Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

I disagree, maybe we could meditate just as easily in the way of going to the poorer areas and help humanity. 

 

You are free to do just that and in fact encouraged to do so.

 

Jesus said there is no more need for temples since he tore in half the curtain and we build how many? 

 

I think you have a serious misunderstanding here.  Check your D & C

 

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!! 

 

I don't know what you mean by no budget.  Temples are planned and budgeted for .  Do you mean that they do not cut corners and use the best available materials?

 

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.

 

You are clearly under educated about the Churches humanitarian outreach.  Suggest you do a little study.

 

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. 

 

It certainly didn't seem to bother him about the expensive construction and decorations in the temple at Jerusalem nor the one Solomon built.  

[USU78]

A sure fire way to establish universal poverty.

 

Does anybody think there's all that much money sitting in banks?

 

George Bailey, faced with a run on the Building & Loan: 

No, but you...you... you're thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The, the money's not here. Well, your money's in Joe's house...that's right next to yours. And in the Kennedy House, and Mrs. Macklin's house, and, and a hundred others. Why, you're lending them the money to build, and then, they're going to pay it back to you as best they can. Now what are you going to do? Foreclose on them?

 

Money, with very rare exceptions outside a certain part of the market in Switzerland, doesn't sit still.  Thinking the Vatican Bank is hoarding whilst hoards starve outside on the sidewalk is a precious lefty image, but bears little resemblance to reality:  banks put money to work.  Just 'cause they're not in the consumer housing lending market for a while doesn't mean the money's not at work somewhere else.

[saemo]

A sure fire way to establish universal poverty.

No, the cash inflow doesn't seem to have a prediction to stop. Hundreds of millions of dollars are donated every year to the Vatican. Sitting on those donations is not what they are meant for.

[wenglund]

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.

 

 

First, welcome to the board.

 

Second, I think you may be misreading thing into people's posts. Certainly, I would never imply that faithful members can't be in favor of "transparency." To me, having a faithfulness card in the Church isn't a guarantee of accurate or reasonable perspective on various issue.

 

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.

 

Let me see if I can demystify things for you and help maturate your understanding. While there are manifest differences between individuals and churches (such as the obvious single vs group distinction), both are PRIVATE entities involved in PRIVATE affairs, and should thus be accorded a greater measure of PRIVACY (less transparency) than PUBLIC or PRIVATE entities involved in PUBLIC affairs.

 

In other words, the manifest differences between individuals and churches isn't relevant to the issue at hand, whereas the manifest similarities (PRIVATE vs PUBLIC) are relevant.

 

 

I also find it odd that the idea that financial transparency is an ethically superior position to opacity is so totally unbelievable. 

 

Let me see if I can help your unbelief. Try considering the issue in a non-binary or even ethical senses, but in a more complex and pragmatic terms where the question isn't just about financial transparency, but instead where transparency is weighed rationally against competing principles such as privacy and safety, etc. , and this given in the important context of wishing to progress and meet certain spiritual and temporal goals.

 

For example, if people reasonably wish to do what works best in advancing their intents and purposes, and if certain levels of transparency are less amenable or contrary to such advancements, then it makes sense for them to be less transparent.

 

We understand this, in principle, with our own personal finances. In a world steeped in thieves and unscrupulous characters, the potential costs to our financial safety may be far outweighed by the benefit of transparency, and so our desire to preserve or grow economically we tend to opt for privacy

 

Since we understand this with our own personal finances, this ought to give us the capacity to understand the same, in principle, with other private entities engaged in private matters, like the Church. In a world with not a few enemies of the Church, where the costs of public hassles may be deemed as far outweighing the benefits of transparency in fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the Church, it would then make sense for the Church to not disclose its finances. Right?

 

Now, in the minds of some faithful members who may be as much out-of-the-know as they are out-of -the loop, they may assume that the benefits of transparency may outweigh the costs. And, while they are entitled to their opinion, hopefully they can respect that others, such as Church leaders who are in-the-know as well as in-the-loop have reasonably determined otherwise.

 

I hope this helps. Either way, to each their own. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2014 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Of course not!

Only the Bishop gets involved in that.

 

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

 

But complete transparency would require that.

[cinepro]

On the subject of GA's on the Church's corporate boards, it's important to remember that until the 1990's, Apostles typically sat on the Board of Directors for different Church-owned businesses.  So their official stipend may have been quite low, but they could presumably make a decent amount for these positions.

