thus retaining a measure of our responsibility or control over them after the transaction of putting what was in our mortal stewardship into the Lord’s hands? I see something of an attitude of withholding in taking that position.

 

As far as I can tell, you believe that common consent only has to do with sustaining the Brethren in their positions.  After we have done that, we should let them act in those positions without asking questions.

Not so much without asking questions, but without the unfounded expectation that common consent is carried out as a line item consideration contingent on receiving a report on “all things” the brethren do while acting in their office (o if not everything, why just pick on finances?).

[ERayR]

That's basically what I meant. And so I stand by my statement that the annual audits are irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

You said you wanted to know the funds were being used the way they were supposed to be used..  It therefore can not be irrelevant to your point because it does address your point.   Unless, you really are worried about malfeasance and then published financials would not be helpful.

[rockpond]

What do you see as the difference between blind faith and blind trust --  (Google) “faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something… synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; optimism, hopefulness, hope.” I am not advocating for blind trust (or blind faith).

 

Here on a discussion board in which we discuss matters of faith, I see a difference between the terms I'm using.  But I'm not quite sure how to explain it to you.  But, I have been very specific in saying that I understand your position to be one of blind trust regarding financial matters of the church.  I am not trying to blanket you as having "blind faith" -- I don't believe that at all from what I know about you.  You seem to be someone who is very thoughtful in their faith.

 

How would you prefer that I state your position.  You are saying that we should trust the leaders of the church to handle the finances according to the Lord's will while not being permitted any knowledge of what those decisions are.  Is that correct?

 

I am advocating that common consent does not apply to the proposing of financial decisions or the presentation of financial reports for the sustaining vote of the membership, but applies to proposing and setting apart to office of Church leaders, and to proposing and establishing the canon of revelations.

 

You are also advocating against financial disclosure which is to say that church members should not have knowledge of the financial matters of the Church.

 

 

Where does the D&C counsel leadership to disclose financial reports? Its sole inclusion as “all things” excludes so much else, and no where does D&C say that “all things” that leadership does in every action taken in governing the kingdom are to be disclosed. How would you propose that to be done, anyway?

 

The D&C doesn't specifically counsel leadership to disclose financial reports.  And yet, they did it anyway for quite some time.  It does say that money should not be taken from the treasury except by common consent.

 

We've discussed the "all things" piece... I believe that there is a lot more that we could do by common consent and we've talked about some of those.  I don't know how to do "all things" so maybe there has to be a limit somewhere in a global, multi-million member church.  But I obviously don't believe the limit is at not disclosing general church finances.

 

Why do you consider the Church’s finances to be “our” finances, thus retaining a measure of our responsibility or control over them after the transaction of putting what was in our mortal stewardship into the Lord’s hands? I see something of an attitude of withholding in taking that position.

 

What we give to the Lord in tithes and offerings belongs to the Lord.  Period.  Full stop.  What He gives to the church to operate His Kingdom on earth is now under the stewardship of the Church and we are all the church.  I think we all bear some responsibility and that's where I think the law of common consent comes into play.

 

 

Not so much without asking questions, but without the unfounded expectation that common consent is carried out as a line item consideration contingent on receiving a report on “all things” the brethren do while acting in their office (o if not everything, why just pick on finances?).

 

Okay... so I am asking questions.  Others are asking questions.  No answers are being given.  Are you in favor of that?  Or do you think the questions should be addressed?

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this:  "the unfounded expectation that common consent is carried out as a line item consideration contingent on receiving a report on “all things” the brethren do while acting in their office".  I have said that we cannot consent to that which we do not know.  Do you agree or disagree with that statement?  As long as we have no visibility into church finances, we cannot provide our consent.

 

I'm discussing finances here because that's the subject of the thread.

[rockpond]

You said you wanted to know the funds were being used the way they were supposed to be used..  It therefore can not be irrelevant to your point because it does address your point.   Unless, you really are worried about malfeasance and then published financials would not be helpful.

 

The annual audit does not tell us the way funds are being used.  It tells us that accounting principles are being followed.

