Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[Scott Lloyd]

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the connections in Dr. Peterson's blogpost. I read the whole thing, also the link to the Times and Seasons article, and they both seem to be making non-connections, while celebrating making a connection. In short, I'm not getting their points.

 

 The only thing I could comment on is a priest blessing a fleet of boats is somehow comparable to a GA opening a mall. Which, it isn't, not unless the priest is blessing his own fleet. And calling other people's religious/spiritual practices "quaint", and undervaluing another's vocation (such as fishing), got under my skin. But, that's beside the point.

 

"Or do you hold with some folks who would compartmentalize matters of faith and the Spirit, ensuring that they don't interfere too much with day-to-day living?"

 

I didn't see this. This could be a whole other thread in itself, as, the Times and Seasons article linked by Dr. Peterson is full of alarm bells for me. I have no problem mixing faith and Spirit with day to day. I recommend it. What bothers me is an idea that material wealth is an indicator that one is charitable. (?) Really, that is how I'm reading these articles. And then somehow, being charitable to one's own interest is in the interest of all, and ya lost me.

 

I see no sense or idea of giving all, and having nothing. Something that is no doubt difficult to do, but doing so is not an indicator that one is disengaged from day-to-day living, as you seem to be inferring. Quite the opposite, it is an indicator that one is engaged in the day-to-day of someone besides oneself.

I reject the notion that charity necessarily entails completely giving away all wealth. An entity that does that soon finds itself unable to do much good for others, assuming it continues to exist at all. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church does not do that.

[Teancum]

USA 78 comments that the church has an audit by CPAS based on GAAP. This is not correct

It is NOT an independent audit but rather an internal audit of the financial info. There is a huge difference.

[strappinglad]

Suppose that one brought tithes to one's priest and they were placed on an altar. Fire then came down from heaven and burned the offering to ashes. Should there be an objection? Are the tithes not the Lord's to do with as He pleases? Why do we pay tithing anyway? If a person will only make tithes and offerings if they know precisely where each nickel goes and approve of all expenditures , they might as well stop paying. Their offerings are not to their blessing.

Edited August 7, 2014 by strappinglad

[Analytics]

I'm disputing the innuendo here that the Church of Jesus Christ does not follow "high ethical standards" simply because it doesn't do things the way Protestant churches do them. Which is really what your endeavoring to convey here, isn't it?

 

Not exactly.  Many Protestant churches don't follow these high standards either.  For example, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Haggin, and Benny Hinn aren't financially transparent:

 

http://www.ministrywatch.com/pdf/donoralert2011.pdf

 

These ministries have the right not to follow high standards, and their donors have the right to donate anyway.  I have no doubt that they sincerely feel that God wants them to give money to these people.  But you do have to wonder--why would a Christian ministry not be transparent with its finances?  Are they affraid of what their critics would do if they knew the truth, or are they affraid of what their donnors would do if they knew the truth?

 

To be clear, what I am doing here is stating my belief that churches ought to be financial transparent--it's the right thing to do.  Furthermore, I am trying to explain why I believe this, and provide sweeping evidence that this isn't the least bit controversial of a position.

 

The LDS Church would be a better church if it were to follow these standards.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not exactly.  Many Protestant churches don't follow these high standards either.  For example, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Haggin, and Benny Hinn aren't financially transparent:

These ministries have the right not to follow high standards, and their donors have the right to donate anyway.  I have no doubt that they sincerely feel that God wants them to give money to these people. 

 

What Osteen, Haggin and Hinn do is irrelevant to the discussion. Your use of the phrase "follow high standards" is an instance of poisoning the well. It's manipulative rhetoric presupposing that unfettered access to financial records amounts to "high standards" and anything else is deficient. That does not necessarily follow. I have already suggested why it may not be prudent in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

For the Church, following high standards would be the expenditure of funds in accordance with the will of God and in alignment with its mission, which is to bring salvation to and otherwise bless mankind. Under divine guidance, such mission-aligned expenditures can be accomplished by the Church without giving public access to its books. In fact, the faithful believe it is being accomplished under such divine guidance.