 

For example, in the Ed Kimball bio of President Kimball, it says:

 

 

 

As Church president, Spencer found himself automatically elected chairman of the board in many of the various enterprises which the Church owned or in which it had a large interest:  ZCMI department store, Zions First National Bank, Beneficial Life Insurance Company, Utah Home Fire Insurance, KSL radio and television, Utah Hotel Corporation, Zions Securities Corporation, and Utah-Idaho Sugar company, among others.

 

Lengthen Your Stride, Working Draft, Chapter 28, page 7

 

President Hinckley ended the practice in 1996, so Elder Packer could have been on a board (or boards) for 26 years.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/news-of-the-church/general-authorities-to-leave-business-boards?lang=eng

[wenglund]

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.

 

CFR that the Church, itself as an institution, solicits financial donations from the public, as distinguished from its private membership or corporate entities such as Deseret Industries--not that it is the business of former members such as yourself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[saemo]

Does anybody think there's all that much money sitting in banks?

 

George Bailey, faced with a run on the Building & Loan: 

 

Money, with very rare exceptions outside a certain part of the market in Switzerland, doesn't sit still.  Thinking the Vatican Bank is hoarding whilst hoards starve outside on the sidewalk is a precious lefty image, but bears little resemblance to reality:  banks put money to work.  Just 'cause they're not in the consumer housing lending market for a while doesn't mean the money's not at work somewhere else.

A bank putting non profit donations to work for their own benefits, also is not what those donations were meant for.

[cinepro]

You think Boyd Packer was or is a rich guy?  Seminary Teacher from Brigham?

 

USU "Really?" 78

Elder Packer is actually a perfect case study on this subject.

Obviously, if a wealthy man is called to be an Apostle, there's no way to know how much wealth he is accumulating as a result of his call. But if a relatively poor man is called, then you can see what kind of wealth he attains over the course of service and compare it to where he started from.

Now, obviously it's not a perfect system (someone might live frugally even after they have money), but as you point out, Elder Packer was a seminary teacher before his call to be an Apostle.

In President Packer's case, it's a little tough because while his house is pretty impressive (>5,000sqft on 4+ acres in a very nice section of SLC with a current Zillow estimated value of $2.7million, with surrounding homes valued from $600k - $2.2million), he probably purchased it long ago. It's still a dang impressive property for a seminary teacher's salary, but who can tell?

[cinepro]

CFR that the Church, itself as an institution, solicits financial donations from the public, as distinguished from its private membership or corporate entities such as Deseret Industries--not that it is the business of former members such as yourself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you really care if someone is a current member when it comes to this subject? Why? I find this website very interesting, even though I've never given money to almost all of the groups it discusses.

 

But if it is really important to you, I'm an active, tithe-paying member and since it is my "business", I think the Church should publish its financials, just as they did until 1959.

[saemo]

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-

You don't speak for me, so stop pretending that you are.

There are many good people, trustworthy, but you are talking about a group of people, and you don't know every person in the group. One crafty criminal is all it takes do dupe all the nice people that you are trusting. I think it naive to believe these types of people don't exist in your church. But to each their own I guess.

Take it from me, I worked for nearly 30 years in the Mormon business world. There are a lot of good people, but I have known Mormons in my career who have been convicted of fraud, and one guy I knew quite well, seemed very upstanding, trustworthy, worked in the banking field...convicted of bank robbery. All held callings in the Mormon church.

Good people can be sorely tempted by money, and can justify in their own minds criminal activity.

[USU78]

A bank putting non profit donations to work for their own benefits, also is not what those donations were meant for.

 

Parable of the Talents:

 

1. G-d gives me 2 bucks.  I give those 2 bucks to somebody else who needs them.  I do 2 bucks worth of good with the 2 bucks I received.

2. G-d gives me 10 bucks.  I lend them to another who builds a business that employs people, buys stuff from yet other people, and pays me a nice rate of return.  I give the interest to 5 others [under the Rule of 7s, I double the money in 7 years] over 7 years, each receiving 2 bucks, the people who are employed both make donations from money received as wages, and buy stuff from yet other people. Those other people who sell both to the business builder and his employees also donate part of their profits from sales so that yet additional people beyond my 5 get donations.  In 7 years that original 10 bucks expands to 4 or 5-fold benefits ending up in the pockets of those in need.

