The Next Time a Critic Gripes Re: Church's Business Interests . . . Quote Quinn

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've long thought a big problem causing many problems in government right now is too much transparency making it difficult for politicians to do the necessary deals to reach consensus. This in turn incentivizes "purity tests" due to media and leads to more polarization and getting far less done.

I think some transparency is necessary but I think the recent trend of the last 20 years towards transparency at all costs first off hasn't solved the problems many claimed and arguably made them worse. 

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about specifically.  I see the trend in politics to be away from transparency recently.  Thinking of all the health care bills as one example where nobody knows whats in the bill and where they don't even allow for open debate on the floor but instead have the bill written in secret and don't give politicians or constituents time to read it over, they just want our representatives to vote on it without the opportunity for debate.  

If your premise is true, and I'm willing to consider there may be some truth to it, then shouldn't this principle also apply in other venues as well which I think is what you're getting at.  You're saying that organizations as well as governments ought to be more able to handle things behind closed doors because that is in the interest of the people.  So perhaps many scandals shouldn't have been leaked to the public, is that what you're saying, or should organizations be able to conceal more of their decisions and finances so they can have more freedom to act without public scrutiny?  Help me understand this critique you're making better.  

[smac97]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Financial transparency is almost always a positive step in the right direction,

Again, broad and vague assertions.  And not really addressing the points I made.

Quote

it helps stakeholders to understand how their interest in the institution is being managed, and its helps keep the leaders of the institution more accountable and honest with the organization being managed. 

I get that.  And if the Church's competency at managing its finances were in question, and if there weren't some serious downsides to your proposal (government intrusion, risk of weaponization of governmental regulation, lack of appreciable benefits (as noted in the blog entry I quoted extensively), ulterior motives of critics in calling for such measures, real risk of critics endlessly calling for even more governmental intrusion/weaponization under the pretext of "transparency," etc.), you might have a point.  As it stands, however, I don't think you do.

Quote

I look at religions similar to how I look at governments or businesses, and I'm in the profession of corporate finance in my career. 

And I'm an attorney.  So we're both fairly familiar with the risks of increasing governmental authority over private citizens and private groups. 

I think there is some overlap in how religious groups should be treated in terms of governmental regulation (which is what you are apparently proposing), but there are also a lot of differences.  For example, as this blog post notes:

Quote

Moving on to the religious side of the Church, what good would be accomplished by publicly releasing financial statements? 

...

Keep in mind that we’re not shareholders. We’re not getting a financial return on our investments. Our donating of tithing is based on our faith in the Lord, not because we expect a 5% dividend.

Heck, we’re not even taxpayers here. We’re not trying to get representation. We’re supposed to give frankly, expecting nothing in return.

I find it singularly ironic that many of the folks calling for more "transparency" from the LDS Church are not "shareholders" (observant, tithe-paying members).

Quote

There are no drawbacks to this greater transparency for the regular person. 

I strongly disagree. 

"Greater transparency" = governmental regulation = costs of compliance with governmental regulation = "drawback ... for the regular person/group."  Senators Sarbanes and Oxley, call your offices.

"Greater transparency" = governmental regulation = risk of weaponization of such regulation to punish private citizens and groups  = drawback ... for the regular person/group.

"Greater transparency" ≠ appreciable improvement over status quo (the LDS Church is presently doing a very good job at administering its finances).

"Greater transparency" ≠ placating critics (who would very likely just end up demanding ever-increasing levels of "transparency").

"Greater transparency" ≠ any measurable improvement in terms of available data/metrics.  As this blog entry notes: 

Quote

What Good Would Transparency Do?

Let’s start first with the business side of the LDS Church. Why good would it do to have these financial statements? I can think of only one legitimate reason, and that’s to ensure that they really do keep tithing money separate. But if that’s all we’re after, a credible, independent, third party auditor stating that they’re separate would accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the price. Which I believe is exactly what the LDS Church does right now. Wanting to know the rest of the numbers is like wanting to know the financial standing of a private company like Enterprise Rent-A-Car or Mars Chocolates: it might make an interesting slideshow on Forbes, but it really has no baring on you personally.