 

But you do have to wonder--why would a Christian ministry not be transparent with its finances?  Are they affraid of what their critics would do if they knew the truth, or are they affraid of what their donnors would do if they knew the truth?

They may be well be afraid that hostile persons will twist the truth to purvey falsehood. That, after all, is the modus operandi of the anti-Mormon.

  

 

To be clear, what I am doing here is stating my belief that churches ought to be financial transparent--it's the right thing to do.

 

Again, it is not self-evident that it is always the right thing to do. I have endeavored to explain why.

 

Furthermore, I am trying to explain why I believe this, and provide sweeping evidence that this isn't the least bit controversial of a position.

 

Again, it doesn't work to say the Church of Jesus Christ should do things a certain way merely because certain Protestant denominations do them that way. Again, we do not aspire to be like sectarian faiths.

 

 

The LDS Church would be a better church if it were to follow these standards.

 

You have failed to show how this would be the case. You have not shown how opening up the Church's financials to the public would facilitate doing what it is already doing: Spending its funds in alignment with its divine mission and in accordance with the will of God.

[rpn]

 

USA 78 comments that the church has an audit by CPAS based on GAAP. This is not correct It is NOT an independent audit but rather an internal audit of the financial info. There is a huge difference.

 The latest audit report is almost identical to the one the year before (except for the last line about staying out of debt, living with means, and saving)  but substantially different from ones in 1990's.

 

See April 2014, 2013 and 1999 reports:   

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2014/04/church-auditing-department-report-2013?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/church-auditing-department-report-2012?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/the-church-audit-committee-report?lang=eng

 

You'll notice that while the 1999 mentioned that various church entities were audited according to GAAP, the most current reports refers only to approved polices and accounting practices, and doesn't mention those separate entities at all.  

 

(I think it critical when we are speaking about this issue to present only the facts and all the facts.  Transparency is a fight that the Church cannot win with critics whether it opens the records or doesn't.   But when defenders here post inaccurate info in these discussions that gives fodder to the critics.   This thread started with whether there was any substance to specific critical complaints and has evolved into the exact firebombing between the transparent and none of our business camps that all the previous threads on the same subject has deteriorated into.

 

And it doesn't help when people who talk about facts or even transparency are villified and their belief challenged because they do.)

[ERayR]

USA 78 comments that the church has an audit by CPAS based on GAAP. This is not correct It is NOT an independent audit but rather an internal audit of the financial info. There is a huge difference.

 

You are not quite correct.  The church has an independent audit arm fut is also audited by an independent audit firm.  In 2007 it was Deloitte and Touche, one of the top firms in the USofA.  I presume the outside audit firm is still the same.

 

Although the church has not released church-wide financial statements since 1959, in 1997, Time magazine called it one of the world's wealthiest churches per capita.^[123] In a June 2011 cover story, Newsweek stated that the LDS Church "resembles a sanctified multinational corporation—the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions and an estimated net worth of $30 billion."^[124] Its for-profit, non-profit, and educational subsidiary entities are audited by an independent accounting firm: as of 2007, some done by Deloitte & Touche.^[125][126] In addition, the church employs an independent audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with church policy.^[127]

[USU78]

You are not quite correct. The church has an independent audit arm fut is also audited by an independent audit firm. In 2007 it was Deloitte and Touche, one of the top firms in the USofA. I presume the outside audit firm is still the same.

Although the church has not released church-wide financial statements since 1959, in 1997, Time magazine called it one of the world's wealthiest churches per capita.^[123] In a June 2011 cover story, Newsweek stated that the LDS Church "resembles a sanctified multinational corporation—the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions and an estimated net worth of $30 billion."^[124] Its for-profit, non-profit, and educational subsidiary entities are audited by an independent accounting firm: as of 2007, some done by Deloitte & Touche.^[125][126] In addition, the church employs an independent audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with church policy.^[127]

;-)

[Stargazer]

I do believe that the Church's wealth is largely invested in real estate.  And most of that real estate doesn't earn a thing.  All those meetinghouses and temples cost money to build and cost money to keep up.  And they are rarely, if ever, sold, thus they aren't liquid at all.  They are expenses.

