Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[Alan]

Yes Wade, but I didn't give you any of my money.

[wenglund]

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?

 

To your way of thinking, what are the specific bounds, if any, for when the general membership ought to be "in the loop" as opposed to "out of the loop" when it comes to Church governance?

 

For example, should the general membership as a whole be included (through public disclosure) in each members tithing settlement?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alan]

Of course not!

Only the Bishop gets involved in that.

 

But total income and areas of expenditure would be a start.

[ksfisher]

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?

 

I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

D&C 38:27

[wenglund]

Yes Wade, but I didn't give you any of my money.

 

 

So? The Church doesn't accept your donations upon condition of disclosure, nor is the Church's right of privacy negated by virtue of your's or anyone else's donations.

 

Nor, for that matter, was your membership in the Church accepted on condition of you being able to meddle in Church governance.

 

Rather, the Church/gospel is set up to help you concern yourself with you and your affairs, and not the other way around.

 

When and how did this become inverted in some people's minds? Certainly, reading through the scriptures I get no sense of where the Lord has inspired disciples to demand public disclosure of collected alms and offerings. In fact, the notion of not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing (Mt 6:3) seems, in principle, to suggest otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Of course not!

Only the Bishop gets involved in that.

 

But total income and areas of expenditure would be a start.

 

On the basis of what principles do you distinguish between the two? Why is it not right or necessary to disclose specific donations received by the Church, but it is right and necessary to disclose general donations?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

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.

 

I've heard your responses; I'm simply not convinced. 

 

I'm trying to walk away from this conversation, but I must clarify a few things.  In terms of financial governance, your church behaves like some protetant ministries, but not others.  The standards in question aren't arbitrary--they are well-thought out, principle based, and widely accepted by mainstream society. 

 

To prove this last point, consider the fact that the Better Business Bureau has weighed in on the matter. "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability were developed to assist donors in making sound giving decisions and to foster public confidence in charitable organizations....

 

"The Standards for Charity Accountability were developed with professional and technical assistance from representatives of small and large charitable organizations, the accounting profession, grant making foundations, corporate contributions officers, regulatory agencies, research organizations and the BBBs. The BBB Wise Giving Alliance also commissioned significant independent research on donor expectations to ensure that the views of the general public were reflected in the standards....

 

"The overarching principle of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability is full disclosure to donors and potential donors at the time of solicitation and thereafter. However, where indicated, the standards recommend ethical practices beyond the act of disclosure in order to ensure public confidence and encourage giving. As voluntary standards, they also go beyond the requirements of local, state and federal laws and regulations."

 

According to the BBB, these standards do in fact apply to your church, because it is in fact a publicly soliciting organization that istax exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Standard #11 says organizations shall, "Make available to all, on request, complete annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. When total annual gross income exceeds $500,000*, these statements should be audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $500,000*, a review by a certified public accountant is sufficient to meet this standard. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $250,000*, an internally produced, complete financial statement is sufficient to meet this standard."

 

http://www.bbb.org/us/standards-for-charity-accountability/

Edited August 7, 2014 by Analytics

[saemo]

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-

I work for a non-profit org, and when soliciting donations, people want to see where the money goes before they donate. If a non-profit org does not provide this information, their donations will be significantly less, if anything at all. Some people look for a single indicator, that of, what percentage of donations goes towards the organizations programs as apposed to administrative costs. Other people have very specific programs they want their money to go towards, and donate for the purposes of those programs only.

 

I approach my religious donations along the same lines. I donate to charitable organizations who have transparency. If an organization has a low reputation, hides its program goals, its costs, and income towards those programs I want to support, I'm not donating to it. Really, I think it would be foolish to hand over my hard earned money, and not know what is going to be done with it. Does it all go into someone's pocket? Does half, a third, a tenth go towards what I'm hoping to support? I'd like to know these things, and reputable non profit organizations disclose them.

[Gervin]

I've heard your responses; I'm simply not convinced. 

 

I'm trying to walk away from this conversation, but I must clarify a few things.  In terms of financial governance, your church behaves like some protetant ministries, but not others.  The standards in question aren't arbitrary--they are well-thought out, principle based, and widely accepted by mainstream society. 

 

To prove this plast point, consider the fact that the Better Business Bureau has weighed in on the matter. "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability were developed to assist donors in making sound giving decisions and to foster public confidence in charitable organizations....

 

"The Standards for Charity Accountability were developed with professional and technical assistance from representatives of small and large charitable organizations, the accounting profession, grant making foundations, corporate contributions officers, regulatory agencies, research organizations and the BBBs. The BBB Wise Giving Alliance also commissioned significant independent research on donor expectations to ensure that the views of the general public were reflected in the standards....

