Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

For those calling for complete transparency are you comfortable with your name and amount donated on a publicly  distributed report?  That is what complete transparency would require.  Just think what can and has been done with such lists.

[thesometimesaint]

BTW, that is a poor attempt at moving the goal posts.

 

I'll accept any donations I can get.

[Vance]

I'll accept any donations I can get.

Oh, wait, was THAT a "solicitation"? Edited August 7, 2014 by Vance

[wenglund]

Not in my NT or OT or BOM.  In fact I like you can not find it.

 

I see quite the opposite, not only in terms of the NT edict to not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing when it comes to alms, but also the BoM charge against those who judge and condemn and withhold against those who petition/solicit for substance (Mosiah 4, particularly verses 15 to 27). If we aren't to question the beggar who puts forth their hand, then why the Church putting forth its hand on the beggars behalf?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[saemo]

And that would be a struggle you would have to wrestle with.

 

If you worried about your participation in an activity is supporting criminal activity you should stop paying your taxes.  Yea but see where that gets you.

 

You can certainly speak on what ever you choose to speak on but don't get offended when you are told to butt ou and mind your own business. 

I didn't realize this was a Mormon only thread. My mistake.

[cinepro]

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-

 

 

I'm confused.  The Church did publish its financials until 1959.  So are you arguing that until 1959, it was the members' business and the Church was acting appropriately, and then it stopped being their business in 1959?  Or that until 1959, it was culturally acceptable to look at a Church's financials, but since then we've become more prudent and now it isn't?

 

I can understand why an organization (or person) would want to keep financial data secret.  What I can't understand is how someone could believe that the tithing money is the "Lord's" money, but also that the LDS Church has fallible leaders, while at the same time believing that the Church should keep the financials secret.  You can pick any two of those beliefs and remain intellectually consistent, but not all three.

Edited August 7, 2014 by cinepro

[ERayR]

I didn't realize this was a Mormon only thread. My mistake.

 

I never said it was.  In fact just the opposite.  What I said is don't get offended at some of the responses and here you go and get offended.  I'm sorry.

[Analytics]

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-

 

The missionaries ask non-members to commit to paying 10% of their income to the Church whenever the said non-members get to that point in the missionary discussions. 

 

In any case, the distinction between "public" and "private members" is equivocation--the way the BBB uses the term, church members are part of the public. 

[wenglund]

I'm confused.  The Church did publish its financials until 1959.  So are you arguing that until 1959, it was the members' business and the Church was acting appropriately, and then it stopped being their business in 1959?  Or that until 1959, it was culturally acceptable to look at a Church's financials, but since then we've become more prudent and now it isn't?

 

I can understand why an organization (or person) would want to keep financial data secret.  What I can't understand is how someone could believe that the tithing money is the "Lord's" money, but also that the LDS Church has fallible leaders, while at the same time believing that the Church should keep the financials secret.  You can pick any two of those beliefs and remain intellectually consistent, but not all three.

 

Yes, you are very confused. You are conflating my comments about non-members busying themselves with Church business, with your comments about church members busying themselves with Church business.

 

You are also confusing what the church determines, at different times and under different circumstances, is best to disclose to members about church business, with what certain busy-body members believe the Church should disclose here and now about its business.

 

Finally, you are confused by incorrectly viewing the matter in binary terms rather than appropriately in matters of degree, where fallibility of leaders may exist, but not sufficient, particular when weighed against the rate at which they do things right and in accordance with God's will, to warrant far more fallible people (members and non-members alike) busying themselves in the private affairs of the Church. 

 

Once you unravel your confusing in these three important respects, then perhaps my comments will make more sense to you, though I won't hold my breath..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gagelish]

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-

Hey there Wade,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this particular topic, but I'm glad we can agree that that has no bearing on how faithful a member may be.

As far as asking people in this discussion to disclose their financial information as a situation analogous to the church I just don't think the similarities are similar enough or the differences few enough to seriously compare the two as anything more than a distraction to the actual topic at hand. Luckily that whole line of discussion has pretty much disappeared so it looks like it's become a non-issue.

As far as the ethical merits of transparency vs. opacity I think you misunderstood. I don't find the concept of transparency being an ethically superior position to be unbelievable at all, it seems that plenty of other people did. It does seem, however, that you agree with me though that from a strictly ethical perspective, transparency is the more ethical position. Sure, if we take other factors into account like security, privacy, convenience, etc. financial opacity might be the, "better" option for the church overall, but looking at it strictly from a binary ethical perspective, transparency is the more ethical position to hold.

