"john Dehlin Discloses His Finances, And The Church Doesn't."

[stemelbow]

What's been cited on here shows that OSF is required to disclose to the IRS.  Not voluntarily publish financial statements to a website for everyone to see.  But perhaps I have misunderstood.

I guess I was confused when Kfisher started quoting IRS website and linking. I thought he was suggesting, by doing so, that such orgs as Dehlin's are required by law to make them available for public inspection and copying? But you keep saying the opposite. Quoting from the link

In addition, an exempt organization must make available for public inspection and copying its annual return.

I could have missed something that shows this is not the case for Dehlin, because I got to this party late.

I think the OP has a point in that Dehlin has made the comparison between the Church not disclosing it's finances, even though it's not required to, and he disclosing them, which he is required to do. A pretty specious comparison--comparing apples and oranges.

With that said, I'd love to see the Church become completely transparent regarding it's moneys. That'd be awesome.

[rockpond]

I guess I was confused when Kfisher started quoting IRS website and linking. I thought he was suggesting, by doing so, that such orgs as Dehlin's are required by law to make them available for public inspection and copying? But you keep saying the opposite. Quoting from the link

I could have missed something that shows this is not the case for Dehlin, because I got to this party late.

I think the OP has a point in that Dehlin has made the comparison between the Church not disclosing it's finances, even though it's not required to, and he disclosing them, which he is required to do. A pretty specious comparison--comparing apples and oranges.

With that said, I'd love to see the Church become completely transparent regarding it's moneys. That'd be awesome.

 

I'll admit to being somewhat confused by some of the citations that were posted here.

 

I look at the four organizations that have received the bulk of my charitable donations:  The LDS Church, BSA, MS/OSF, and a local food pantry.  All are not-for-profit, charitable organizations.

 

The LDS Church does not disclose finances in the US at all.  Apparently they are "exempt" from that requirement.

 

My local council of the BSA does not disclose its finances.  It is not a church so I'm not sure why it is exempt.

 

MS/OSF has always disclosed on their website and personally to me as a donor.

 

The local food pantry posts a lengthy annual financial report on its website each year.

[stemelbow]

I'll admit to being somewhat confused by some of the citations that were posted here.

 

I look at the four organizations that have received the bulk of my charitable donations:  The LDS Church, BSA, MS/OSF, and a local food pantry.  All are not-for-profit, charitable organizations.

 

The LDS Church does not disclose finances in the US at all.  Apparently they are "exempt" from that requirement.

 

My local council of the BSA does not disclose its finances.  It is not a church so I'm not sure why it is exempt.

 

MS/OSF has always disclosed on their website and personally to me as a donor.

 

The local food pantry posts a lengthy annual financial report on its website each year.

That's fine. But the OP is pointing out one simple thing:

Dehlins' org is required to publically disclose.

The LDS Church is not.

So why make the comparison when it is an attempt to compare apples and oranges?

If all you really want is the Church to disclose...then complain to the Church. I'd be happy to see such disclosure myself.

[ERayR]

I guess I was confused when Kfisher started quoting IRS website and linking. I thought he was suggesting, by doing so, that such orgs as Dehlin's are required by law to make them available for public inspection and copying? But you keep saying the opposite. Quoting from the link

I could have missed something that shows this is not the case for Dehlin, because I got to this party late.

I think the OP has a point in that Dehlin has made the comparison between the Church not disclosing it's finances, even though it's not required to, and he disclosing them, which he is required to do. A pretty specious comparison--comparing apples and oranges.

With that said, I'd love to see the Church become completely transparent regarding it's moneys. That'd be awesome.

 

What would you consider completely transparent?  How detailed would you want?

[rockpond]

That's fine. But the OP is pointing out one simple thing:

Dehlins' org is required to publically disclose.

The LDS Church is not.

So why make the comparison when it is an attempt to compare apples and oranges?

If all you really want is the Church to disclose...then complain to the Church. I'd be happy to see such disclosure myself.

 

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison but I also don't see it as apples to oranges.

 

I believe that Dehlin/OSF would disclose even if they weren't required to (I still haven't seen any citation showing that they are required to publish full financials on their website).

 

The Church certainly could disclose if they wanted to.  They did in the past.

 

I think that's probably the point being made by those people the OP is "quoting".