 

So making a big deal out of a net worth of $30 billion?  It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Gervin]

 

The Church does not solicit donations. 

In 2013, President Thomas S. Monson invited members to help support the missionaries - especially those of lesser means - in their efforts to serve the Lord in a meaningful way. Donations to the General Missionary Fund really do help “change and save lives.”

[bjw]

I do believe that the Church's wealth is largely invested in real estate.  And most of that real estate doesn't earn a thing.  All those meetinghouses and temples cost money to build and cost money to keep up.  And they are rarely, if ever, sold, thus they aren't liquid at all.  They are expenses.

 

So making a big deal out of a net worth of $30 billion?  It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

I think a quick tour of any temple, celestial room alone, would show where the billion dollar figure could come in. This is good though because these structures help millions of people meditate for better spirituality as well as perform ordinances.

One point I made in the op though was how have people learned about the alleged corruption with all the confidentiality?

[saemo]

I reject the notion that charity necessarily entails completely giving away all wealth. An entity that does that soon finds itself unable to do much good for others, assuming it continues to exist at all. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church does not do that.

Jesus taught, if you have rwo cloaks, give one away to someone who needs it. He didn't teach, invest the cloak in order to have more cloaks.

 

Material possessions require additional resources, in maintenance. Those who have taken vows of poverty do so, so that everything they have is put towards something other than themselves.

 

The RCC is not free from material possessions. Corruption associated.to wealth is a problem. I think it naive to believe that anyone with power and money is free from corrupting influence.

 

Personally, when it comes to the excessive wealth held in places such as the Vatican Bank, I would.prefer to see it all put towards charitable activities. Wealth sitting around, whether it is a bank or investments, is a waste and a continuous temptation.

Edited August 7, 2014 by saemo

[bjw]

Jesus taught, if you have rwo cloaks, give one away to someone who needs it. He didn't teach, invest the cloak in order to have more cloaks.

 

Material possessions require additional resources, in maintenance. Those who have taken vows of poverty do so, so that everything they have is put towards something other than themselves.

 

The RCC is not free from material possessions. Corruption associated.to wealth is a problem. I think it naive to believe that anyone with power and money is free from corrupting influence.

 

Personally, when it comes to the excessive wealth held in places such as the Vatican Bank, I would.prefer to see it all put towards charitable activities. Wealth sitting around, whether it is a bank or investments, is a waste and a continuous temptation.

I suppose one could argue the parable of the talents is good justification for how LDS and Vatican handle investments.

I heard the mall in SLC was to preserve the area of the HQ as well as to keep the city looking good. If the prfits can be used later to help the poor or for temples it may not be so bad.

[rpn]

I don't believe there is corruption.   And it is hard to credit corruption claims without knowing the real name of any persons making such allegations and how they claim to have come to the information.   And there is a disincentive for members to participate in corruption as that is the fastest way to excommunication that will not result in rebaptism any time soon.   There is an army of auditors on local and regional levels (though few actually trained), and some solid financial controls.

 

I suppose if one wanted to see how contracts worked in real life, they would go join the work force at one of the temple sites.  Most of the workers are non-members and local hires.   The reports that have come out over the years from these workforces is that they are told it is a special building and they end up feeling it is a special building in the care of the work, and the language of the workers and everything in between.

[Analytics]

What Osteen, Haggin and Hinn do is irrelevant to the discussion. Your use of the phrase "follow high standards" is an instance of poisoning the well. It's manipulative rhetoric presupposing that unfettered access to financial records amounts to "high standards" and anything else is deficient. That does not necessarily follow. I have already suggested why it may not be prudent in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

For the Church, following high standards would be the expenditure of funds in accordance with the will of God and in alignment with its mission, which is to bring salvation to and otherwise bless mankind. Under divine guidance, such mission-aligned expenditures can be accomplished by the Church without giving public access to its books. In fact, the faithful believe it is being accomplished under such divine guidance.

 

They may be well be afraid that hostile persons will twist the truth to purvey falsehood. That, after all, is the modus operandi of the anti-Mormon.