 

It ain't being selfish to be smart.

[ERayR]

There are many good people, trustworthy, but you are talking about a group of people, and you don't know every person in the group. One crafty criminal is all it takes do dupe all the nice people that you are trusting. I think it naive to believe these types of people don't exist in your church. But to each their own I guess.

 

 

Oh they exist hence the comprehensive financial audit of every ward and branch and stake and mission every six months.

[saemo]

Parable of the Talents:

 

1. G-d gives me 2 bucks.  I give those 2 bucks to somebody else who needs them.  I do 2 bucks worth of good with the 2 bucks I received.

2. G-d gives me 10 bucks.  I lend them to another who builds a business that employs people, buys stuff from yet other people, and pays me a nice rate of return.  I give the interest to 5 others [under the Rule of 7s, I double the money in 7 years] over 7 years, each receiving 2 bucks, the people who are employed both make donations from money received as wages, and buy stuff from yet other people. Those other people who sell both to the business builder and his employees also donate part of their profits from sales so that yet additional people beyond my 5 get donations.  In 7 years that original 10 bucks expands to 4 or 5-fold benefits ending up in the pockets of those in need.

 

It ain't being selfish to be smart.

The parable of talents isn't financial advice.

[Scott Lloyd]

First, welcome to the board.

Second, I think you may be misreading thing into people's posts. Certainly, I would never imply that faithful members can't be in favor of "transparency." To me, having a faithfulness card in the Church isn't a guarantee of accurate or reasonable perspective on various issue.

Let me see if I can demystify things for you and help maturate your understanding. While there are manifest differences between individuals and churches (such as the obvious single vs group distinction), both are PRIVATE entities involved in PRIVATE affairs, and should thus be accorded a greater measure of PRIVACY (less transparency) than PUBLIC or PRIVATE entities involved in PUBLIC affairs.

In other words, the manifest differences between individuals and churches isn't relevant to the issue at hand, whereas the manifest similarities (PRIVATE vs PUBLIC) are relevant.

Let me see if I can help your unbelief. Try considering the issue in a non-binary or even ethical senses, but in a more complex and pragmatic terms where the question isn't just about financial transparency, but instead where transparency is weighed rationally against competing principles such as privacy and safety, etc. , and this given in the important context of wishing to progress and meet certain spiritual and temporal goals.

For example, if people reasonably wish to do what works best in advancing their intents and purposes, and if certain levels of transparency are less amenable or contrary to such advancements, then it makes sense for them to be less transparent.

We understand this, in principle, with our own personal finances. In a world steeped in thieves and unscrupulous characters, the potential costs to our financial safety may be far outweighed by the benefit of transparency, and so our desire to preserve or grow economically we tend to opt for privacy

Since we understand this with our own personal finances, this ought to give us the capacity to understand the same, in principle, with other private entities engaged in private matters, like the Church. In a world with not a few enemies of the Church, where the costs of public hassles may be deemed as far outweighing the benefits of transparency in fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the Church, it would then make sense for the Church to not disclose its finances. Right?

Now, in the minds of some faithful members who may be as much out-of-the-know as they are out-of -the loop, they may assume that the benefits of transparency may outweigh the costs. And, while they are entitled to their opinion, hopefully they can respect that others, such as Church leaders who are in-the-know as well as in-the-loop have reasonably determined otherwise.

I hope this helps. Either way, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Very eloquently put, Wade.

I'm attending FairMormon Confernce today and can't participate as I'd like. Thanks for taking the ball.

[USU78]

Elder Packer is actually a perfect case study on this subject.

Obviously, if a wealthy man is called to be an Apostle, there's no way to know how much wealth he is accumulating as a result of his call. But if a relatively poor man is called, then you can see what kind of wealth he attains over the course of service and compare it to where he started from.

Now, obviously it's not a perfect system (someone might live frugally even after they have money), but as you point out, Elder Packer was a seminary teacher before his call to be an Apostle.

In President Packer's case, it's a little tough because while his house is pretty impressive (>5,000sqft on 4+ acres in a very nice section of SLC with a current Zillow estimated value of $2.7million, with surrounding homes valued from $600k - $2.2million), he probably purchased it long ago. It's still a dang impressive property for a seminary teacher's salary, but who can tell?

