Mass Exodus from Church?

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to the church, I really don't think it matters (and i don't consider it blind trust).

That might sound weird but from my point of view, if i didn't trust the church, why would I be a member?  If the church is being dishonest and doing something nefarious with the money, then there is a lot more at stake than where my donations are going?  Honestly, donations and tithing would be the very very least of my concerns.

I trust the church for many good reasons, and I believe that I have access to all the information i need right now to make an informed decision on that.  It's o.k. with me that none of that information is tax records.

I don't mean this to be disrespectful because I appreciate the way you dialogue, but how this not blind trust? It seems to be the very definition of blind trust. You are placing trust in the way the church manages its finances without any capability of reviewing or verifying, in essence remaining blind. 

There is also a financial instrument called a blind trust that fits what you are advocating.

Quote

What is a 'Blind Trust'

A trust in which the trustees have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries theoretically have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust. The trustor initiates the trust and maintains the ability to terminate the trust, but otherwise exercises no control over the actions taken within the trust and receives no reports from the trustees while the blind trust is in force.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blindtrust.asp

This describes the way the church runs its finances very well. A major difference being that the church is both the trustor and the trustee meaning there is even less accountability than in a blind trust.

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think that anyone would contend that all of God's children, whether they are members of the church or not, can accomplish good.  The Lord desires all his children to do good.  But they idea that the Lord would not want certain individuals to be part of his church or that he would lead them out of his church in not found anywhere in prophetic teaching or the scriptures.

Speaking of men outside the church, the prophetic teaching is thus:

Quote

They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else

This prophetic teaching states that the Lord actually "places" people outside of his church, and that they can do "more good" there than even inside his church. 

It is not if the Lord wants these people to be a part of His church, it is a matter of when he wants them, as evidenced by the following:

Quote

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

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Hierarchy-Wealth-Corporate-Power/dp/1560852356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481143694&sr=8-1&keywords=michael+quinn

I wonder what is in this book.

If you actually read your link it gives you a brief synopsis:

Quote

Early in the twentieth century, it was possible for Latter-day Saints to have lifelong associations with businesses managed by their leaders or owned and controlled by the church itself. For example, one could purchase engagement rings from Daynes Jewelry, honeymoon at the Hotel Utah, and venture off on the Union Pacific Railroad, all partially owned and run by church apostles.

Families could buy clothes at Knight Woolen Mills. The husband might work at Big Indian Copper or Bullion-Beck, Gold Chain, or Iron King mining companies. The wife could shop at Utah Cereal Food and buy sugar supplied by Amalgamated or U and I Sugar, beef from Nevada Land and Livestock, and vegetables from the Growers Market. They might take their groceries home in parcels from Utah Bag Co. They probably read the Deseret News at home under a lamp plugged into a Utah Power and Light circuit. They could take out a loan from Zion’s Co-operative and insurance from Utah Home and Fire.

The apostles had a long history of community involvement in financial enterprises to the benefit of the general membership and their own economic advantage. This volume is the result of the author’s years of research into LDS financial dominance from 1830 to 2010.

Why should this book raise my eyebrow exactly?

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure the church wouldn't knowingly try to rip it's member off. But I know from statements I've read of employees that the church could do better in being more conservative with members donations. 

I'm bothered with the expense put into videos etc. Or things that seem frivolous. If we as members are asked to live within our means or not to be all about material things, why not the church? 

ETA: Or maybe I'm a big scrooge. And the Christmas Concerts are wonderful and the Mormon.org videos too.

I think you are being a "scrooge" honestly.  The Christmas concerts and videos are wonderful.  They are powerful means of spreading the spirit of Christ.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Scott, that's not a very mature response to this dialogue.

Many people have chosen not to donate to the church for these reasons. I am not one of those people but I do recognize the problem that exists and its a problem of the church's own making.

 

Notwithstanding what you think of the maturity level of my remark, I am in earnest. Those who cannot trust the anointed servants of God ought to seriously consider or reconsider making donations.

Those of us who do donate are, for the most part, comfortable in the trust we repose in them. Making donations to the Church is, among other things, an expression of faith in Jesus Christ and confidence that He governs the affairs of His Church through revelation to those he has called to lead it. It is not common for those with such faith to be worried about whether the Church makes its financials public.

Let me pose a question. If there were a reliable way -- and, at present, I don't think there is, but assuming arguendo that there were -- for the Church to make its financial dealings accessible only to members of the Church who meet certain standards of worthiness, morality, faithfulness and loyalty, would you be mollified by that? Or would insist that they ought to be available to everybody, including those who harbor the most hostile of attitudes toward the Church and its leaders?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Scott, that's not a very mature response to this dialogue.