  

Again, it is not self-evident that it is always the right thing to do. I have endeavored to explain why.

 

Again, it doesn't work to say the Church of Jesus Christ should do things a certain way merely because certain Protestant denominations do them that way. Again, we do not aspire to be like sectarian faiths.

 

You have failed to show how this would be the case. You have not shown how opening up the Church's financials to the public would facilitate doing what it is already doing: Spending its funds in alignment with its divine mission and in accordance with the will of God.

 

We're clearly repeating ourselves.  Just to wrap this up, I'll just provide a single quote that summarizes mainstream standards on this point. Whether mainstream standards are "right," and whether your church is exempt from mainstream standards because it is special are points on which we simply disagree. 

 

Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christ-centered organizations. It may be true that public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of Christ-centered ministries in general is at stake.

 

Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal. Furthermore, the availability of financial statements promotes responsible Christian stewardship over assets as donors seek to make monetary investments in the work of the Kingdom.

 

http://www.ecfa.org/content/comment5

[Tacenda]

I think a quick tour of any temple, celestial room alone, would show where the billion dollar figure could come in. This is good though because these structures help millions of people meditate for better spirituality as well as perform ordinances.

One point I made in the op though was how have people learned about the alleged corruption with all the confidentiality?

I disagree, maybe we could meditate just as easily in the way of going to the poorer areas and help humanity.  Jesus said there is no more need for temples since he tore in half the curtain and we build how many?  And there is no cap on what is spent, according to an old neighbor of mine who worked for the church in that department.  There is no budget for the building of temples!!  Ok, how about there is no budget to feed and clothe the poor?  Besides wheelchairs, some water wells, quilts, school packs, toothbrushes, soap, baby clothes, & clothes from the DI, emergency water and food.  Which is totally funded by the LDS members themselves.  Maybe some of the money from the business side of the church could be donated, like the corporations that repeatedly outdo the church, along with many churches also.

 

I've heard too many stories about what it costs to build and furnish a temple.  Just one small glass vase has been bought for over $1,500!!   In my eyes that would turn the Savior's stomach.  I'm sincerely worried what his wrath will be for this behavior, rant over for now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

In 2013, President Thomas S. Monson invited members to help support the missionaries - especially those of lesser means - in their efforts to serve the Lord in a meaningful way. Donations to the General Missionary Fund really do help “change and save lives.”

So, because there is gentle encouragement for faithful Church members to support missionaries who are serving at their own expense, support that the faithful members would be disposed to give anyway, this somehow translates into an ethical obligation for the Church to disclose sensitive information to its most vicious detractors.

There is a disconnect here as wide as the Grand Canyon.

[Scott Lloyd]

We're clearly repeating ourselves. Just to wrap this up, I'll just provide a single quote that summarizes mainstream standards on this point. Whether mainstream standards are "right," and whether your church is exempt from mainstream standards because it is special are points on which we simply disagree.

It is you who is being repetitive in failing to take cognizance of responses that have already been given.

The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ does not behave as Protestant sects do or does not conform to your arbitrary standards in no way makes it ethically deficient.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

Eray the outside audit by an independent CPA firm is only of the church's for profit entities and it's university. The Corp of the President or whatever it is called now is not audited by an outside CPA firm.

All not for profits over a certain size must be audited by CPA firm and file a Form 990 with IRS. A church however is exempt from this requirement at least under current regulations in the US.

So I stand by my post.

[strappinglad]

So making a big deal out of a net worth of $30 billion?  It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

I am so underwhelmed, Bill Gates has a net worth 2.5 times the Church. Obviously the Church had better start making some serious investments . They are falling WAY behind in their search for filthy profit.

[saemo]

I suppose one could argue the parable of the talents is good justification for how LDS and Vatican handle investments.

I heard the mall in SLC was to preserve the area of the HQ as well as to keep the city looking good. If the prfits can be used later to help the poor or for temples it may not be so bad.

Hi, perhaps you can make the argument for the LDS Church (I don't know). But it can't be done for the Vatican. No Catholic believes, and the RCC does not teach, that accumulating wealth is what the parable of the talents is teaching.