[ERayR]

I'll admit to being somewhat confused by some of the citations that were posted here.

 

I look at the four organizations that have received the bulk of my charitable donations:  The LDS Church, BSA, MS/OSF, and a local food pantry.  All are not-for-profit, charitable organizations.

 

The LDS Church does not disclose finances in the US at all.  Apparently they are "exempt" from that requirement.

 

My local council of the BSA does not disclose its finances.  It is not a church so I'm not sure why it is exempt.

 

MS/OSF has always disclosed on their website and personally to me as a donor.

 

The local food pantry posts a lengthy annual financial report on its website each year.

 

I may have missed it but I did not see that MS was a 501©3.  I saw the claim that deductions were tax deductible but no assurance that they were 501©3.

[stemelbow]

What would you consider completely transparent?  How detailed would you want?

Thanks for asking. I'm not sure. I just like the idea of complete transparency. But if it were transparent I doubt I'd find myself digging in through the details of it. I'm not saying it'd be an easy thing nor necessarily the best thing for the Church. I just think the idea of transparency to be awesome.

[cinepro]

Well yeah, everybody pays income tax. But donations to Mormon Stories are tax deductible.

 

Of course everybody has to pay taxes.

[ERayR]

Must make available for public inspection

Per IRS website:

 

1)  Annual Returns (for 3 years after their due date) - Forms 990, 990-EZ,990-PF and 990-T

 

2) Corresponding Form 990 schedules (except donor names on Sch. B), attachments, and supporting documents.

 

3)  Application for exemption and all supporting documents Form 1023 and Form 1023-EZ

 

4)  Letter from IRS ruling that your organization has exempt status

Edited February 26, 2015 by ERayR

[cinepro]

I understand the financial aspects of the church just fine. I was referring to the ancient law as well as the current tithes and offerings that church membership provides. I will be more precise in the future.

The problem isn't that you weren't precise. The problem is that the Church has created several different classes of money (tithing funds, fast offerings, non-tithing funds) without, as far as I can tell, any scriptural precedent.  Have we ever really considered how odd it is that we can donate money to the Church and have it not be "tithing"?

[stemelbow]

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison but I also don't see it as apples to oranges.

 

I believe that Dehlin/OSF would disclose even if they weren't required to (I still haven't seen any citation showing that they are required to publish full financials on their website).

 

The Church certainly could disclose if they wanted to.  They did in the past.

 

I think that's probably the point being made by those people the OP is "quoting".

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The OP didn't quote anyone did it? Not exactly apples to apples is apples to oranges. That's the whole point of the expression. The expression is, either you are comparing apples to apples or you are not. when you are not you are comparing apples to oranges.

Ah well...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison but I also don't see it as apples to oranges.

 

I believe that Dehlin/OSF would disclose even if they weren't required to (I still haven't seen any citation showing that they are required to publish full financials on their website).

 

The Church certainly could disclose if they wanted to.  They did in the past.

 

I think that's probably the point being made by those people the OP is "quoting".

OSF is not required by law to publish anything on their website. They are required to give a copy (for a reasonable copy fee) to anyone that requests it. I assume the same is true for the BSA.

[stemelbow]

The problem isn't that you weren't precise. The problem is that the Church has created several different classes of money (tithing funds, fast offerings, non-tithing funds) without, as far as I can tell, any scriptural precedent.  Have we ever really considered how odd it is that we can donate money to the Church and have it not be "tithing"?

The Church has been funny that way. I don't know how it pulled it all off, but it does seem odd that it comes out and says things like, "well tithing moneys weren't used..." what do they mean? You mean money donated to the Church weren't used as investments which investments helped the Church get more money and that more money was used instead of the more recent tithing donations? Without tithing given the Church wouldn't have other investments. It just seems a little too sneaky for me. Just say, tithing has funded us and we've grown into quite an org because of it with plenty of other investments that help us fund many things.

[cinepro]

The Church has been funny that way. I don't know how it pulled it all off, but it does seem odd that it comes out and says things like, "well tithing moneys weren't used..." what do they mean? You mean money donated to the Church weren't used as investments which investments helped the Church get more money and that more money was used instead of the more recent tithing donations? Without tithing given the Church wouldn't have other investments. It just seems a little too sneaky for me. Just say, tithing has funded us and we've grown into quite an org because of it with plenty of other investments that help us fund many things.

