CV75 Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 50 minutes ago, rockpond said: I've cited the scriptural support for sharing the church finances. I know of no statutes that declare precisely how to make the information available. Prior to 1960 it was done in general conference. It could still be done there or perhaps now there are more efficient means. D&C 104? That was for the United Order and does not provide a basis for "sharing the church finances" outside of the councils that manage them. 2
ERayR Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: The churches assets could ONLY be tapped for payment to pay for damages awarded in a law suit in the event they are found negligent or responsible for damages in a law suit. Having assets does not make you a target of litigation...negligence does. Nope "deep pockets" definitely make you a target. 1
ERayR Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Rain said: Don't forget to include RS presidents. Bluebell quoted and linked to an article that showed housing was included inside the $120,000. The travel for assignments shouldn't be included as compensation in any way. It is a business type expense, just like software, desks, backhoes etc are. edit: ugh. messing up on "living" and "housing". Probably not the same thing. I think you will find housing listed as "parsonage". That is what the IRS code calls it. 2
bluebell Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Right... because that's what I said. No, I don't. I think they have many important matters to be considering, I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Or maybe they have thought about it and reached a conclusion that I think is inconsistent with scriptural mandate. Do you think it is not possible for them to be mistaken? I wasn't try to misrepresent your point. It seems like you've given this a lot of thought (to develop your beliefs about it) while at the same time it seemed like you were saying maybe they hadn't given it much thought. The implication (if both "seems" were true) is that you've given it more thought than they have. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. 1
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gray said: This is probably underestimated, as it seems, from everything I've seen, that housing and general expenses are also paid for by the church, making their salary mostly discretionary money for them to use (based off my personal understanding of the limited evidence available). Still, even so it's not exorbitant or scandalous. housing costs are the "Parsonage allowance" Parsonage allowances are not subject to income tax but are subject to social security tax. they are required to be reported on the W2 and are generally recorded on the pay stubs. They are also reported on the tax return. Edited January 11, 2017 by Danzo 3
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 3 hours ago, rongo said: To a certain extent, I think yes. Especially $120,000 per annum when they are already wealthy and don't need it at all. It's like the President of the United States's salary. Has there been a president in modern times that needed a dime of the salary? But they are all happy to take it. I think it would be better for them to have a "modest living stipend" that is less than $120,000. But, it's not a testimony or deal breaker for me. How do you know all of them do not need it? I deal with peoples finances on a daily basis and you would be surprised at the people who need money and don't need money.
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 hours ago, rongo said: We were approached about allowing neighborhood watch meetings to be held in our church building (some ward members would be present at meetings and make sure everything was secure and locked up). Church legal was worried about potential liability of someone tripping and falling in the building, and I lost it. I can't stand that we have allowed ourselves to be taken hostage by this liability/lawsuit culture. It's a neighborhood watch meeting, and they need a place to hold it in! since the church is a "deep pocket" they have to worry about being sued all of the time, whether they are negligent or not. It is an unfortunate fact of life, but it cannot be avoided. 1
california boy Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 12 pages on this? Really? These guys have to live on something. Does it really matter what ledger their paycheck comes from? I personally think it is a little silly for the church to claim that their salaries did not come from tithing. They could just as easily say the latest temple was not built with tithing money. But what difference does any of this make? If an apostle or anyone else in the church needs income, and the church doesn't have someone that can volunteer to do it for free, then the money has to come from the church's bank account. Fortunately whether someone can afford to be an apostle is not part of the criteria. Does the church want to end up with an apostle like me just because I don't need a salary? Yeah. That should be enough to scare any of you that are worried about how an apostle is paid. 3
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Many large corporations have billions in assets...this does not make them targets of law suites. They first must actually do bodily harm, inflict injury, cause property damage through their negligence to become a target. People who sue innocent people or corporations end up wasting their time and money. Anyone can sue anyone...but without merit they are dismissed. Plus there are limits placed on the awards determined by the damages inflicted. Larger assets does not translate into larger awards...unless the damages warrant them. the large corporations with billions in assets usually settle if they cannot get the lawsuit dismissed offhand. Certifying a class against a large corporation is almost 100% guaranteed to get you a settlement whether anything can be proved or not. Most large corporations deal with nuisance lawsuits and will settle them just to avoid litigation costs (which can be quite large).