Many people have chosen not to donate to the church for these reasons. I am not one of those people but I do recognize the problem that exists and its a problem of the church's own making.

 

Notwithstanding what you think of the maturity level of my remark, I am in earnest. Those who cannot trust the anointed servants of God ought to seriously consider or reconsider making donations.

Those of us who do donate are, for the most part, comfortable in the trust we repose in them. Making donations to the Church is, among other things, an expression of faith in Jesus Christ and confidence that He governs the affairs of His Church through revelation to those he has called to lead it. It is not common for those with such faith to be worried about whether the Church makes its financials public.

Let me pose a question. If there were a reliable way -- and, at present, I don't think there is, but assuming arguendo that there were -- for the Church to make its financial dealings accessible only to members of the Church who meet certain standards of worthiness, morality, faithfulness and loyalty, would you be mollified by that? Or would  you insist that they ought to be available to everybody, including those who harbor the most hostile of attitudes toward the Church and its leaders?

Edited December 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[lostindc]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So lostindc just knows the Church is in trouble and can't survive unless it changes its doctrines.

He says he can't prove it; he just feels it in his heart.

His faith is touching.

So Scott Lloyd just knows the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true.

He can't prove it; he just feels it in his heart.

His faith is touching.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't mean this to be disrespectful because I appreciate the way you dialogue, but how this not blind trust? It seems to be the very definition of blind trust. You are placing trust in the way the church manages its finances without any capability of reviewing or verifying, in essence remaining blind. 

There is also a financial instrument called a blind trust that fits what you are advocating.

This describes the way the church runs its finances very well. A major difference being that the church is both the trustor and the trustee meaning there is even less accountability than in a blind trust.

Sorry, i misunderstood you.  I thought you were using the term blind trust the same way that people use the term blind faith.  What i was saying is that my trust in the church is not blind.  It's based on evidence.

I wasn't speaking to any actual financial terms.  If the church operates a blind trust as it's described financially i'm fine with using that label.

[lostindc]

Why does the Church not display it's financials?  I always found it odd.  Is this for tax reasons kind of like Donald Trump?

[Calm]

Tac, quality of videos affects attention paid.  Cheap videos that no one looks at are not cost effective.  Nice  ones that people pass around, including investigators, accomplish much more and in the long run are probably more cost effective.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So Scott Lloyd just knows the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true.

He can't prove it; he just feels it in his heart.

His faith is touching.

That strikes me as a compliment. Thank  you.

And it works much better as a descriptor for faith in Christ and His gospel than for hostile and cynical conjecture, don't you think?

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Why does the Church not display it's financials?  I always found it odd.  Is this for tax reasons kind of like Donald Trump?

Why are you so anxious to look at them? I find that a bit odd.

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Why does the Church not display it's financials?

I suspect many reasons exist, but I think a major one is to avoid providing fodder for the circling critics just waiting for their next opportunity to howl. Earlier this week, I briefly stopped by a particular online forum for apostates, and the hot topic of discussion was how evil/misguided/hypocritical/worldly/etc. the Church is because it spent money on trees and faerie lights for the First Presidency Christmas Devotional instead of 'feeding the poor' -- not, I strongly suspect, because these forum participants are actually losing sleep generally over the hungry but because they would love it if the Church couldn't/didn't actually stage attractive events and broadcast them around the world. And so it would go with financials, but deep, deep into every little detail. Why are the Brethren doing this and not this? Why has this budget item increased and that one decreased? Why does the Kingdom of God have and spend so much money? If it really were the Kingdom of God, wouldn't it handle its finances the way I say it should instead of the way it does. And so on (literally, for me) ad nauseum.

As Scott already pointed out above, the vast majority of people who, as I do, sincerely believe the Church to be the actual Kingdom of God on earth, simply aren't worried over this issue. I know you want us to be, think we should be, and probably have concluded that we are stupid or lazy or deceived because we aren't, but faithful Saints, I have found, simply don't take their cues from the gainsayers, as a general rule.