 

My folks bought their first home in 1954 for $7K at 4% interest and paid it off early.  Riding the inflation gravy train, that 3 bed 2 bath split level in Vallejo, CA, is worth >$1.5M now.  And Vallejo is a sucky place to live.

 

But of course, this doesn't fit the Godbeite/lefty narrative of plutocratic apostolic oppressors of the poor misusing the widow's mite, does it?

[USU78]

The parable of talents isn't financial advice.

 

Nope.  It's telling everybody to put what we have been given to work so as to do the most benefit for the greatest number.

 

The Vatican Bank is not evil.

 

Neither are those on the Committee on Tithes [sp?].

[saemo]

Oh they exist hence the comprehensive financial audit of every ward and branch and stake and mission every six months.

So you say, but there is no transparency or accountability to the people who donated. No one is given summary of the audit report. So, you are repeating something you've seen or heard but that wouldn't convince me to make a donation myself.

[ERayR]

No, the cash inflow doesn't seem to have a prediction to stop. Hundreds of millions of dollars are donated every year to the Vatican. Sitting on those donations is not what they are meant for.

 

I certainly am no expert on Vatican business practices but I would doubt that it is just sitting in their.  My guess is that their managers are astute enough to invest wisely.   See USU78's previous post.

[cinepro]

My folks bought their first home in 1954 for $7K at 4% interest and paid it off early.  Riding the inflation gravy train, that 3 bed 2 bath split level in Vallejo, CA, is worth >$1.5M now.  And Vallejo is a sucky place to live.

 

But of course, this doesn't fit the Godbeite/lefty narrative of plutocratic apostolic oppressors of the poor misusing the widow's mite, does it?

 

I recognize that (as indicated by my statement "he probably purchased it long ago"), but it is a >5,000sqft house on several acres.  Assuming the apostolic stipends are adjusted for inflation, I doubt there was ever a time when such a property could be purchased with "modest means". 

 

It's not a 1500sqft tract home that just happened to be in the right area to ride the real estate bubble to seven digits.

Edited August 7, 2014 by cinepro

[saemo]

Nope.  It's telling everybody to put what we have been given to work so as to do the most benefit for the greatest number.

 

The Vatican Bank is not evil.

 

Neither are those on the Committee on Tithes [sp?].

Ha, you haven't kept up on the Vatican Bank scandals. There are good people, who trusted too much, and the not so good people took advantage. It's a huge mess. Pope Benedict XVI started reforms, and Pope Francis is continuing. I think it will get on track, but it isn't there yet.

You don't know what people are doing or not doing. Sentimentality in finance isn't wise.

[saemo]

Nope. It's telling everybody to put what we have been given to work so as to do the most benefit for the greatest number.

The Vatican Bank is not evil.

Neither are those on the Committee on Tithes [sp?].

If that were true the second servant would have been sent to outer darkness, for his poor investment decisions.

It is a parable that teaches us all we have from God and what we have is not ours to hide away for safe keeping. It is about our standing before God at our judgement, and I don't believe God is going to look at my financial portfolio to make sure it had good returns, and then judge me for making a good investment.

It is about people. Not money.

Edited August 7, 2014 by saemo

[ERayR]

The parable of talents isn't financial advice.

 

It works pretty well as such.

[ERayR]

So you say, but there is no transparency or accountability to the people who donated. No one is given summary of the audit report. So, you are repeating something you've seen or heard but that wouldn't convince me to make a donation myself.

 

I am not trying to convince you to donate to any cause.  If you want to donate then donate.  If you don't then don't.

 

The one thing you seem to forget is that once you give(notice the word give) to whatever cause you choose then it is theirs to use as they see fit without answering to you.  If you are not comfortable with that don't give. 

[wenglund]

Do you really care if someone is a current member when it comes to this subject? Why? I find this website very interesting, even though I've never given money to almost all of the groups it discusses.

 

But if it is really important to you, I'm an active, tithe-paying member and since it is my "business", I think the Church should publish its financials, just as they did until 1959.

 

With the startling proliferation of social media and the increasing need for people to expose themselves and their dirty laundry to the world, it is understandable that the notion of "mind your own business" would become lost on many. Gone are the days when the nosy Mrs. Kravits of the world, peeking out their windows and into other people's windows and meddling in the private affairs of their neighbors, was thought inappropriate. Clearly, we've become a nation of self appointed busy-bodies and voyeurs, and I am evidently way behind the time.

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-