Moving on to the religious side of the Church, what good would be accomplished by publicly releasing financial statements? I suppose it could serve as an extra check to make sure the funds are properly treated, but with a multibillion dollar organization, the numbers will be truncated into nearly meaningless oblivion, just like they were in the Episcopal Church example above.

Want to know how easy it would be to hide stolen or misapplied funds in truncated financials? Well, most auditors don’t even consider digging into a number unless it’s “material.” Materiality for a 7 billion dollar company would be AT LEAST $10 million dollars, if not more. So as long as you steal less than $10 million in a not totally obvious way, it won’t even hit the auditing radar.

So, what, then, would transparent financial statements be used for? I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game.

And if they weren’t truncated into nearly oblivion, what then? Even if you did watch the game, it doesn’t mean you could have done better. If you really think you can, there’s a way to do that without loudly shouting criticisms over the internet.

And so on.

Quote

The only drawback that might be perceived by the institution is a lack of freedom or competitive advantage perspective, but these types of drawbacks are almost always at the expense to the shareholders as a whole.  

Again, I disagree.  Nobody on earth believes that "transparency" is a cost-free endeavor.  Again, from the blog article:

Quote

What Would It Cost?

I’m on the tax side of the accounting spectrum, so I haven’t actually priced out an audit, nor do I know enough about the LDS Church’s financial structure to come up with an good price even if I had experience. Based on the many audit bills I’ve seen, though I would expect a full audit to publicly release the LDS Church’s financial statements to cost at least $1 million more than whatever services the LDS Church is already paying for right now. That’s $1 million to, at best, scratch a bit of curiosity. There’s no way you’ll convince me that can’t be better spent elsewhere.

Even if the number is not that high, it would not be zero. From a cost/benefit analysis, I fail to see any benefit generated that would support all but the smallest of costs.

Well put.  

Quote

You're worried about optics, and I'm talking about principles. 

I'm not worried about optics.  I an concerned about calls for "transparency" being used as a pretext for governmental intrusion into private affairs that, by all accounts, are being managed scrupulously well.

I am concerned about such increased governmental regulation being weaponized by enemies and critics of the Church.

I am concerned about critics endlessly calling for every-deepening "transparency" (read: governmental intrusion and regulation).

I am concerned about the relative lack of substantive benefit stemming from more "transparency," and the money wasted in complying with such things.

Quote

The principle of financial transparency is fundamental and it is broad and ethically a strong ground to stand on. 

Sigh.  You are not addressing . . . well, pretty much any of the issues I raised in my previous posts.

Quote

You're asking for exceptions, but why the need for an exception for the Mormons, or for religions. 

What "exception" are you talking about?  Exception from what?

I am speaking of the LDS Church only.

Quote

The LDS church should follow the laws of the land,

Obviously.  But there is no suggestion anywhere that the Church isn't "follow{ing} the laws of the land."  What are you talking about?

Quote

and should be accountable to the public precisely because it is given tax preferential status,

And there it is.  The pretext laid bare.  Weaponization of governmental regulation.  Fred Karger is presently at the vanguard of this movement, but he's clearly not the only one doing this.

Quote

making it so every citizen is essentially subsidizing the church,

Weaponizing governmental regulation to punish a disliked minority group under the pretext of "transparency" and "fairness." 

Under this reasoning, the government can regulate anything.  There will always be a reductionist argument like this.  If I dislike you as a person, and if I have enough clout, I can point to some way in which your life is "subsidized" by other people.  Do you itemize your taxes?  Do you claim any tax deduction at all?  Do you use public roads to transact business (roads paid for by John Q. Public, ya know!)?  if so, then "every citizen is essentially subsidizing" you, and I and my compatriots have a pretext for using the coercive power of government to punish you.  Through regulation.  By forcing you to incur costs in complying with that regulation.  Through punishing you if you fail to comply in any way with that regulation.  Through increasing the burden of compliance with regulatory oversight whenever I'm in the mood to punish you some more.

So sorry, but this line of reasoning is way too malleable.  You can use it to justify virtually any governmental regulation of anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  That's a pretty major step down the path toward tyranny.

