Mass Exodus from Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 

If there are good reasons for men to remain unconverted, even directed, or "placed" by the Lord to remain unconverted, isn't it also possible that some who are born into this church may remain unconverted, leave the church, and even be directed by the Lord to do so, in order to accomplish his purposes outside the church?  It doesn't seem to me to be entirely implausible.  It seems like a man can do more good if he is not constrained by unbelief.   It may be his path as directed by the Lord to ultimate conversion.  The Lord's ways are not always our ways.  His purposes and methods may not make sense to us now, so I don't think it wise to assume that there are "never" good reasons to leave Mormonism.  I personally will leave that judgment up to the Lord.

Again, the notion is alien to any scriptural or doctrinal teaching I have ever encountered in the Church of Jesus Christ. Which leads me to conclude that the notion, like so many other things, comes from man and not from God.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It makes a great deal of difference from the standpoint of the donor who is contributing money to the fast offering or humanitarian funds and is concerned about whether all or only a portion of her donation is going directly to support the poor and needy.

And notwithstanding the fine print on the tithing slip, I think we have heard from enough people here who are in the know to conclude that fast offering or humanitarian donations in the Church don't go to "overhead."

Perhaps. But it still doesn't answer the question about the church's efficiency with donations.

[cdowis]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps. But it still doesn't answer the question about the church's efficiency with donations.

The Church Auditing Department, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2015 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Kevin R. Jergensen

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

The Church Auditing Department, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2015 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Kevin R. Jergensen

This essentially says that the church's audit department is fine with the way the church spends its money. Great. But it doesn't say anything about what those standards, requirements, policies, budgets may be.

Please explain what it means.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps. But it still doesn't answer the question about the church's efficiency with donations.

No "perhaps" about it. What part of "overhead is paid from tithing funds, not fast offerings" don't you understand?

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, the notion is alien to any scriptural or doctrinal teaching I have ever encountered in the Church of Jesus Christ. Which leads me to conclude that the notion, like so many other things, comes from man and not from God.

I don't make any hard fast conclusions where no clear doctrine has been established, and where prophetic teachings make it expressly clear that the Lord often times "places" people outside the church for His own purposes and good.  I don't presume to counsel the Lord in his dealings with man, nor do I judge man in his counsel with the Lord.

Quote

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? (Romans 11:34)

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by pogi

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't make any hard fast conclusions where no clear doctrine has been established, and where prophetic teachings make it expressly clear that the Lord often times "places" people outside the church for His own purposes and good.  I don't presume to counsel the Lord in his dealings with man, nor do I judge the dealings of man in his counsel with the Lord.

 

Can you give an example of when the Lord has "placed" someone "outside the church for His own purposes and good.  

(and I'm assuming that we're not just talking about people who are born outside the church doing good)

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Can you give an example of when the Lord has "placed" someone "outside the church for His own purposes and good.  

(and I'm assuming that we're not just talking about people who are born outside the church doing good)

I am referring to the quote in Ezra Taft Benson's conference talk.  It does not specify who the "unconverted" people are or where they come from, it simply states that the Lord has a different path for them. 

Quote

“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along,” said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. “They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)

 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am referring to the quote in Ezra Taft Benson's conference talk.  It does not specify who the "unconverted" people are or where they come from, it simply states that the Lord has a different path for them. 

 

The first word in your quote is "perhaps."  You've stated that this concept is clear from "prophetic teaching."  In my experience and learning prophetic teaching does not begin with the qualifier "perhaps." 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No "perhaps" about it. What part of "overhead is paid from tithing funds, not fast offerings" don't you understand?

 

You said...

Quote

It makes a great deal of difference from the standpoint of the donor who is contributing money to the fast offering or humanitarian funds and is concerned about whether all or only a portion of her donation is going directly to support the poor and needy.

I said..."perhaps." You made a judgment about it making a great deal of difference that may be true for some people, but not for others, so I think "perhaps" works just fine.

What don't I understand? I think I understand it pretty well though I am open to being corrected with actual data.

I understand that when the church receives $50 for FO and $50 for tithing it all goes into one fund. The church now has $100. Out of that $100 some percentage of that donation goes towards the charitable cause while some goes towards overhead. There are not separate bank accounts for FO and tithing from which they pay separately. This is my argument about "fungible" monies. Maybe you are not understanding the concept of fungible funds.

[James Tunney]

17 hours ago, cdowis said:

The Church Auditing Department, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2015 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Kevin R. Jergensen

Don't you want to see what these people in the auditing department see in order to verify their work?  We have no way of knowing whether or not the auditors are truly independent as they say and as Happy Jack Wagon said, all the above says is that the auditors agree that the church follows the church's rules, created by the church and unknown to the public, with respect to handling money.  Are they efficient?  How would we know?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Don't you want to see what these people in the auditing department see in order to verify their work?  We have no way of knowing whether or not the auditors are truly independent as they say and as Happy Jack Wagon said, all the above says is that the auditors agree that the church follows the church's rules, created by the church and unknown to the public, with respect to handling money.  Are they efficient?  How would we know?