 

"The overarching principle of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability is full disclosure to donors and potential donors at the time of solicitation and thereafter. However, where indicated, the standards recommend ethical practices beyond the act of disclosure in order to ensure public confidence and encourage giving. As voluntary standards, they also go beyond the requirements of local, state and federal laws and regulations."

 

According to the BBB, these standards do in fact apply to your church, because it is in fact a publicly soliciting organization that istax exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Standard #11 says organizations shall, "Make available to all, on request, complete annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. When total annual gross income exceeds $500,000*, these statements should be audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $500,000*, a review by a certified public accountant is sufficient to meet this standard. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $250,000*, an internally produced, complete financial statement is sufficient to meet this standard."

 

http://www.bbb.org/us/standards-for-charity-accountability/

Good point (that I was about to make ) 

Note also that the BBB list includes American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, American Jewish World Service, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Catholic Relief Services, Islamic Networks, Jewish National Fund, Muslim Advocates and the World Jewish Congress Foundation.  That is, it's not just the dammed Protestants trying to foist their EV ways on the world.

 

[saemo]

Charity Navigator is a reputable tool that rates charitable organizations. This is their ratings guideline:

 

We rate charities by evaluating two broad areas of performance; their Financial Health and their Accountability & Transparency. Our ratings show givers how efficiently we believe a charity will use their support today, how well it has sustained its programs and services over time and their level of commitment to being accountable and transparent. In the not-too-distant future, we plan to also rate charities’ reporting of their results. We provide these ratings so that givers can make intelligent giving decisions, and so that the philanthropic community can more effectively monitor itself.

 

[wenglund]

I work for a non-profit org, and when soliciting donations, people want to see where the money goes before they donate. If a non-profit org does not provide this information, their donations will be significantly less, if anything at all. Some people look for a single indicator, that of, what percentage of donations goes towards the organizations programs as apposed to administrative costs. Other people have very specific programs they want their money to go towards, and donate for the purposes of those programs only.

 

I approach my religious donations along the same lines. I donate to charitable organizations who have transparency. If an organization has a low reputation, hides its program goals, its costs, and income towards those programs I want to support, I'm not donating to it. Really, I think it would be foolish to hand over my hard earned money, and not know what is going to be done with it. Does it all go into someone's pocket? Does half, a third, a tenth go towards what I'm hoping to support? I'd like to know these things, and reputable non profit organizations disclose them.

 

That is the beauty of a relatively free society. We each get to donate according to terms we each deem best, and charitable organizations get to receive donations on terms they deem best. To each their own.

 

I differ from you in that I draw a sharp distinctions between lay religious organizations with spiritual and salvific agendas that I belong to and have been intimately involved in for years and deeply trust, as contrasted with non-profit organizations with temporal agendas that I know little to nothing about. As such, while I may rightly give not the least thought or concern to paying tithes and offerings to my religious faith--even given the non-disclosure of finances to the public, I may rightly feel inclined to do some measure of due diligence when considering donating to secular organization I may have just heard of through radio or TV commercials soliciting funds.

 

Again, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I think that is an assumption on your part unless you have references.  "They don't depend on stipend just to make ends meet."   If so, why then accept the stipen?    Semantics.  Doing the Lord's work - but only if I get paid.    

 

Because for many years our leaders weren't independently wealthy. They really did need the money.

[saemo]

That is the beauty of a relatively free society. We each get to donate according to terms we each deem best, and charitable organizations get to receive donations on terms they deem best. To each their own.

 

I differ from you in that I draw a sharp distinctions between lay religious organizations with spiritual and salvific agendas that I belong to and have been intimately involved in for years and deeply trust, as contrasted with non-profit organizations with temporal agendas that I know little to nothing about. As such, while I may rightly give not the least thought or concern to paying tithes and offerings to my religious faith--even given the non-disclosure of finances to the public, I may rightly feel inclined to do some measure of due diligence when considering donating to secular organization I may have just heard of through radio or TV commercials soliciting funds.

 

Again, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can understand this approach, and many Catholics view their religious donations in the same way. Life has made me more aware of corruption, and I no longer view any organization as free from the burden of corruption. Humans sin, and I take a prudent approach to giving.

[Sleeper Cell]

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. 

 

 

Subject to “mainstream standards?” Since when is anyone subject to “mainstream standards”  -- let alone a church? 