Quote

therefore the public has a vested interest in the finances of this organization and all tax exempt institutions ought to be subject to the same financial transparency, this is a failing in our current U.S. tax code, but I'm hopeful it will be remedied in the future.  

Yeah.  You and Fred Karger.  

Weaponizing governmental regulation to punish a disliked minority group under the pretext of "transparency" and "fairness."  This just ain't cool.

Quote

Its also not about punishing religions (talk about persecution complexes here),

Yes, it is.  It's a pretext for punishing religions through the coercive power of government. 

Quote

its about fair play and equal playing field for every institution with tax exempt status. 

Fred Karger.  Fred Karger.  Fred Karger.  Why are you ignoring what he is doing (surely you have been aware of his efforts before now)?  Strikes a bit too close to home, eh?

Quote

Its funny how every social change that the church is scared about from civil rights to same sex marriage, there are always the slippery slope fear mongers who try to paint a picture that the world is coming to an end for the religion if these new policies are put in place.  

Fred Karger is presently seeking to use the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church because he does not like the LDS Church and its teachings about same-sex marriage.  He hopes to punish the Church by challenging its tax exempt status.  

It's not fearmongering to point to such presently-existing efforts because . . . those efforts are real.  This is not an imaginary or hypothetical attack on the Church.  It is presently happening.

And what you are proposing, in the name of "transparency," is pretty much straight from Karger's playbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 17, 2017 by smac97

[Gray]

It's a little weird for a historian to be tackling a topic like modern church financial practices, right? 

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about specifically.  I see the trend in politics to be away from transparency recently.  Thinking of all the health care bills as one example where nobody knows whats in the bill and where they don't even allow for open debate on the floor but instead have the bill written in secret and don't give politicians or constituents time to read it over, they just want our representatives to vote on it without the opportunity for debate.  

If your premise is true, and I'm willing to consider there may be some truth to it, then shouldn't this principle also apply in other venues as well which I think is what you're getting at.  You're saying that organizations as well as governments ought to be more able to handle things behind closed doors because that is in the interest of the people.  So perhaps many scandals shouldn't have been leaked to the public, is that what you're saying, or should organizations be able to conceal more of their decisions and finances so they can have more freedom to act without public scrutiny?  Help me understand this critique you're making better.  

Part of the reason for that trend are problems due to too much transparency. Although honestly in this case it's just the GOP being stupid again too. They've seemed determined to go after short terms gains with long term costs the last 15 or so years and it's finally caught up with them. (I'll drop that topic since the moderators apparently don't like politics being discussed)

To your main point, yes that's more or less what I'm saying. Again I don't want to say there shouldn't be any transparency. But figuring out the idea balance it tricky. My view is that most pushing transparency want more than I think is defensible. Further I think the burden of proof is on those arguing for transparency to make sure they've thought through unintended consequences and can point to a clear benefit with each bit of information made public. With regards to the church I just haven't seen that argument.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

Regarding Tim's blog post...

Every publicly held corporation here in the US has to release financial statements. 

But privately-held ones don't.

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

They do it routinely and these corporations are as, if not more, complex than the LDS Church.  People, often shareholders, read them.  They aren't terribly long.  They aren't impossible to understand nor are they all that difficult to produce.  They also don't give rise to unending, unanswerable questions and controversy. 

That would be because "shareholders" are interested in the well-being of the corporation.  In contrast, many (most?) of the calls for "More Transparency!" seem to come from critics and enemies of the Church, who would have every incentive in the world to issue "unending, unanswerable questions."  These folks want to stoke (or fabricate) "controversy."  That is rather the point, I think, of the pretextual call for "More Transparency!"  Grist for their mill.

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm okay with people who feel the church should keep its financial matters secret but I don't buy the argument that we "can't" do it.

I'm not making that argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

But privately-held ones don't.

That would be because "shareholders" are interested in the well-being of the corporation.  In contrast, many (most?) of the calls for "More Transparency!" seem to come from critics and enemies of the Church, who would have every incentive in the world to issue "unending, unanswerable questions."  These folks want to stoke (or fabricate) "controversy."  That is rather the point, I think, of the pretextual call for "More Transparency!"  Grist for their mill.