To be fair, i don't know any of that for any of the places where I donate.  That doesn't bother me.  It doesn't seem to bother most people since i don't personally know anyone who finds out that info before they donate to a place or a cause.  It especially doesn't bother me concerning the church, because i find them trustworthy.

[Duncan]

How a Church spends money, this is what people worry about these days?

[HappyJackWagon]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To be fair, i don't know any of that for any of the places where I donate.  That doesn't bother me.  It doesn't seem to bother most people since i don't personally know anyone who finds out that info before they donate to a place or a cause.  It especially doesn't bother me concerning the church, because i find them trustworthy.

It's actually a pretty big deal. MANY people investigate the efficiency of a charity before making a donation. You can use sites like this to make it a bit easier. It is rather shocking how inefficient many charities are but even the best charities have expenses.

https://www.charitywatch.org/home

ETA- for example- it shows Catholic Relief Service with an A+ rating and 90% efficiency.

Cancer Research Institute receives an A at 85% efficiency versus the United Cancer Support Foundation with an F- and 9% efficiency, etc. etc.

So if a person is wanting to contribute to a cancer charity, they would likely do better donating to the Cancer Research Institute and avoiding the United Cancer Support Foundation. All charities are not equal, even if they are well-meaning.

Edited December 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's actually a pretty big deal. MANY people investigate the efficiency of a charity before making a donation. You can use sites like this to make it a bit easier. It is rather shocking how inefficient many charities are but even the best charities have expenses.

https://www.charitywatch.org/home

 

But all most really do is to read what other people, or the charity themselves, claim is true.  Most don't actually go find the data for themselves, do the math for themselves, check on the auditors themselves, look into the accounting practices personally, etc.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But all most really do is to read what other people, or the charity themselves, claim is true.  Most don't actually go find the data for themselves, do the math for themselves, check on the auditors themselves, look into the accounting practices personally, etc.

 

Not really. For example, the United Cancer Support Foundation don't give themselves an F- with a 9% efficiency rating. That is independently audited from financial reports most charities like 501C3's are required to make available.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really. For example, the United Cancer Support Foundation don't give themselves an F- with a 9% efficiency rating. That is independently audited from financial reports most charities like 501C3's are required to make available.

Like I said, they rely on what other people claim (in this case, an independent auditor).

I rely on what other people claim (in my case, an independent auditor).

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, they rely on what other people claim (in this case, an independent auditor).

I rely on what other people claim (in my case, an independent auditor).

Bluebell, are you honestly claiming that an internal church employed auditor claiming the church spends its money according to church policy based on internal documents no member has access to review, is the same as an independent audit of legally required financial records?

Do you realize that if a charity misstates their income and expenses on tax documents they would face some legal issues? There are checks and balances on the charity but not on the church. There's really no comparison here so I'm a bit surprised by your assertion that there is.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You said...

I said..."perhaps." You made a judgment about it making a great deal of difference that may be true for some people, but not for others, so I think "perhaps" works just fine.

What don't I understand? I think I understand it pretty well though I am open to being corrected with actual data.

I understand that when the church receives $50 for FO and $50 for tithing it all goes into one fund. The church now has $100. Out of that $100 some percentage of that donation goes towards the charitable cause while some goes towards overhead. There are not separate bank accounts for FO and tithing from which they pay separately. This is my argument about "fungible" monies. Maybe you are not understanding the concept of fungible funds.

How do you know there are not separate accounts?

Individuals on this thread who have had personal involvement with the disbursement of fast offering funds have attested here that all of the money donated for that purpose goes for care of the poor and needy.

The notion that all money donated to the Church goes into one big pot and there is no differentiation made as to how it is used is your own unsubstantiated assumption, which contradicts the word of individuals on this thread who are in a position to know.

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bluebell, are you honestly claiming that an internal church employed auditor claiming the church spends its money according to church policy based on internal documents no member has access to review, is the same as an independent audit of legally required financial records?

Do you realize that if a charity misstates their income and expenses on tax documents they would face some legal issues? There are checks and balances on the charity but not on the church. There's really no comparison here so I'm a bit surprised by your assertion that there is.

 

I'm saying that it all boils down to who you trust. Most people don't bother to validate information personally when it comes from a place or person they trust.  I doubt many personally verified the info shared by the watch dog site, for example.  

By the way, where can I go to find out how much in donations the united cancer support foundation received last year?  It would be interesting to know, given their score. 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How do you know there are not separate accounts?

Individuals on this thread who have had personal involvement with the disbursement of fast offering funds have attested here that all of the money donated for that purpose goes for care of the poor and needy.

The notion that all money donated to the Church goes into one big pot and there is no differentiation made as to how it is used is your own unsubstantiated assumption, which contradicts the word of individuals on this thread who are in a position to know.

How do I know? I don't really, though I've read that to be the case and also recall the podcast by Daymon Smith on the subject where I believe he makes the claim. Also, when local units deposit their contributions to HQ it all goes into 1 account. There is no separation. When local leaders cut a check for FO assistance it comes out of the same account that FO, tithing, humanitarian aid, perpetual education fund etc. are all deposited into. When I say they have "1 account" I am simplifying. I'm sure they have many, many accounts. But what I'm suggesting is that for general usage by local congregations deposits are all made into one account and all withdrawals come out of the same account. They are not divided for local use.