ERayR Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, california boy said: 12 pages on this? Really? These guys have to live on something. Does it really matter what ledger their paycheck comes from? I personally think it is a little silly for the church to claim that their salaries did not come from tithing. They could just as easily say the latest temple was not built with tithing money. But what difference does any of this make? If an apostle or anyone else in the church needs income, and the church doesn't have someone that can volunteer to do it for free, then the money has to come from the church's bank account. Fortunately whether someone can afford to be an apostle is not part of the criteria. Does the church want to end up with an apostle like me just because I don't need a salary? Yeah. That should be enough to scare any of you that are worried about how an apostle is paid. Yikes
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, california boy said: 12 pages on this? Really? These guys have to live on something. Does it really matter what ledger their paycheck comes from? I personally think it is a little silly for the church to claim that their salaries did not come from tithing. They could just as easily say the latest temple was not built with tithing money. But what difference does any of this make? If an apostle or anyone else in the church needs income, and the church doesn't have someone that can volunteer to do it for free, then the money has to come from the church's bank account. Fortunately whether someone can afford to be an apostle is not part of the criteria. Does the church want to end up with an apostle like me just because I don't need a salary? Yeah. That should be enough to scare any of you that are worried about how an apostle is paid. The can say where the money comes from because generally accepted accounting procedures keep track of various funds and where they are spent. The church operates as a non profit and non profits usually use a funds based accounting system (not a income statement which most people are used to), which is different than your normal businesses. Its not the same as your personal accounting system where any dollar can be spent anywhere you want. Each fund must be tracked separately and funds are generally restricted on where they can be used. One of the things that often ticks people off is when a city spends a large sum of money on some art project or other useless item when the roads need repairing. Often people don't realize that the money for the useless projected is in a restricted fund and can't be used for anything else. Tracking Restricted funds a big deal for a nonprofit. I suspect that when the church says no tithing money was used for a salary, they have tracked the funds appropriately, and according to generally accepted accounting procedures, no tithing funds were used. Edited January 11, 2017 by Danzo 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, cacheman said: Here's something for you to ponder... "Could a man be a better husband if he spent every evening at home with his wife? Could he be a better husband if he had no children, thereby having all of his spare time to dedicate to her? The answer is a resounding no! No one—husband, wife, children, or church—has claim on the full time of someone else. Children, given their parents’ full-time attention, would be overshadowed and become dependent. The Church, with full-time bishops, would have a paid ministry and become an end in itself rather than a divine organization designed to help perfect the individual children of God. " -F. Burton Howard, 1st Quorum of the Seventy https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/09/the-gift-of-knowing?lang=eng I have said on many occasions, and I'm happy to say again, that one of the greatest gifts my parents ever gave me was the lesson taught by their endless service: I am not the centre of all things. Edited January 11, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: I wonder what the posters here that support non transparency will say when the church decides either by their own decision or by force of law to become more transparent...will you support it then? why? I'm fine if they want to disclose financial information, I am fine if they don't If they did disclose financial information, it would be impossible for you to know if it is correct or not, you will still have to trust them. I make my living off the fact that financial information reported isn't always correct. 1
Tacenda Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) Just saw this posted on FB by someone that posts a lot about the church. I was amazed at some of the humble dwellings of the first presidency, such as Pres. Eyring. Nothing to see here, although some on the FB post seemed to think so, I'm not seeing it. Especially when you compare it to other church leaders of different faiths. Here's the link that was posted on FB... https://mormoninsider.wordpress.com/category/apostles-homes/ Here's a link to other faith's leaders homes...uh, mansions... http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/money/millionaire-pastors-and-their-celebrity-lifestyles/ Edited January 11, 2017 by Tacenda
JAHS Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Danzo said: I'm fine if they want to disclose financial information, I am fine if they don't If they did disclose financial information, it would be impossible for you to know if it is correct or not, you will still have to trust them. I make my living off the fact that financial information reported isn't always correct. Nor do I think that many people will be able to understand the various expenses and incomes in the proper context and what it all really means without knowing a lot of the details that are involved in the whole system. Details the critics will conveniently leave out as they twist things to support their complaints about it.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 So the only non paid leaders in the church are Bishops and Stake Presidents?
Duncan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Tacenda said: Just saw this posted on FB by someone that posts a lot about the church. I was amazed at some of the humble dwellings of the first presidency, such as Pres. Eyring. Nothing to see here, although some on the FB post seemed to think so, I'm not seeing it. Especially when you compare it to other church leaders of different faiths. Here's the link that was posted on FB... https://mormoninsider.wordpress.com/category/apostles-homes/ Here's a link to faith's leaders homes...uh, mansions... http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/money/millionaire-pastors-and-their-celebrity-lifestyles/ I know where some emeritus 70's live but their homes aren't extravagant at least according to google maps! hahahahha! I have a doozie of a story about extravagance, not related to the Church and this to me is extravagant-if I wasn't watching Pawn Stars i'd type it out!
Johnnie Cake Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, ERayR said: Nope "deep pockets" definitely make you a target. Only if you're negligent, responsible for causing bodily injury, property damage or any unspecified damages
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I wasn't try to misrepresent your point. It seems like you've given this a lot of thought (to develop your beliefs about it) while at the same time it seemed like you were saying maybe they hadn't given it much thought. The implication (if both "seems" were true) is that you've given it more thought than they have. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Is it possible that the apostles are mistaken on this issue?
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Danzo said: I'm fine if they want to disclose financial information, I am fine if they don't If they did disclose financial information, it would be impossible for you to know if it is correct or not, you will still have to trust them. I make my living off the fact that financial information reported isn't always correct. Excellent point. Church finances are published for Canada and they raise some serious questions.
JAHS Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 38 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: So the only non paid leaders in the church are Bishops and Stake Presidents? Hey it's better than it used to be. Bishops and other ward leaders were also given remuneration in the early days of the church. "And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church." (D&C 42:71-73) Paul warned, "Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11). That's not to suggest that all paid ministers fall into this category. There are many who have faithfully dedicated their lives to their ministry and accept a salary to take care of their needs as they serve. It all comes down to what is in a person's heart and his attitude about the work he does. Is he only doing it as just a job that earns him a salary and the praise of man (ie "filthy lucre"), or is he doing it to give unselfish service to God and those he ministers to? 1
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: D&C 104? That was for the United Order and does not provide a basis for "sharing the church finances" outside of the councils that manage them. 71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.
bluebell Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Is it possible that the apostles are mistaken on this issue? Yes, they could be mistaken on every issue.
bluebell Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: 71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order. The order doesn't exist anymore does it? 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Is it possible that the apostles are mistaken on this issue? Is it possible that you are?
Recommended Posts