[James Tunney]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect many reasons exist, but I think a major one is to avoid providing fodder for the circling critics just waiting for their next opportunity to howl. Earlier this week, I briefly stopped by a particular online forum for apostates, and the hot topic of discussion was how evil/misguided/hypocritical/worldly/etc. the Church is because it spent money on trees and faerie lights for the First Presidency Christmas Devotional instead of 'feeding the poor' -- not, I strongly suspect, because these forum participants are actually losing sleep generally over the hungry but because they would love it if the Church couldn't/didn't actually stage attractive events and broadcast them around the world. And so it would go with financials, but deep, deep into every little detail. Why are the Brethren doing this and not this? Why has this budget item increased and that one decreased? Why does the Kingdom of God have and spend so much money? If it really were the Kingdom of God, wouldn't it handle its finances the way I say it should instead of the way it does. And so on (literally, for me) ad nauseum.

As Scott already pointed out above, the vast majority of people who, as I do, sincerely believe the Church to be the actual Kingdom of God on earth, simply aren't worried over this issue. I know you want us to be, think we should be, and probably have concluded that we are stupid or lazy or deceived because we aren't, but faithful Saints, I have found, simply don't take their cues from the gainsayers, as a general rule.

I think it's troubling to trust the church so much. My neighbor growing up was a struggling engineer until, through church connections, landed a lucrative contract with the church to supply certain items to various wards. He became a multimillionaire as a result. My father knew some of the principals of Jacobsen Construction and Oakland Construction, companies that made fortunes off of the church. So, why them? Were there competitive bids? Why not other companies? Disclosure would let us see why? Maybe these companies merited the lucrative contracts or maybe it was simply connections? Is that fair if it was by connections?

[Raingirl]

9 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I think it's troubling to trust the church so much. My neighbor growing up was a struggling engineer until, through church connections, landed a lucrative contract with the church to supply certain items to various wards. He became a multimillionaire as a result. My father knew some of the principals of Jacobsen Construction and Oakland Construction, companies that made fortunes off of the church. So, why them? Were there competitive bids? Why not other companies? Disclosure would let us see why? Maybe these companies merited the lucrative contracts or maybe it was simply connections? Is that fair if it was by connections?

I work in construction contracting and it is clear to me that in addition to your ignorance of such matters (not that the truth seems to matter to you), you will grasp at anything in order to find yet another way to malign and attack the church and its leaders.

Quite a bizarre obsession, that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

I think it's troubling to trust the church so much.

I sincerely hope you have some people in your life whom you trust.

[James Tunney]

6 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I work in construction contracting and it is clear to me that in addition to your ignorance of such matters (not that the truth seems to matter to you), you will grasp at anything in order to find yet another way to malign and attack the church and its leaders.

Quite a bizarre obsession, that.

How about the church becoming an open book with the finances like it seems to be doing with its history? Maybe then my "bizarre" obsession with disclosure will be satisfied. I don't understand why those like yourself aren't more questioning.

[James Tunney]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I sincerely hope you have some people in your life whom you trust.

Maybe those in Utah and the church trust a little too much? Maybe there is some correlation to the overly trusting attitude and the high rate of affinity fraud that plagues and has plagued Utah for as long as I can remember? It's unfortunate that we can't all be automatically trusted but that's the way it is.

Edited December 8, 2016 by James Tunney
correct meaning

[sdc999]

I will always stand behind the belief that if anyone or entity wishes to be tax exempt, then that burden should be upon that person or entity to prove to those who are held tax accountable.  We live in a society where taxes are for the good of the whole and those that do not support the whole financially, albeit legally, should have the obligation to show they are acting in accordance to the regulations.  Again, I believe this for ALL.  I serve on two boards of tax exempt organizations.  Discussions happen around the table that reflect upon that status and our actions.  We also welcome anyone to look at our finances should they have  a question. And yes, there are those that have questions and we are willing to address those questions.  

Would it be detrimental to the church to open their books?  Oh, I believe it would be -- at first.  Anytime you actively hide something from the public for so long, it drives crazy interest.  Almost like opening a Walmart at 6am on black friday.  There would be massive surge at first but it would get back to normal after a bit.   Unless questionable activity was found.  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, sdc999 said:

I will always stand behind the belief that if anyone or entity wishes to be tax exempt, then that burden should be upon that person or entity to prove to those who are held tax accountable.  

And the LDS church accepts that burden of proof in its entirety.  It reports all legally required information and documentation as required by law.

We live in a society where taxes are for the good of the whole and those that do not support the whole financially, albeit legally, should have the obligation to show they are acting in accordance to the regulations.  

Pray tell, are you able to tell us which is the official government agency authorized by law to judge whether those regulations are followed?

Again, I believe this for ALL.  I serve on two boards of tax exempt organizations.  Discussions happen around the table that reflect upon that status and our actions.  We also welcome anyone to look at our finances should they have  a question. And yes, there are those that have questions and we are willing to address those questions.  