 

I am subject to the law. I am subject to those standards which I have voluntarily agreed to follow.  I am subject to the commandments of God.  I am not subject to someone else‘s standards, whether they be those of a single individual or those of the majority.  

[wenglund]

I've heard your responses; I'm simply not convinced. 

 

I'm trying to walk away from this conversation, but I must clarify a few things.  In terms of financial governance, your church behaves like some protetant ministries, but not others.  The standards in question aren't arbitrary--they are well-thought out, principle based, and widely accepted by mainstream society. 

 

To prove this last point, consider the fact that the Better Business Bureau has weighed in on the matter. "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability were developed to assist donors in making sound giving decisions and to foster public confidence in charitable organizations....

 

"The Standards for Charity Accountability were developed with professional and technical assistance from representatives of small and large charitable organizations, the accounting profession, grant making foundations, corporate contributions officers, regulatory agencies, research organizations and the BBBs. The BBB Wise Giving Alliance also commissioned significant independent research on donor expectations to ensure that the views of the general public were reflected in the standards....

 

"The overarching principle of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability is full disclosure to donors and potential donors at the time of solicitation and thereafter. However, where indicated, the standards recommend ethical practices beyond the act of disclosure in order to ensure public confidence and encourage giving. As voluntary standards, they also go beyond the requirements of local, state and federal laws and regulations."

 

According to the BBB, these standards do in fact apply to your church, because it is in fact a publicly soliciting organization that istax exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Standard #11 says organizations shall, "Make available to all, on request, complete annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. When total annual gross income exceeds $500,000*, these statements should be audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $500,000*, a review by a certified public accountant is sufficient to meet this standard. For charities whose annual gross income is less than $250,000*, an internally produced, complete financial statement is sufficient to meet this standard."

 

http://www.bbb.org/us/standards-for-charity-accountability/

 

The Better Business Bureau public disclosure accounting principle makes sense for businesses doing business (including non-profit) with the general public. They don't necessarily make sense for non-businesses involved in private affairs. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

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? We can support our Missionaries in many ways. Just a few ideas are to go on splits with them, invite them to dinner, if possible donation a few dollars to the General Missionary Fund.

[Gagelish]

This is my first post here, but I felt compelled to join the conversation if only to offer a perspective from a faithful member firmly in favor of financial transparency. It seems that many of the people posting in opposition seem to be implying that those two positions are mutually exclusive and I submit that they are not.

I am a little mystified by the obstinate refusal to recognize the manifest difference between the finances of the church and the finances of a rival poster on a message board. It seems less like a position that anyone could actually hold as equivalent and more like a childish attempt to derail discussion.

I also find it odd that the idea that financial transparency is an ethically superior position to opacity is so totally unbelievable. Would it necessarily be the easiest route? No. Would it present challenges and possibly allow liars and dissemblers to spread false or misrepresented information? Almost certainly. None of that, however, has the slightest bit to do with ethical standards which are objective and universal. By definition, what is ethically superior for one organization is ethically superior for all the others.

We are a church that believes all things shall be done by common consent. Furthermore, the church made a habit of making financial disclosures for decades until the practice was simply ended without explanation. I can simultaneously wish that the church was more transparent financially and have no desire to hold the church accountable for their expenditures. A desire to be privy to where tithing funds are allocated is not in itself unrighteous and does not imply a critical stance.

I also think that the argument that financial disclosures would be used to attack the church is a little ridiculous considering that this entire thread, any questions about City Creek, and a thousand other anti-mormon talking points would be rendered toothless if the church simply disclosed its finances. Look what critics do with the absence of information. Rumors about the GA's basically embezzling money, accusations that City Creek was built using tithing funds, constant questioning of how the church invests it's money. If the church gave an open accounting of its finances all of those issues would be put to bed in one fell swoop because there would be no question of salaries or stipends, real estate or relief funds. The information would simply be a matter of record.

An enemy can do terrible things with the uncertainty and doubt created by information that's been withheld. They can spread lies like the topic of this thread and there's no way to refute those lies because the information isn't available. If church finances were made public there's no lie they could tell that couldn't be instantly refuted with the facts.

Anyway, this has gotten. Little overlong for a first post, but I felt that my perspective was under represented in the respondents and I'd try to offer a different take on the topic.

Thanks for reading.

[Sleeper Cell]

I approach my religious donations along the same lines. I donate to charitable organizations who have transparency. If an organization has a low reputation, hides its program goals, its costs, and income towards those programs I want to support, I'm not donating to it. Really, I think it would be foolish to hand over my hard earned money, and not know what is going to be done with it. Does it all go into someone's pocket? Does half, a third, a tenth go towards what I'm hoping to support? I'd like to know these things, and reputable non profit organizations disclose them.