[ERayR]

The annual audit does not tell us the way funds are being used.  It tells us that accounting principles are being followed.

 

And give reasonable assurance that policies and procedures are in place and effective for handling finances for the designated purposes.

[rockpond]

And give reasonable assurance that policies and procedures are in place and effective for handling finances for the designated purposes.

 

But it gives no insight and provides no judgment on those "designated purposes".

 

As a bishopric we could allocate 90% of our ward budget to Deacons Quorum activities.  Follow that budget.  And successfully pass an audit.  But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

[ERayR]

But it gives no insight and provides no judgment on those "designated purposes".

 

As a bishopric we could allocate 90% of our ward budget to Deacons Quorum activities.  Follow that budget.  And successfully pass an audit.  But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

 

And the publication of a general set of financials is going to do anything about that.  Don't you see how unrealistic that is.  Do you or have you ever used (read) financial statements?

[rockpond]

And the publication of a general set of financials is going to do anything about that.  Don't you see how unrealistic that is.  Do you or have you ever used (read) financial statements?

 

Yes.  Quite often.  And for entities with budgets much larger than the Church.

 

I don't see anything unrealistic about it.  And, we used to do it.  So it is definitely realistic.

[CV75]

You are saying that we should trust the leaders of the church to handle the finances according to the Lord's will while not being permitted any knowledge of what those decisions are.  Is that correct?

 

You are also advocating against financial disclosure which is to say that church members should not have knowledge of the financial matters of the Church.

Wow. I don’t think you can state my position until you can understand the following: I am not advocating for or against the Church publishing financial reports. I am advocating that the principle of common consent does not dictate that it must. I am not advocating for or against more involvement by members in financial decisions. I am advocating that the principle of common consent does not necessitate that they must.

 

The D&C doesn't specifically counsel leadership to disclose financial reports.  And yet, they did it anyway for quite some time.  It does say that money should not be taken from the treasury except by common consent.

 

We've discussed the "all things" piece... I believe that there is a lot more that we could do by common consent and we've talked about some of those.  I don't know how to do "all things" so maybe there has to be a limit somewhere in a global, multi-million member church.  But I obviously don't believe the limit is at not disclosing general church finances.

Whether the Church publishes financial information or solicits more involvement from members has no bearing on the principle of common consent, and vice-versa. It doesn’t matter if practices come and go; they aren’t (and never were) subject to common consent. Common consent only applies to upholding proposed positions whether they are in the form of offices or canon. Specific activities carried out by those positions are not positions, but filled offices and the revealed doctrines are.

 

The relationship between managing the treasury and common consent in D&C 104 is consistent with D&C 26 and 28: the participants give their common consent for the officers who manage to hold those positions and function in them to carry out the appointed responsibilities as they are directed by the Lord.

 

What we give to the Lord in tithes and offerings belongs to the Lord.  Period.  Full stop.  What He gives to the church to operate His Kingdom on earth is now under the stewardship of the Church and we are all the church.  I think we all bear some responsibility and that's where I think the law of common consent comes into play.

I’ve only sustained the Church officers to direct the affairs of the Church, financial or otherwise, and none else. Once our contributions are given to the Church, their use is the Lord’s responsibility, not ours. If I had a calling and was set apart to manage them, I would.

 

Okay... so I am asking questions.  Others are asking questions.  No answers are being given.  Are you in favor of that?  Or do you think the questions should be addressed?

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this:  "the unfounded expectation that common consent is carried out as a line item consideration contingent on receiving a report on “all things” the brethren do while acting in their office".  I have said that we cannot consent to that which we do not know.  Do you agree or disagree with that statement?  As long as we have no visibility into church finances, we cannot provide our consent.

 

I'm discussing finances here because that's the subject of the thread.

I can’t speak for those with questions or who are unhappy with the answers. I haven't run across a situation where "the" proper answer isn't given. Granted, an answer can be "no" or "none of your business," but I can't comment because i don't know what questions you are referring to. I can explain what I know. You may feel that you lack the visibility of Church finances you want or require, but I see an awful lot. You seem to feel you need to exercise common consent in relation to them, but that is because you have adopted an impossible expectation ("all" means "all," not just "all" you want to know and have a say about).