Of course that is a decision that your board made.  

Would it be detrimental to the church to open their books?  Oh, I believe it would be -- at first.  Anytime you actively hide something from the public for so long, it drives crazy interest.  Almost like opening a Walmart at 6am on black friday.  There would be massive surge at first but it would get back to normal after a bit.   Unless questionable activity was found.  

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  But a specific government agency is authorized to investigate and prosecute any organization involved in illegal activity.  The church has decided that is sufficient to meet the legal requirements.

You are talking about a public relations issue, not a legal one.  Bottom line ==>>  if you have specific evidence of illegal actions, you can simply send a referral to the IRS.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by cdowis

[sdc999]

23 minutes ago, cdowis said:

And the LDS church accepts that burden of proof in its entirety.  It reports all legally required information and documentation as required by law.

I never made the statement that they were not compliant with the law.  I just stated my opinion is that the law should have 'open books' to those entities.  

But to address your statement,  "if you have specific evidence of illegal actions, you can simply send a referral to the IRS",   I personally do not believe they always act accordingly without oversight.  This has been evidenced recently with political motivated actions within the agency.  I can also cite a personal business example of which I received a reply of, "what do you want us to do about it?" over the phone.  

Checks and Balances are a good thing.  I'm a believer in going above and beyond to avoid any suggestion of inappropriate action.  Some, as you stated above, meet the requirements.  The church does this in other areas.  Windows are now are doors.  Male missionaries certainly don't go into a house with a single female.  Nothing wrong with it except "public relations."  

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect many reasons exist, but I think a major one is to avoid providing fodder for the circling critics just waiting for their next opportunity to howl. Earlier this week, I briefly stopped by a particular online forum for apostates, and the hot topic of discussion was how evil/misguided/hypocritical/worldly/etc. the Church is because it spent money on trees and faerie lights for the First Presidency Christmas Devotional instead of 'feeding the poor' -- not, I strongly suspect, because these forum participants are actually losing sleep generally over the hungry but because they would love it if the Church couldn't/didn't actually stage attractive events and broadcast them around the world. And so it would go with financials, but deep, deep into every little detail. Why are the Brethren doing this and not this? Why has this budget item increased and that one decreased? Why does the Kingdom of God have and spend so much money? If it really were the Kingdom of God, wouldn't it handle its finances the way I say it should instead of the way it does. And so on (literally, for me) ad nauseum.

As Scott already pointed out above, the vast majority of people who, as I do, sincerely believe the Church to be the actual Kingdom of God on earth, simply aren't worried over this issue. I know you want us to be, think we should be, and probably have concluded that we are stupid or lazy or deceived because we aren't, but faithful Saints, I have found, simply don't take their cues from the gainsayers, as a general rule.

I'm confused, you think none of those questions or criticisms aren't out there now?  They are.  So it's odd that hiding finances is justified because the Church doesn't want to be criticized for that which it already is criticized for.  Are you suggesting that revealing finances will make those criticisms more justified?  Seems like an odd take on it. 

I'm guessing your right to an extent though--the Church doesn't disclose finances because it doesn't want to have to deal with answering people who would criticize and question.  Now, the criticisms and questions come but the Church doesn't respond.  Makes it easier.  Which in a sense, I get. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect many reasons exist, but I think a major one is to avoid providing fodder for the circling critics just waiting for their next opportunity to howl. Earlier this week, I briefly stopped by a particular online forum for apostates, and the hot topic of discussion was how evil/misguided/hypocritical/worldly/etc. the Church is because it spent money on trees and faerie lights for the First Presidency Christmas Devotional instead of 'feeding the poor' -- not, I strongly suspect, because these forum participants are actually losing sleep generally over the hungry but because they would love it if the Church couldn't/didn't actually stage attractive events and broadcast them around the world. And so it would go with financials, but deep, deep into every little detail. Why are the Brethren doing this and not this? Why has this budget item increased and that one decreased? Why does the Kingdom of God have and spend so much money? If it really were the Kingdom of God, wouldn't it handle its finances the way I say it should instead of the way it does. And so on (literally, for me) ad nauseum.

As Scott already pointed out above, the vast majority of people who, as I do, sincerely believe the Church to be the actual Kingdom of God on earth, simply aren't worried over this issue. I know you want us to be, think we should be, and probably have concluded that we are stupid or lazy or deceived because we aren't, but faithful Saints, I have found, simply don't take their cues from the gainsayers, as a general rule.