 

Here is what the RCC teaches:

 

"the parable of the talents, makes us think about the relationship between how we use the gifts we have received from God and his return, when he will ask us what use we made of them (cf. Mt 25:14-30). We are well acquainted with the parable: before his departure the master gives a few talents to each of his servants to ensure that they will be put to good use during his absence. He gives five to the first servant, two to the second one and one to the third. In the period of their master’s absence, the first two servants increase their talents — these are ancient coins — whereas the third servant prefers to bury his and to return it to his master as it was.

 

On his return, the master judges what they have done: he praises the first two while he throws the third one out into the outer darkness because, through fear, he had hidden his talent, withdrawing into himself. A Christian who withdraws into himself, who hides everything that the Lord has given him, is a Christian who... he is not a Christian! He is a Christian who does not thank God for everything God has given him!

 

This tells us that the expectation of the Lord’s return is the time of action — we are in the time of action — the time in which we should bring God’s gifts to fruition, not for ourselves but for him, for the Church, for others. The time to seek to increase goodness in the world always; and in particular, in this period of crisis, today, it is important not to turn in on ourselves, burying our own talent, our spiritual, intellectual, and material riches, everything that the Lord has given us, but, rather to open ourselves, to be supportive, to be attentive to others.

 

In the square I have seen that there are many young people here: it is true, isn’t it? Are there many young people? Where are they? I ask you who are just setting out on your journey through life: have you thought about the talents that God has given you? Have you thought of how you can put them at the service of others? Do not bury your talents! Set your stakes on great ideals, the ideals that enlarge the heart, the ideals of service that make your talents fruitful. Life is not given to us to be jealously guarded for ourselves, but is given to us so that we may give it in turn. Dear young people, have a deep spirit! Do not be afraid to dream of great things!"

 

We are called to put all we have in the service of others, not to hold what we have to ourselves, is what the parable is about. It isn't about accumulating wealth and so that you can keep it safe for yourself.

 

I live in Salt Lake county. The mall is ok, as far as malls go. The building of it was not an altruistic moment on the part of the LDS Church. Downtown already had a thriving mall, which is now slowly closing down because SLC proper doesn't have the population to support two large shopping centers. So City Creek was built at the expense of another's enterprise. People in the burbs and other UT towns have their own malls that don't require driving to downtown SLC. One thing I can say, is the cheap parking at City Creek is appreciated by SLC residents and visitors. It costs less than parking at city meters.

[wenglund]

The solicitation of donations is the basis for disclosure. 

 

Not necessarily. in the U.S. and terms of religious organizations, It depends upon the terms under which the donations are transacted. If the donations are given on condition of disclosure or on promise of disclosure, then disclosure is warranted. Otherwise, it is up to the discernment of the church whether to disclose or not.

 

Donations to the LDS Church aren't taken, nor ought not be given, on condition of disclosure nor with the expectation of disclosure, regardless whether this sits well with agitators and discontents and overly meddling governments or not. 

 

In short, as has been pointed out, religious organization aren't automatically deprived of their right to privacy when soliciting or taking donation any more than donors ought to be deprived of their right to privacy upon giving donations. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2014 by wenglund

[Calm]

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

CFR please.

[Alan]

Does the Church (meaning the institution) adhere to the requirements of the D&C in financial matters?

Does the church (meaning the membership) get the chance to scrutinize and approve expenditure as the D&C requires?

 

I think the main reason for concern is that many Saints feel they are kept out of the loop when they should be kept in it.

 

I see no reason why the church cannot post it's accounts online prior to every general conference in order for the membership to exercise their common consent legitimately. If that means some will object then so be it. Why does it always have to be unanimous?

[wenglund]

Many Protestant churches don't follow these high standards either. 

 

Public disclosure of finances is not necessarily an indication of a higher standard, otherwise those of us who keep our personal finances private would then be misjudged as adhering to a lower standard. 

 

Indeed, under certain circumstances, non-disclosure publicly of finances may adhere to the higher standard of prudence, as in the case of personal finances in an environment at risk to thieves, and religious organization with avowed enemies.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2014 by wenglund