I don't think I'm in a position to even begin to fathom the countless factors that go into a decision like that, and if I were I imagine I would undoubtedly see the wisdom in keeping matters of finance private, but the fact remains that being more forthcoming would be a stronger position ethically, other churches manage to do it, and as the restored gospel on earth I believe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and trust that by taking the difficult but courageous stance our Heavenly Father would help us weather lies and deceit from those who would seek to use that information to harm the church.

I also would be curious what you thought about my last point that being more open could actually help in some cases? No matter how much information the church discloses there will always be those who seek to harm the church through lies and deception, but I do believe that in some cases being more transparent would actually help to diffuse attacks rather than instigating them.

Again, thanks for welcoming me to the board and thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Cheers

[wenglund]

The missionaries ask non-members to commit to paying 10% of their income to the Church whenever the said non-members get to that point in the missionary discussions. 

 

In any case, the distinction between "public" and "private members" is equivocation--the way the BBB uses the term, church members are part of the public. 

 

No. Missionaries teach willing investigators about the gospel of Christ, and when the investigators are converted and wish to be baptized, they are instructed on what such a covenant relationship with Christ will entail. This, in no reasonable sense can be construed as the Church soliciting non-members for money. So, the CFR stands.

 

And, no, the distinction between public and private is not an equivocation (you defy your screen name with your clear misuse of terms like "equivocation"), but a perfectly rational categorization oft formally recognized even by the government:

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Private_Law_vs_Public_Law

http://www.allbusiness.com/business-planning/business-structures/2304-1.html

http://www.ssa.gov/section218training/documents/course_9.doc

http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/emerging-church/public-vs-private-schools/

 

See also:

http://www.zlien.com/articles/faq-is-a-church-a-public-project-or-a-private-commercial-project/

http://501c3.org/blog/public-charity-vs-private-foundation/

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Vance]

The missionaries ask non-members to commit to paying 10% of their income to the Church whenever the said non-members get to that point in the missionary discussions.

You mean the discussion that starts with,

 

One of the great blessings of membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the privilege of contributing to the growth of the kingdom of God through paying tithing.

 

In any case, the distinction between "public" and "private members" is equivocation--

rrriiiiight! Edited August 7, 2014 by Vance

[saemo]

I never said it was.  In fact just the opposite.  What I said is don't get offended at some of the responses and here you go and get offended.  I'm sorry.

It's OK. I'm probably being too sensitive to participate anyway.

 

Sees ya.

[wenglund]

Hey there Wade,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this particular topic, but I'm glad we can agree that that has no bearing on how faithful a member may be.

As far as asking people in this discussion to disclose their financial information as a situation analogous to the church I just don't think the similarities are similar enough or the differences few enough to seriously compare the two as anything more than a distraction to the actual topic at hand. Luckily that whole line of discussion has pretty much disappeared so it looks like it's become a non-issue.

As far as the ethical merits of transparency vs. opacity I think you misunderstood. I don't find the concept of transparency being an ethically superior position to be unbelievable at all, it seems that plenty of other people did. It does seem, however, that you agree with me though that from a strictly ethical perspective, transparency is the more ethical position. Sure, if we take other factors into account like security, privacy, convenience, etc. financial opacity might be the, "better" option for the church overall, but looking at it strictly from a binary ethical perspective, transparency is the more ethical position to hold.

I don't think I'm in a position to even begin to fathom the countless factors that go into a decision like that, and if I were I imagine I would undoubtedly see the wisdom in keeping matters of finance private, but the fact remains that being more forthcoming would be a stronger position ethically, other churches manage to do it, and as the restored gospel on earth I believe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and trust that by taking the difficult but courageous stance our Heavenly Father would help us weather lies and deceit from those who would seek to use that information to harm the church.

I also would be curious what you thought about my last point that being more open could actually help in some cases? No matter how much information the church discloses there will always be those who seek to harm the church through lies and deception, but I do believe that in some cases being more transparent would actually help to diffuse attacks rather than instigating them.

Again, thanks for welcoming me to the board and thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Cheers

 

I appreciate your participation in this discussion as well, and I would very much wish to better understand your position whether I ultimately come to agree with it or not.