Are you saying that you do not consider the LDS Church to be a reputable non profit organization?

[thesometimesaint]

This is my first post here, but I felt compelled to join the conversation if only to offer a perspective from a faithful member firmly in favor of financial transparency. It seems that many of the people posting in opposition seem to be implying that those two positions are mutually exclusive and I submit that they are not.

I am a little mystified by the obstinate refusal to recognize the manifest difference between the finances of the church and the finances of a rival poster on a message board. It seems less like a position that anyone could actually hold as equivalent and more like a childish attempt to derail discussion.

I also find it odd that the idea that financial transparency is an ethically superior position to opacity is so totally unbelievable. Would it necessarily be the easiest route? No. Would it present challenges and possibly allow liars and dissemblers to spread false or misrepresented information? Almost certainly. None of that, however, has the slightest bit to do with ethical standards which are objective and universal. By definition, what is ethically superior for one organization is ethically superior for all the others.

We are a church that believes all things shall be done by common consent. Furthermore, the church made a habit of making financial disclosures for decades until the practice was simply ended without explanation. I can simultaneously wish that the church was more transparent financially and have no desire to hold the church accountable for their expenditures. A desire to be privy to where tithing funds are allocated is not in itself unrighteous and does not imply a critical stance.

I also think that the argument that financial disclosures would be used to attack the church is a little ridiculous considering that this entire thread, any questions about City Creek, and a thousand other anti-mormon talking points would be rendered toothless if the church simply disclosed its finances. Look what critics do with the absence of information. Rumors about the GA's basically embezzling money, accusations that City Creek was built using tithing funds, constant questioning of how the church invests it's money. If the church gave an open accounting of its finances all of those issues would be put to bed in one fell swoop because there would be no question of salaries or stipends, real estate or relief funds. The information would simply be a matter of record.

An enemy can do terrible things with the uncertainty and doubt created by information that's been withheld. They can spread lies like the topic of this thread and there's no way to refute those lies because the information isn't available. If church finances were made public there's no lie they could tell that couldn't be instantly refuted with the facts.

Anyway, this has gotten. Little overlong for a first post, but I felt that my perspective was under represented in the respondents and I'd try to offer a different take on the topic.

Thanks for reading.

 

Welcome the the glass menagerie.

 

Public disclosures of private finances inevitably leads to discontent among friend and foe alike. IE; I want the money spend this way, and not that way.

[wenglund]

I can understand this approach, and many Catholics view their religious donations in the same way. Life has made me more aware of corruption, and I no longer view any organization as free from the burden of corruption. Humans sin, and I take a prudent approach to giving.

 

Again, I am somewhat different than you. While corruption has made me somewhat untrusting of relative unknowns plying for money in the public marketplace, during the many years intimately involved in my church I have been given no substantive or meaningful reason to distrust (quite the contrary) Church leaders in their handling of the private affairs of my faith. With the later, I don't assume the worst and act accordingly, but quite the opposite. Under such conditions I can confidently give for the right reasons and not taint my giving with unwarranted apprehension or doubt.

 

I am sorry the same cannot be said for you, To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

 

Subject to “mainstream standards?” Since when is anyone subject to “mainstream standards”  -- let alone a church? 

 

I am subject to the law. I am subject to those standards which I have voluntarily agreed to follow.  I am subject to the commandments of God.  I am not subject to someone else‘s standards, whether they be those of a single individual or those of the majority.  

 

 

Touche.  A better word would be these standards apply to the LDS Church.  The Church isn't legally required to meet these standards--they are intended to be higher standards than the minimum required by law.

[Analytics]

The Better Business Bureau public disclosure accounting principle makes sense for businesses doing business (including non-profit) with the general public. They don't necessarily make sense for non-businesses involved in private affairs. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

According to mainstream sensibilities, these standards make sense for churches and charities that solicit donations from the public.  The LDS Church does in fact do that.

[ERayR]

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.

 

A sure fire way to establish universal poverty.

[ERayR]

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.

 

You left out the non-profit part.  I am sure it was just an oversight.

 

Its for profit, non-profit (Corp of Pres), and educational subsidiaries.  Seems inclusive to me.

[Calm]

 If the church gave an open accounting of its finances all of those issues would be put to bed in one fell swoop because there would be no question of salaries or stipends, real estate or relief funds. The information would simply be a matter of record.

Accusations of corruption, fraud and nepotism were present when the Church published it financials.  If they were present then and are present now, I see little reason to believe they would simply disappear if they began to publish them again.