 

I have said that we cannot consent to that which we do not know.  Do you agree or disagree with that statement?  As long as we have no visibility into church finances, we cannot provide our consent.

This seems to be of utmost importance to you. Consenting to what we know (or not) is not the same principle as common consent "by much prayer and faith", "by the prayer of faith," a certain kind of knowledge other than perusing financial reports. So in relation to common consent, of course I do not agree with that statement. In relation to legal or medical documents, etc. that pertain to your life and limb, property, etc., I would tend to agree but replace "do not know" with "reasonably have not been informed or understand."

 

But, as I've pointed out, you can't do much with it after you've consented to give your property away, even when done "by much prayer and faith" or "by the prayer of faith."

[rockpond]

Wow. I don’t think you can state my position until you can understand the following: I am not advocating for or against the Church publishing financial reports. I am advocating that the principle of common consent does not dictate that it must. I am not advocating for or against more involvement by members in financial decisions. I am advocating that the principle of common consent does not necessitate that they must.

 

Okay.  Well, I get your position on common consent.  I disagree but understand.

 

So then, with respect to disclosure of church financial reports (the subject of the thread) are you for or against?

[CV75]

Okay.  Well, I get your position on common consent.  I disagree but understand.

 

So then, with respect to disclosure of church financial reports (the subject of the thread) are you for or against?

Neither--it doesn't matter to me. I'm fine with the current practice, but if I wasn't, I know better than to use the principle of common consent as my rationale. If the current practice changes, I know better than to see it as an expression of the principle of common consent.

[rockpond]

Neither--it doesn't matter to me. I'm fine with the current practice, but if I wasn't, I know better than to use the principle of common consent as my rationale. If the current practice changes, I know better than to see it as an expression of the principle of common consent.

 

Well, no worries.  I see the Church trending toward less disclosure rather than more.  As I alluded to earlier, I think the next thing they will pull back on is membership figures.  As those numbers continue to deteriorate, I predict that we'll see less information being shared.

[rpn]

I look at it like this:   the church disclosed in a time frame when members (at least US members) were asked to pay much more than tithing (we raised the funds and built the buildings and funded the budget).    When all that is required  is tithing, there is no consent issue.   We all owe tithing to the Lord, have in all dispensations.  Doesn't matter what the Lord (though His chosen leaders) does with it.

Edited September 9, 2014 by rpn

[rockpond]

I look at it like this:   the church disclosed in a time frame when members (at least US members) were asked to pay much more than tithing (we raised the funds and built the buildings and funded the budget).

 

I could see the logic in that except that the Church ceased disclosing finances decades before we stopped asking members to contribute to ward budgets.  And we still ask members to contribute to local temple construction.

 

 

When all that is required  is tithing, there is no consent issue.   We all owe tithing to the Lord, have in all dispensations.  Doesn't matter what the Lord (though His chosen leaders) does with it.

 

It doesn't matter what church leaders do with the tithing that is collected on behalf of the Lord?  Really?

[sdc999]

I look at it like this:   the church disclosed in a time frame when members (at least US members) were asked to pay much more than tithing (we raised the funds and built the buildings and funded the budget).    When all that is required  is tithing, there is no consent issue.   We all owe tithing to the Lord, have in all dispensations.  Doesn't matter what the Lord (though His chosen leaders) does with it.

That is really a super statement. 

'His chosen leaders...'     

Any mistake by 'the church' in the past has been attributed, by members,  to acting as a man.   Your statement seems to infer that tithing money is exempted from men acting as men and only 100% directed by the Lord.  Those that are in control of all tithing money could follow accounting priciples to the mark and still  misdirect church funds to the detriment of the church. 

The way our current tax code is set up for the common man and for-profit businesses, you are guilty(accountable for 100% of tax burden) until you can prove your deductions.  I would like to see non profits be accountable as well in the same manner.  I would like to see them made public, but if not public, audited by an independent firm to assure non profit status vs 'proper' accounting procedures.