I think you have a point that many people would be interested in reviewing church financials and certainly there would be some criticism. I think that's inevitable. But IF criticism is really a primary reason why the church doesn't release financial information, it strikes me as extremely defensive. Are they that thin skinned? Other organizations deal with financial scrutiny so I suspect the church could handle it as well. But it does seem that the church stopped releasing financial data because they didn't want their financial choices scrutinized. IIRC- in the 40's-50's the church lost a ton of money in their investments of municipal bonds. There were complaints about the losses and then questions about why the church continued to invest in municipal bonds. A few years later the church stopped giving financial reports (around 1959- I think).

In any case, the church is still required to release data in some countries. I just listened to a podcast on A Thoughtful Faith where they reviewed the financials for Canada, England, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. One of the more surprising expenses was an average of about 33% of all tithing donations went towards staffing. Approximately 35-40% went towards property management. So between those 2 categories approximately 70% of all tithing donations in those countries went towards property and salaries. I don't know how similar that would be to US numbers or if that's bad or good, but I do find it interesting.

Regardless, I hope the church would release information and be more transparent and not let the fear of a little criticism direct their actions.

 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you have a point that many people would be interested in reviewing church financials and certainly there would be some criticism. I think that's inevitable. But IF criticism is really a primary reason why the church doesn't release financial information, it strikes me as extremely defensive. Are they that thin skinned? Other organizations deal with financial scrutiny so I suspect the church could handle it as well. But it does seem that the church stopped releasing financial data because they didn't want their financial choices scrutinized. IIRC- in the 40's-50's the church lost a ton of money in their investments of municipal bonds. There were complaints about the losses and then questions about why the church continued to invest in municipal bonds. A few years later the church stopped giving financial reports (around 1959- I think).

In any case, the church is still required to release data in some countries. I just listened to a podcast on A Thoughtful Faith where they reviewed the financials for Canada, England, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. One of the more surprising expenses was an average of about 33% of all tithing donations went towards staffing. Approximately 35-40% went towards property management. So between those 2 categories approximately 70% of all tithing donations in those countries went towards property and salaries. I don't know how similar that would be to US numbers or if that's bad or good, but I do find it interesting.

Regardless, I hope the church would release information and be more transparent and not let the fear of a little criticism direct their actions.

 

I think transparency and common consent have the same relationship as knowledge and faith. How much knowledge does the Lord impart before He requires the application of faith in gaining more (and vice-versa), and why is it that the desire to believe is incipient to both knowledge and faith?

In the same way, transparency (a quality and mechanism for expressing knowledge) and common consent (a quality and mechanism for expressing faith) stimulate each other so that both are sufficient for the Lord’s purposes.  

Transparency is not the absence of color, either, so there is some nuance there.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let me pose a question. If there were a reliable way -- and, at present, I don't think there is, but assuming arguendo that there were -- for the Church to make its financial dealings accessible only to members of the Church who meet certain standards of worthiness, morality, faithfulness and loyalty, would you be mollified by that? Or would insist that they ought to be available to everybody, including those who harbor the most hostile of attitudes toward the Church and its leaders?

I would respond by asking the question, "Why only make information available to members deemed 'worthy'?" What would that accomplish? Would it be an effort to avoid criticism?

I'll simply refer you to my tag line. I find it troubling that the church seems to be so focused on fear and avoidance of criticism. It seems very childish.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would respond by asking the question, "Why only make information available to members deemed 'worthy'?" What would that accomplish? Would it be an effort to avoid criticism?

I'll simply refer you to my tag line. I find it troubling that the church seems to be so focused on fear and avoidance of criticism. It seems very childish.

The full context of that quote is in a D. Michael Quinn book, "J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years” (notably pages 24-26). While he began his faith inquiry with the sentiment of your siggy (taken from a personal memo he wrote when he was 46 years old… a mid-life crisis?), and had to do with his quest for a fact-based rational theology than with correcting Mormonism, he ultimately confessed to a friend in a letter:

"I came early to appreciate that I could not rationalize a religion for myself, and that to attempt to do so would destroy my faith in God… I have always rather worshipped facts, and while I thought and read for a while, many of the incidents of life, experiences and circumstances led, unaided by the spirit of faith, to the position of the atheist, yet the faith of my fathers led me to abandon all that and to refrain from following it.... For me there seemed to be no alternative. I could only build up a doubt. --If I were to attempt to rationalize about my life here, and the life too come, I would be drowned in a sea of doubt." According to the author, “All the confidence of J. Reuben Clark's commitment to rational inquiry in religious matters evaporated.”

Over the intervening years, he either he became less childish, he got over it, or both!