 

One thing the Church never mentions is that sometimes we are given non-tithing money as well, and we don't have to pay tithing on it.  For example, if someone gives you a gift for a specific purpose, then this isn't "tithing" money, and you don't have to pay tithing on it.

[stemelbow]

One thing the Church never mentions is that sometimes we are given non-tithing money as well, and we don't have to pay tithing on it.  For example, if someone gives you a gift for a specific purpose, then this isn't "tithing" money, and you don't have to pay tithing on it.

Well what's this specific purpose and how do you know we don't have to pay tithing on it? Or are you just reasoning as the Church has reasoned to us?

[bluebell]

Have we ever really considered how odd it is that we can donate money to the Church and have it not be "tithing"?

 

Personally, no that doesn't seem weird to me.

 

Because like i said previously, I don't consider tithing a donation.  When i owe someone something (like i believe I owe God tithing) then me paying it is not a 'donation'.

 

But giving church money for other reasons or beyond ten percent i do consider a donation.  

[cinepro]

Well what's this specific purpose and how do you know we don't have to pay tithing on it? Or are you just reasoning as the Church has reasoned to us?

 

It's just what the Church teaches.  Some money is "tithing" money, and some money is "non-tithing" money.  Apparently, the distinction is based on how you get the money, and what you want to do with it.

[stemelbow]

It's just what the Church teaches.  Some money is "tithing" money, and some money is "non-tithing" money.  Apparently, the distinction is based on how you get the money, and what you want to do with it.

Got ya. I believe it was someone here who told me something like, "you can pay all your needed bills and obligations, take ten percent on what is left and call that tithing".

I see whose lead this person was following.

[rockpond]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The OP didn't quote anyone did it? Not exactly apples to apples is apples to oranges. That's the whole point of the expression. The expression is, either you are comparing apples to apples or you are not. when you are not you are comparing apples to oranges.

Ah well...

 

The OP wrote:  "You often hear his sychophantic followers utter this" referring to the title of the thread.  I was trying to explain what I understand to be their POV.

[Hamilton Porter]

What's been cited on here shows that OSF is required to disclose to the IRS.  Not voluntarily publish financial statements to a website for everyone to see.  But perhaps I have misunderstood.

 

 

Donations to the Church as also tax deductible.

Do you know what "available for public inspection" means?

[rockpond]

Do you know what "available for public inspection" means?

I'm fairly certain that it doesn't mean you have to post them on a website for all to view at no cost.

Edited February 27, 2015 by rockpond

[Calm]

Some businesses are not-for-profit.  A Not-for-profit (organization (NPO) is an organization that uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or 'mission', rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's directors (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the 'distribution constraint'. ^[1] The decision to adopt a nonprofit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications too, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption, charitable status and so on).- Wikipedia

 

There are a lot of such organizations pay a large portion of their income to the top executives as wages.

 

 

Is there a limit as to the percentage of wages/donations that can go to one person?

[Calm]

 Without tithing given the Church wouldn't have other investments. It just seems a little too sneaky for me. Just say, tithing has funded us and we've grown into quite an org because of it with plenty of other investments that help us fund many things.

 

There were and are a lot of people who just donate money or property to the Church without it being tithing.

 

The Church has been involved in business and nontithing ventures from practically the beginning…for example, Martin Harris donated money to help get money to pay for the printing of the BoM, the understanding was if possible he would be repaid out of the sale of the books IIRC.

 

I don't think it is possible at this late date especially given the turmoil that occurred at Joseph and Brigham's deaths trying to decide what of their property was the Church's and what was personal to divide all the sources and determine that such and such a business owned by the Church never involved tithing money, but was part of the business side of the Church from the beginning, but I do think we need to acknowledge that not all money in the Church available for investment started out as tithing.

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Is there a limit as to the percentage of wages/donations that can go to one person?

 

I can not answer that with certainty but some spend up to 85% to 95% for fund raising costs and  executive compensation.  There is certainly some egregious examples out there.

[Teancum]

The items on those statements are already required on the 990. You've been suckered into thinking he's some virtuous guy. You poor thing.

Are you a Dehlin hater?

Edited February 27, 2015 by Teancum