I'm not making that argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

You know what you do with unending, unanswerable questions from critics?  Ignore them.  The Church already does that and has been doing that for a long time.  Whether a financial report is published or not doesn't change that.

And, I am a tithe-paying member of the church, not an enemy of it.  And I believe that we have a scriptural injunction to share the finances of the church with the members as we did prior to 1960.  I am not trying to fabricate controversy.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's a little weird for a historian to be tackling a topic like modern church financial practices, right? 

I haven't read it, but I lost interest.  I heard an interview from him here:  http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2017/10/16/mormon-news-report-podcast-episode-15-week-of-october-16-2017/

I'm not sure he's qualified to say much on the topic--the estimate of 33 billion in tithing based on a one year growth in tithing income nearly 60 years ago seems to highlight nicely the problems with the book, for starters.  But that also speaks to my interest in such things.  I'm not sure I care in the first place--but as I recall, even though it's been 20 years or so, I liked his Magical world view book--seemed a bit more historian-like to tackle.   

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe as a member of the church I also have a right to the financial transparency of the organization.  I'm claiming a moral right more than a legal right. 

I don't get it.  You are elsewhere claiming that more "transparency" is owed because the Church is tax-exempt, and hence "subsidized" by taxpayers, and that that their "right to know" stems from this legal context.  Here, however, you are discounting a "legal" context and claiming a "moral" one.  

So which is it?

The degree of financial "transparency" (as several have noted, this term has no coherent meaning, other than the arbitrary whims of self-appointed "watchdogs" who are also very often enemies and critics of the Church) is much more a "legal" issue than a "moral" one.

And FWIW, I disagree that any such "moral right" exists.  By your reckoning, I can demand to be let inside Pres. Monson's home to see how he lives.  I have a "moral right" to do this because . . . I say so.

Would you buy that?

Quote

With the money and dedication that members give to the institution, there is a mutually beneficial relationship there, and for me its more than just my personal dedication, but the history of my family members, pioneer stock and all, we've helped to build this church and I believe it has an obligation to a certain amount of financial transparency and I'm not satisfied with the status quo.  

Ah.  "A certain amount of financial transparency."  That really clears things up!

And if the Church were to increase its disclosures and improve its "financial transparency," then all would be well, right?  Well, no.  Because "a certain amount" is infinitely flexible.  It means whatever the individual wants it to mean.  Hence the likelihood of even more demands for more "transparency."  And more after that.

Out of curiosity, what metric do you propose for a sufficient level of "transparency" from the LDS Church?

Quote

Lastly, I don't know your friend, but to describe someone as a friend and a malcontent sounds harsh.  Am I a malcontent too because I think the church isn't being financially responsible? 

"Malcontent"

Quote

adjective

1. not satisfied or content with currently prevailing conditions or circumstances.

2. dissatisfied with the existing government, administration, system, etc.

noun

3. a malcontent person, especially one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied.

I'll leave it to you to assess whether you are "chronically discontented or dissatisfied."

I'm not sure "malcontent" is innately pejorative (any more than "critic" is).  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You know what you do with unending, unanswerable questions from critics?  Ignore them. 

I generally do.  But we are speaking of more than "unending, unanswerable questions."  Fred Karger isn't just asking questions.  He's making threats.

Quote

The Church already does that and has been doing that for a long time.  Whether a financial report is published or not doesn't change that.

And, I am a tithe-paying member of the church, not an enemy of it.  And I believe that we have a scriptural injunction to share the finances of the church with the members as we did prior to 1960.  I am not trying to fabricate controversy.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 17, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's a little weird for a historian to be tackling a topic like modern church financial practices, right? 

Yes and no.  From what I've read of it (just started) he is approaching it like a history.  He seems to approach each financial decision like a story to be told.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I generally do.  But we are speaking of more than "unending, unanswerable questions."  Fred Karger isn't just asking questions.  He's making threats.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, Karger is making threats.  And those threats are coming even without any financial disclosure.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, Karger is making threats.  And those threats are coming even without any financial disclosure.

Karger is seeking to use the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

I think calls from critics for more "transparency" from the LDS Church are merely a pretext for . . . using the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

Well if Quinn is right, "the critics" seem to be having little affect  on the financial success of the church.

[cinepro]

I suspect the Church will never become "financially transparent" for two reasons:

 

1. It is a clear indicator of the size and strength of the Church.  If we know how many members there are and what total tithing receipts are (and even better, if it's broken down by geography), then it would be simple and obvious to see the size and faithfulness of the Church in different areas.  That could be a very good thing if the Church is strong and growing, but it could quickly expose data that the Church would rather the world not know about growth and activity.

2. There are no doubt members who believe that the Lord is directing the Church and that this direction extends to financial matters.  If details of investments and expenditures were made public, it's possible that the state of those investments and other financial decisions could lead people to believe that the Lord isn't directing that part of the kingdom (or require them to create convoluted explanations as to why the Lord made decisions that look unwise or otherwise uninspired).  Again, there's no benefit to revealing such things; only risk.  Anyone who knows even the cursory history of Church finances (especially in Kirtland, the 1890s and the 1960s) obviously knows how fallible Church financial leadership can be, but since those aspects of Church history aren't discussed among members, I doubt more than a relative few have any idea.

[Jeanne]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Our bishop is a senior manager within a national government department; his wife (the Young Women president) is the activities director for an aged care facility. His first counsellor is a senior police constable; his wife works as an archivist for a government agency. His second counsellor is an aerospace software engineer. Our executive secretary works in indigenous affiars for our local government, and his wife works for a private health fund. Our ward clerk works with troubled youth in residential care. Our primary president is a stay-at-home mum, but her husband is a linguist with the department of defence. Our Relief Society president is a general practitioner (physician) in a private health practice, and her husband is an accountant. Our Young Men president is a specialist in satellite technology on a private contract with defence. Our Sunday school president is a tech writer for the tax office, and his wife is a marriage/family/addiction counsellor with a global online practice. Our high priests group leader also works for the tax office but in a senior management role, and his wife cleans houses. Our elders quorum president works in global shipping and logistics. I'm the ward mission leader, and I'm senior political adviser to a member of our local parliament. Did I forget anyone?

Amazing...so many of the above have careers that really help people...(of course we all do at a point)...but sounds like government work is key there.  What an interesting ward!  I want your job!! 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Karger is seeking to use the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

I think calls from critics for more "transparency" from the LDS Church are merely a pretext for . . . using the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Karger is trying to eliminate the Church's tax exempt status.

That seems to be a separate issue from whether or not the church should disclose its financial reports.

Further, if church finances are being handled appropriately, then releasing financial reports to the public should actually serve to pull the rug out from under Karger's intentions.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Karger is trying to eliminate the Church's tax exempt status.

Karger is trying to use the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That seems to be a separate issue from whether or not the church should disclose its financial reports.

It's a variation on a theme.  I think calls from critics for more "transparency" from the LDS Church are merely a pretext for . . . using the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

Same objective.  Slightly different vector.

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Further, if church finances are being handled appropriately, then releasing financial reports to the public should actually serve to pull the rug out from under Karger's intentions.

Right.  So accusations first, then exoneration.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Selective heightened governmental scrutiny of private groups based on their ideology and/or how popular they are.

What could go wrong?

-Smac

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Karger is trying to use the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

It's a variation on a theme.  I think calls from critics for more "transparency" from the LDS Church are merely a pretext for . . . using the coercive power of government to punish the LDS Church.

Same objective.  Slightly different vector.

Right.  So accusations first, then exoneration.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Selective heightened governmental scrutiny of private groups based on their ideology and/or how popular they are.

What could go wrong?

-Smac

No.  Not at all what I said.  I don't support Karger's accusations and I certainly am not arguing "guilty until proven innocent".

I think you and I agree that there is no financial malfeasance going on in the church.  So, if the church were to provide public disclosure of its financial reports it would only serve to put an end to Karger's charges.

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Very small operations have obligations to their stakeholders, but not necessarily the public in my eyes too, I'm not sure I disagree with you on those points.  But where free money and government subsidy is given I think the public has a right to transparency and accountability, otherwise we shouldn't have to pay in the form of tax preferred status to support those institutions.  

I believe as a member of the church I also have a right to the financial transparency of the organization.  I'm claiming a moral right more than a legal right.  With the money and dedication that members give to the institution, there is a mutually beneficial relationship there, and for me its more than just my personal dedication, but the history of my family members, pioneer stock and all, we've helped to build this church and I believe it has an obligation to a certain amount of financial transparency and I'm not satisfied with the status quo.  

Lastly, I don't know your friend, but to describe someone as a friend and a malcontent sounds harsh.  Am I a malcontent too because I think the church isn't being financially responsible?  You also use the word brow-beat.  Am I brow-beating the church by having a calm discussion on a message board?  Why the negative stereotypes and condemning rhetoric?  Do you always seek to diminish those with different viewpoints through language like this?  

2

The word "stakeholder" is meaningless governmental bureaucratic jargon with no application to religion. 

Yes, there is a certain amount of "subsidy" and "free money" associated with the Church because of tax exemptions.  I oppose tax exemptions for religion.  I believe they violate the Establishment Clause.  Nonetheless, the government offers it.  There is no known legal or "moral" principle requiring anybody to make their records public simply because they take advantage of tax exemptions.   I deduct business expenses; the public does not have the right to see my business books and records. There is no "ethical" rule requiring such and your claim of "moral" right is based on your subjective view of morality, right?

My parents raised me.  They spent a lot of money on me.  I lived in their home.  I did work for them and gave limited help in their old age (actually, almost none, but my siblings helped out).  That doesn't give me the right to demand financial transparency from them.  

To browbeat the Church with the notion of financial transparency, there must be something (1) required by law or known ethics and (2) not contrary to revealed principles.  As there is no law or known ethics controlling the situation, and as the D&C says that once you make a donation your interest in your money is over, that tells me that financial secrecy is part of established religion in this case.  

My comment about a malcontent applied to my good friend.  It has nothing to do with you.  You're anonymous.  He wasn't.  He made demands to have better understanding of church finances and the church granted his request.  He was a malcontent in every aspect of church doctrine and procedure.  He was a great guy; but after his conversion he just couldn't sign on to a patriarchal religion.  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 10/18/2017 at 2:30 AM, clarkgoble said:

I suspect your ward is a bit unusual ... However even there you usually have in many wards less active who sometimes don't consider themselves Mormon but still have records. They usually don't pay full tithing if any tithing.

I think you may have misread me. I wrote that 'close to 100% of our active members are full tithe payers'. It's been over three years since I last served in the bishopric, so my data are a bit dated, but our average sacrament meeting attendance then was around 180 people per week, and we had over 100 temple-recommend holders. And not every full tithe payer holds a recommend, of course. Our current primary president doesn't, but I know from interviewing her that she could.

We certainly have active members who don't demonstrate high levels of commitment, but they form a rather small minority.

Quote

Now the Pew self-identificaiton poll found rather high rates of tithe paying - 79%. That's still far too high for me to believe but still vastly lower than your ward.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I actually think our ward would be much lower than 79% if one considers all self-identifying members. Last night, the Elders and I were invited to the home of one of our members who hasn't been to church in about 20 years. She asked for a priesthood blessing, speak with affection for the gospel, etc. -- clearly a self-identified Latter-day Saint -- but I know that she doesn't tithe and probably hasn't done so as long as she's been inactive.

I can't speak to the people on our records who are genuinely lost to us, but the vast majority of the inactive members still identify as such, but very few of them would pay tithes regularly. In a place like this, one is mostly in or out, not in belief/ID but in markers of engagement/commitment.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Amazing...so many of the above have careers that really help people...

I think some of us would dispute that claim...

Quote

Sounds like government work is key there.

Yes, we live in the capital, and the national government is the largest employer by far.

Quote

I want your job!! 

Today I'd be happy for you to have it!!!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No.  Not at all what I said.  I don't support Karger's accusations and I certainly am not arguing "guilty until proven innocent".

I think you and I agree that there is no financial malfeasance going on in the church.  So, if the church were to provide public disclosure of its financial reports it would only serve to put an end to Karger's charges.

Yes, I should have phrased that better.  I was not accusing you.  I was intending to suggest that placating the critics is not a useful course of conduct.  We should do what is right, what is revealed, and what is required by law.  I think most critics' calls for increased "transparency" have very little to do with any of those things.  

But I am not sure that additional disclosures would placate Karger.  He would make mountains out of molehills.  He would insinuate misconduct.  He would demand more disclosures.  His objective is to harm or destroy the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you may have misread me. I wrote that 'close to 100% of our active members are full tithe payers'. It's been over three years since I last served in the bishopric, so my data is a bit dated, but our average sacrament meeting attendance then was around 180 people per week, and we had over 100 temple-recommend holders. And not every full tithe payer holds a recommend, of course. Our current primary president doesn't, but I know from interviewing her that she could.

Sorry - I ended up conflating the less active who don't pay tithing with skepticism that all the active do. That's my fault and it ended up confusing things which I certainly didn't intend.

I am skeptical that all active members pay tithing. There's then the question of how many less active self-identify as Mormon. (I don't know - but I think statistics suggest not that many) I simply know many active members who don't pay tithing. Then I know lots who try, but don't pay a full tithe. Heck, I once worked for a very rich person and handled all their accounting data. I know he didn't come close to paying a full tithe even though I'm sure he said he did. (He was a SP at the time)

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I actually think our ward would be much lower than 79% if one considers all self-identifying members. Last night, the Elders and I were invited to the home of one of our members who hasn't been to church in about 20 years. She asked for a priesthood blessing, speak with affection for the gospel, etc. -- clearly a self-identified Latter-day Saint -- but I know that she doesn't tithe and probably hasn't done so as long as she's been inactive.

I can't speak to the people on our records who are genuinely lost to us, but the vast majority of the inactive members still identify as such, but very few of them would pay tithes regularly. In a place like this, one is mostly in or out, not in belief/ID but in markers of engagement/commitment.

Ah OK, I'd misread you then. Sounds like we're actually in reasonably close agreement.

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I should have phrased that better.  I was not accusing you.  I was intending to suggest that placating the critics is not a useful course of conduct.  We should do what is right, what is revealed, and what is required by law.  I think most critics' calls for increased "transparency" have very little to do with any of those things.  

But I am not sure that additional disclosures would placate Karger.  He would make mountains out of molehills.  He would insinuate misconduct.  He would demand more disclosures.  His objective is to harm or destroy the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In this case, "financial transparency" is a well-defined ethical standard that public corporations, non-profits, and churches should adhere too.  If the LDS Church should do what is right, it should be transparent.

Most public corporations, non-profits, and churches have critics. That isn't an excuse not to be financially transparent.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To your main point, yes that's more or less what I'm saying. Again I don't want to say there shouldn't be any transparency. But figuring out the idea balance it tricky. My view is that most pushing transparency want more than I think is defensible. Further I think the burden of proof is on those arguing for transparency to make sure they've thought through unintended consequences and can point to a clear benefit with each bit of information made public. With regards to the church I just haven't seen that argument.

There are certainly pros and cons to levels of transparency and I'm not oblivious to them, and think these issues need to be discussed and debated.  My current personal bias is for greater transparency as I look at history and look at many of the evils perpetuated throughout it, the abuses of power, etc. so many of these could have been reduced or mitigated if there were greater transparency.  Technology is pushing transparency forward whether we like it or not as there is a virtual footprint for so many interactions and for things we do, we're really losing the right to privacy individually and collectively, and I'm concerned about it as a private citizen for individuals.  

For corporations and institutions I believe their obligations to their stakeholders outweigh the arguments for greater flexibility.  I'm not sure the burden of proof is on those arguing for transparency, I think the burden falls on everyone's shoulders on both sides.  The public opinion on financial transparency in government is overwhelmingly supportive, so you could make the argument that the burden lies with those who oppose efforts towards transparency.  I couldn't find any polls specific to religious financial transparency, that would be interesting to know.  

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k-rehr/public-opinion-overwhelmi_b_6433820.html

This second link has some interesting findings from Pew about the relationship between transparency and ideology.  

http://www.journalism.org/2011/07/18/transparency/

Overall, I'm a proponent of greater institutional transparency, but I'm also in favor of individual privacy.