 

Accordingly, could you please explain, in meta and normative and applied terms, why you view transparency, particularly in regards to financial disclosure, as an ethical issue rather than as a pragmatic issue, and also what there is about transparency that supposedly makes it a "superior ethic"?

 

And, could you please explain why the alleged superior ethics of transparency applies to groups and not to individuals?

 

I ask, in part, because my understanding of ethics is that they are moral principles that apply across the board to both individuals and groups.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Raingirl]

The missionaries ask non-members to commit to paying 10% of their income to the Church whenever the said non-members get to that point in the missionary discussions. 

 

In any case, the distinction between "public" and "private members" is equivocation--the way the BBB uses the term, church members are part of the public.

Wow. This is such a twisted interpretation of what tithing is and how it happens that it's hard to even know how to respond. I can't begin to get my mind to make all the convolutions necessary to reach such an interpretation in order for one to make such a feeble attempt at proving something.

[ERayR]

For those calling for complete transparency are you comfortable with your name and amount donated on a publicly  distributed report?  That is what complete transparency would require.  Just think what can and has been done with such lists.

 

Just a bump for my question.

[Tacenda]

For those calling for complete transparency are you comfortable with your name and amount donated on a publicly  distributed report?  That is what complete transparency would require.  Just think what can and has been done with such lists.

Sure, if people were donating money my way then of course, it's a given. EDIT:  Oops, I read this totally wrong, just a little tired after a day with 2nd graders. 

 

I'll answer again....

 

No, but do as other organizations have done and show what comes in and what goes out and on what.  Do they put peoples names and what they donated for the public to view?  Not to my recollection, so maybe make comparable scenarios. 

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

Not in my NT or OT or BOM.  In fact I like you can not find it.

 

I think this is the operating principle.

[cinepro]

For those calling for complete transparency are you comfortable with your name and amount donated on a publicly  distributed report?  That is what complete transparency would require.  Just think what can and has been done with such lists.

 

Who cares about  "complete transparency"?  Seriously, even something like what the SVA's do would be fantastic:

 

2012

Contributions In US Dollars

Tithe - $2,314,826,002.

Tithe Per Capita - $134.72

Sabbath School Mission Offerings - $73,275,709.

Ingathering - $9,189,884.

Total Tithe and Offerings - $3,276,600,259.

Total Tithe and Offerings Per Capita - $190.69

Adventist Development and Relief Agency International (ADRA)

Countries and Areas of the World Where ADRA is Present* more than - 120

Total Projects Funded* - 1,294

Beneficiaries of Projects* - 12,536,522

Total Value of Aid* - $246,088,214

( * Supporting and Implementing)

 

 

It's not that hard, or monumental.  It's just a simple accounting.

[Thinking]

And, could you please explain why the alleged superior ethics of transparency applies to groups and not to individuals?

 

As an individual, financial transparency occurs between me and those to whom I am indebted. Before the bank will loan me money to buy a house, for example, I must surrender to the bank a complete report of my finances. My neighbor does not see that report.

 

I am in charge of a school group that requires that fees be paid to cover necessary expenses such as buses, entry fees, equipment, etc. I keep a spreadsheet of everything. A few years ago a parent questioned the finances. I printed the spreadsheet and we met with the assistant principal. The parent studied the spreadsheet, then left without saying much. It was a short meeting. I inform the parents each year that if they ever have questions about the finances, they are welcome to see the books. It is their money, after all, that I am using to run the program.

[USU78]

Who cares about  "complete transparency"?  Seriously, even something like what the SVA's do would be fantastic:

 

 

It's not that hard, or monumental.  It's just a simple accounting.

 

Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand is doing.

[cinepro]

Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand is doing.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt 5:16)

[USU78]

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt 5:16)

 

Nice try, but this is specific to $$:

 

 1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

[ERayR]

Sure, if people were donating money my way then of course, it's a given. EDIT:  Oops, I read this totally wrong, just a little tired after a day with 2nd graders. 

 

I'll answer again....

 

No, but do as other organizations have done and show what comes in and what goes out and on what.  Do they put peoples names and what they donated for the public to view?  Not to my recollection, so maybe make comparable scenarios. 

 

Then you don't really want full disclosure do you.  Whose to say what will satisfy someone else who may want full disclosure.  Can you even imagine printing and distributing a donor list with several million names.

[Tacenda]

Nice try, but this is specific to $$:

Then I guess the LDS newsroom shouldn't report money or donations that go toward humanitarian efforts.