Those who have attested to it on this thread have only seen the local execution of the policy. They don't have any idea how the church accounting deals with the fungible monies. If they do I'd love to read about it. I never claimed there is "no differentiation" for how it's used because I only know what the church says, which isn't much.

Who on this thread is in a position to know church accounting at HQ? I must have missed that. If you're referring to people who have served as bishop or clerk, they are in no better position to know how HQ works than anyone else.

 

[cdowis]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bluebell, are you honestly claiming that an internal church employed auditor claiming the church spends its money according to church policy based on internal documents no member has access to review, is the same as an independent audit of legally required financial records?

Do you realize that if a charity misstates their income and expenses on tax documents they would face some legal issues? There are checks and balances on the charity but not on the church. There's really no comparison here so I'm a bit surprised by your assertion that there is.

 

Happy,

Are you honestly claiming that you know what you are talking about?

1. A "charity" is a non-profit organization, and, by some strange coincidence, so is the church.  Thus, a charity and the church are basically subject to the  same reporting requirements and legal issues.

2. Do you understand the difference between an internal audit and an independent audit?  Are you saying that the church auditing department is submitting a false report to the IRS and to the members, or saying one thing to the IRS and something very different to the members???  

Are you accusing the church auditing dept of  lying and falsehoods?  I suggest that you carefully consider your answer before responding.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm saying that it all boils down to who you trust. Most people don't bother to validate information personally when it comes from a place or person they trust.  I doubt many personally verified the info shared by the watch dog site, for example.  

By the way, where can I go to find out how much in donations the united cancer support foundation received last year?  It would be interesting to know, given their score. 

http://www.unitedcsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-990-Tax-Return.pdf

Try finding that info for the church

Quote

 

And from Charitywatch.org

EntityDocument TypeTax Id #

United Cancer Support FoundationIRS Form 99027-5005215

United Cancer Support FoundationAudited Financial Statements27-5005215

 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How do I know? I don't really, though I've read that to be the case and also recall the podcast by Daymon Smith on the subject where I believe he makes the claim.

 

So you are making assertions based on rumor and supposition, then. Good to have that admission. And who in the world is Daymon Smith, and why should I be impressed by him?

Quote

Also, when local units deposit their contributions to HQ it all goes into 1 account. There is no separation. When local leaders cut a check for FO assistance it comes out of the same account that FO, tithing, humanitarian aid, perpetual education fund etc. are all deposited into. 

You just finished saying you don't know that to be the case.

Quote

 When I say they have "1 account" I am simplifying. I'm sure they have many, many accounts.

You are contradicting yourself so much in this one single post that my head is swimming.

Quote

But what I'm suggesting is that for general usage by local congregations deposits are all made into one account and all withdrawals come out of the same account. They are not divided for local use.

What I understood Bernard and others to say is that the money contributed for fast offering is used for helping the poor and needy, that the account is zeroed out every month and that there are no excess funds diverted for other purposes. If anything, I daresay money comes from other funds to fill out fast offering and humanitarian funds when they fall short.

The "fine print" on the tithing slip says that every effort will be made to use the donated funds for the purpose for which they are donated. This would not be possible if the Church just threw everything into one common pot without keeping track of the express purpose for which the donations were given.

Quote

Those who have attested to it on this thread have only seen the local execution of the policy.

They've seen the money come in, and they've seen it disbursed. That's credible enough for me.

Quote

They don't have any idea how the church accounting deals with the fungible monies. If they do I'd love to read about it. I never claimed there is "no differentiation" for how it's used because I only know what the church says, which isn't much. Who on this thread is in a position to know church accounting at HQ? I must have missed that. If you're referring to people who have served as bishop or clerk, they are in no better position to know how HQ works than anyone else.

So, in short, you feel free to indulge in any wild speculation that suits your fancy because the Church doesn't let you snoop into its books.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

56 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Happy,

Are you honestly claiming that you know what you are talking about?

1. A "charity" is a non-profit organization, and, by some strange coincidence, so is the church.  Thus, a charity and the church are basically subject to the  same reporting requirements and legal issues.

2. Do you understand the difference between an internal audit and an independent audit?  Are you saying that the church auditing department is submitting a false report to the IRS and to the members, or saying one thing to the IRS and something very different to the members???  

Are you accusing the church auditing dept of  lying and falsehoods?  I suggest that you carefully consider your answer before responding.

Ugh.

I'm not a tax attorney. I'm not claiming to be. But this is getting silly. Do all "non-profit organizations" have the same tax reporting requirements? No. Are all charities legally organized in the same way? No.  Therefore they do not have "basically the same reporting requirements and legal issues." Check out the IRS link below if you want to study up on it a bit.

Yes, I understand the difference between internal and independent audits but you apparently don't, which is why you revert back to the very tired response of "are you calling the church a liar?" Tired, man. Tired.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf