Church Finances---official source

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

More information would help everyone to make more informed decisions about what they donate, certainly.  I look at what all the charities I donate to do with their money and I’m selective about where I donate.  

I imagine their intentions are mostly good, but good intentions does not mean their practices are fiscally responsible or generous.  

Did you read the link of Smac's by the tax accountant?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Of course.  Questioning a leader's decision is never criticism - in bizaro world.

Give me a break. Now you're just equivocating on the word "questioning." 

How about this: I freely admit that if by "questioning" you exclusively mean "to challenge or dispute" rather than "to ask or inquire," then yes, such conduct is unbecoming of a member of the church...depending on how one goes about it, at least. 

 

Quote

I question your strawman argument that trillions and trillions would obviously be necessary for the church to influence politics outside of Utah.  It already has in California and prop 8.  It influenced the same sex marriage question in HI and AK and tried to in the supreme court.  One wonders if the church had double the resources in 50 years, what mischief could be achieved?  Of course, my questioning of your responses is not criticism. 

I don't want to get bogged down in re-hashing Prop 8, but you do recall that the opponents of the measure actually out-raised and out-spent the supporters, right? So, whatever "influence" the church was able to exert, it's success wasn't because of the money.  

And besides, what do political endeavors have to do with the church's financial transparency? You do know that the church is required to disclose it's political contributions, right? Want to know how much the church donated for Prop 8? Just look it up; seriously, it's trivially easy (see, e.g., here). So, if you want to know what kind of political "mischief" the church might be up to...um, just pay attention. 

 

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you read the link of Smac's by the tax accountant?

I’d also add that reading an article published in Dialogue in 2015 by Samuel Brunson had some similar perspective.

[Duncan]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

I wil gladly open up my books to anyone who is willing to donated 10% of their income to me.  If it is 16 million people, then those 16 million people will see everything their money went to.

I couldn't care less whether the church shows me what they spend their money on.  I don't contribute to it any longer and I don't care one bit what they spend other peoples money on.  

Two different issues.

can I have tithing settlement on your boat?🤣 we can talk as we sail off to sunny Acapulco!

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but I already knew the robotic response. I just find it interesting that god always needs gobs and gobs of our hard earned money.

If it is sincerely believed, how is it a robotic response?

Besides that, it shouldn’t be interesting at all that God would require us to sacrifice money. Money is one of the hardest things to sacrifice. People commit heinous crimes and cause all kinds of suffering in the pursuit of money and for greed. Many people love money more than human life.

It would be much much more noteworthy if God, who is trying to teach us to love Him and everyone else as much as we love ourselves, didn’t ask us to sacrifice money. 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, CA Steve said:

In my view, since the church leaders are not infallible, financial disclosure is a good idea.

I have had the same financial guy handling my retirement accounts for years. He has done very well by me and it is in his interest to do so since what he makes is based on the size of my portfolio. I have a great deal of trust in him for a variety of reasons, like where he works, how long he has been doing this, how long we have been working together, reports from other people who use him and the fact his income is tied to how well he manages my accounts. 

 

Regardless of how well he is doing, I still expect him to explain to me where and how he is managing my accounts.

Many LDS don’t see tithing money as “ours”.  

[CV75]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Personally I would like to know how the church is using the money that I’ve donated and that many other family members and close friends are donating.  I can’t think of a more personal reason than that.  

I won't press you for an answer, but note that I was asking "why" you would like to know more and you answered with a "what" you would like to know more of, thereby not answering my actual question. The "why" expands the discussion beyond simply what other people should do for whatever reason.

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:29 AM, Marginal Gains said:

The response doesn’t actually answer the question. We still don’t know “why” “the Church chooses not to publish the details of its finances”.

That is exactly a non-answer sure.  I also take exception to "It has no other objective than preaching the gospel and inviting all to come unto Christ".  That simply is not true at all.  It has so many other objectives. 

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

Of course.  Questioning a leader's decision is never criticism - in bizaro world.  

contention, spirit of: when you criticize a church leader (see also love, spirit of).

love, spirit of: when a church leader criticizes you.  (see also contention, spirit of)

(Orson Scott Card, Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary)

 

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:33 AM, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t believe this^ statement is accurate.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865657898/LDS-Church-welfare-humanitarian-efforts-average-40-million-per-year-apostle-says.html

 

It doesn't appear accurate at all, unless since 2016 the Church decided to change course and did spend billions of dollars.  I've seen others have responded by suggesting since the members donate their time to humanitarian then it does mean the Church spends billions because their donated time can be counted as the institution's spending.  I don't think reading that into it works.  "The Church has spent billions of dollars over the past few years to meet welfare and humanitarian needs around the world."  

It simply does not allow for the spin of members adding their time.  It simply is an untrue statement--an exaggeration that perhaps even Clausse doesn't realize is wrong.  

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suppose we have different understandings about definitions for "threat" and "coercion".

Is it coercive to teach that a person's salvation depends on whether or not they pay tithing donations to the church? Is it not a threat to tell a person that they won't be able to qualify for a temple recommend and attend a child's wedding/sealing unless they make tithing donations to the church? While I agree that tithing donations aren't enforced with physical force, that doesn't mean that there isn't coercion by implying threats for noncompliance. IF the donations were totally voluntary with NO threats or coercion you might have a stronger point. But as it is, there are definite consequences for paying and not paying. The threat of those consequences can very easily be seen as coercion.

*Bold and font size are mine  

You are correct, there is threat and coercion from the Church.  Smac either doesn't understand the meaning of those words or is playing a game in defending.  

 

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess we do.  My definitions come from the dictionary.  Yours come from Whatever-Ad-Hoc-Definition-I-Can-Fabricate-That-Makes-The-LDS-Church-Look-Bad.com, or something.

"Threat": "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace."

"Coercion": "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance / force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force."

As an example of threats and coercion, consider the following hypothetical.

Say you open up a new restaurant, and a mob boss shows up. He asks for a “voluntary donation” of protection money which he explains this way: 

Let me explain something to you, Mr. Smac. Protection money is a debt which everyone owes to Mr. Corleone for his use of the things that Mr. Corleone allows him to have. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Corleone, to whom one owes protection money, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first….

Protection money is not a mere freewill offering. And although Mr. Corleone does not enforce it as we enforce debts in our society by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights, a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted.

In fact, Mr. Corleone is coming here soon, and he isn’t as nice as I am. Mr. Corleone himself said, “Today is a day of sacrifice and a day to pay protection money. I’m coming to you soon, and when I do, I am going to burn down the businesses of everyone who hasn’t paid. I ain’t gunna to spare nobody who is behind in their payments. After I burn down your businesses only ashes will be left.” 

So you see, Mr. Smac, protection money is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance.

If somebody came to you with that message, would that be a threat? Coercion? 

Compare and contrast to this First Presidency Message. Here are some relevant highlights.

Quote

From this scripture it is apparent that tithing is a debt which everyone owes to the Lord for his use of the things that the Lord has made and given to him to use. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, the Lord, to whom one owes tithing, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first….

As an acknowledgment and in return for his bounty, the Lord requires us to return to him as tithing 10 percent of our interest annually. In the law of the gospel, tithing is, then, as has already been said, a legal obligation. It is not a mere freewill offering. And although the Lord does not enforce it as we enforce debts in our society by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights, a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted….

“Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.
“For after today cometh the burning … for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
“Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today.” (D&C 64:23–25.)

So you see, my young brethren and sisters, tithing is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance—insurance against burning, both in this life and in the life to come.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Analytics

[SteveO]

I'm thinking a lot of those here saying we need "accountability" have never been a ward clerk.  You have any idea how every cent that comes and goes is micromanaged?  Its all accounted for.  You have any idea how many audits need to be mishandled for any fraud or misuse of funds to go unnoticed?  And if it does somehow occur, it never goes undetected for long.  And those perpetrating the fraud are promptly excommunicated.

But somehow I very much doubt that's what's bothering any of you.  You don't care about that.  You want to see the funds that are being spent on things YOU disapprove of.  And you want to be able to point out how much better the funds could've been spent if only we had better, more inspired leadership...if any of you haven't read Smac's article, its pretty clear that no amount of "transparency" will ever satisfy those demanding it.  You'll keep insisting on more detailed reports until you can find something to complain about.  Which is probably reason number one as to why the church doesn't make the records public in the first place. 

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

Give me a break. Now you're just equivocating on the word "questioning." 

How about this: I freely admit that if by "questioning" you exclusively mean "to challenge or dispute" rather than "to ask or inquire," then yes, such conduct is unbecoming of a member of the church...depending on how one goes about it, at least. 

 

I don't want to get bogged down in re-hashing Prop 8, but you do recall that the opponents of the measure actually out-raised and out-spent the supporters, right? So, whatever "influence" the church was able to exert, it's success wasn't because of the money.  

And besides, what do political endeavors have to do with the church's financial transparency? You do know that the church is required to disclose it's political contributions, right? Want to know how much the church donated for Prop 8? Just look it up; seriously, it's trivially easy (see, e.g., here). So, if you want to know what kind of political "mischief" the church might be up to...um, just pay attention. 

 

I know it doesn't bother people here that the church won't disclose what it has. It just seems odd that the church won't disclose its finances at least to the members who support it. Why? My guess is that at this point it doesn't want members to know that it doesn't really need the contributions is gets, that the expenses it has are small compared to the revenue it gets. Some would probably stop contributing and pay their other bills first.

As far as politics go, a 501(c)(4) organization like Drug Safe Utah doesn't have to disclose its donors. Is the church behind the lawsuit to stop the marijuana initiative using Drug Safe Utah as a cover? I guess we won't know because no disclosure is required by either. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Many LDS don’t see tithing money as “ours”.  

Who actually the money belongs to is not the point. The point is accountability by those who manage it. I expect those same LDS who do not consider the tithing money to be theirs, also do not believe it belongs to the men who actually control it either. If we are willing to concede that those men are imperfect then it is reasonable to ask them to account for what they do with the money.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you read the link of Smac's by the tax accountant?

I think Smac quoted a couple statements from it earlier in the thread, but I found writing style was off putting.  I have degrees in finance and I work in finance for my profession, so I'm pretty knowledgeable on this topic, although my specialty is not taxes specifically.  

I have a strong opinion on this topic and I want more transparency for all institutions and governments as I think the benefits for society outweigh the arguments against transparency.  Its also the direction things are moving, so even though its very hard to predict the future, I think that churches will eventually need to be more transparent whether through government regulation or technological innovation (sophisticated systems will be able to accurately predict church finances through complex algorithms), or market forces will compel organizations to be more transparent.  Some combination of the above is likely from my vantage point.  

I think it would be best if the LDS church led on the way on issues like this, but that is typically not what we should expect from conservative institutions like the church.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My guess is that at this point it doesn't want members to know that it doesn't really need the contributions is gets, that the expenses it has are small compared to the revenue it gets. Some would probably stop contributing and pay their other bills first.

I don't think you really get members. I joyfully tithe, and I sincerely hope that the Church's income is so great that it can do pretty much whatever the Lord directs. I want the Church's revenue to be huge.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Who actually the money belongs to is not the point. The point is accountability by those who manage it. I expect those same LDS who do not consider the tithing money to be theirs, also do not believe it belongs to the men who actually control it either. If we are willing to concede that those men are imperfect then it is reasonable to ask them to account for what they do with the money.

Hard to imagine any mistakes not being caught. There are too many detailed audits that happen to account for every penny that goes in and out and that would catch any discrepancies. There are too many professional accountants eyes looking at it. 
The only other thing I can imagine is that members might disagree with how the money is spent, but then there could be thousands of different opinions and what good would all those different opinions be, especially from those who don't understand all the intricate details of how the system works?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

If my son touches a red hot stove, what happens?

If I warn him about touching that stove, have I "coerced" him?

If my daughter chooses to serve others with kindness and respect, what happens?

If I encourage her to do such things, have I "coerced" her?

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand and appreciate your point but it's a little different than that.

Its more like saying, if you don't do X then I (or the church) will do Y to you. If you don't pay your tithing the bishop will not allow you to go to your daughters wedding in the temple. It's a consequence inflicted by one person (or organization) on another person. You can call it a natural consequence if you want, but the fact remains that one person (organization) is inflicting the consequence on another. That's why it's coercion.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Maidservant said:

This is not the only way to frame this issue.  This is not the way those of us who are fine with the way the Church currently  handles finances think about the issue.  We may argue upon and defend upon that issue when it is brought up; but it is not the main way we go about thinking about this.  I think this is why we can't understand one another.  Because one side is a champion of transparency and thus, it MUST be that the other side hates or does not value transparency.  Total noobs.  And the other side may say something like--I trust God completely and know that He is at the head of the Church including finances; and perhaps implying that the other side does not trust or love God.  That's a little rude too, yes?  Meaning that just because either side, for that matter anyone of any argument of any subject matter, frames an argument, does not mean that the other side is coming from the negative balance of that axis.  There are often deep paradigm differences where we have a completely different map to cover the same ground.

When I give my money, I am not giving to man or Church.  I am giving to God.  That is how I think of it.  I like God.  I love God.  God's cool.  I trust what God is doing.  I can see evidence of what God is doing (temples, books, education, missionaries, etc).  I've never once heard of anything that they have done wrong in my eyes.  I can see why others might not like > too expensive temples; > extra stash; > too much paid to GAs; >shopping malls; etc; but I myself LOVE ALL OF THOSE ITEMS (beautiful temples for everyone; nest egg; thank you for taking care of your servants well; thank you for building up the community; etc).  I would never ask my best friend, Hey what did you do with the money I gifted you?  I would never ask God, Hey what did you do with the money that was yours that you gave me and I gave you a little bit back?

It's okay if you don't see your relationship with God and tithing that way, but some of us really and truly do.  It's not my money.  It doesn't feel like my money.  I know it's not my money.  I don't need to know about money that's not mine.  (Transparency is all well and good with one's own money, but ludicrous when it's about someone else's money.)

It is not about transparency at all either way, for me.  It can be for anyone who sees it that way (either side), but it's not the only way to frame, paradigm, talk about, think about it.

If I thought the Church was truly misusing the funds (not merely held an honest disagreement about some details of priority), I wouldn't be a part of the Church at all.

In addition, not necessarily to you, but to everyone--people keep saying "donate" in this thread.

I am not! not! donating.

I am paying tithing.

Please do not reduce the deep, eternal principle I am choosing to live to "a donation".  If you don't think it's a deep, eternal principle, that's cool.  But do try to understand that my thinking, approach, and belief is on a completely other level than "donation".

If you don't think tithing is really a thing, cool beans.  But please understand that many of us that do choose to pay tithing are paying it under a paradigm that could not possibly be covered under the term "donating".  The Church is not a non-profit (except as it interfaces with the world).  The Church is the gathering of Israel and the priesthood organization headed by Jesus Christ.

Again, we are not donating to a non-profit.  We are paying tithing to the Lord (not even the Church!).  I am not paying my tithing in order to support the Church.  I pay my my tithing as part of, an expression of, a sign of, my covenant(s) with Jesus Christ.  Not as an exchange for a reward; but as faith and joy.

No one has to buy that if they don't want to, if they think it's snake oil, but please understand there is a different set of thinking going on here where some sincerely understand tithing as a principle, not simply a willingness to give money to a nice cause.  You may not understand why we can't see that it's snake oil;  but we can't understand why you can't see the marvelous power in living tithing.  Just not the same map.

 

Nothing much.  They keep their money and enjoy life.  The principle of tithing is for the present.

I can appreciate that this is the way you think about it because that's how I thought of it for many years. But I have a couple of questions.

1- If you are "paying" tithing and not "donating" is it a required payment like a utility or rent? A monthly bill that is required to pay to God? If it is a required payment, it's not totally voluntary is it? Calling it a donation is actually a kinder way to view it because it implies more choice. Yet I've often heard of tithing referred to as "fire insurance", meaning that if one pays tithing they will be saved from the fiery pits of hell. In addition to whatever is taught about God's judgement upon those who do not pay, there is also man's judgement, presumably acting for God in the here and now. Not paying can affect temple recommends, callings, priesthood participation etc. Requiring a payment with severe consequences if you don't, sounds like coercion to me.

2- How do you pay tithing directly to God? You don't. You pay to a person who accepts payment on behalf of the church, which presumably is accepting it for God. That means there is a level of separation between your tithing and God, so in fact you are paying it to the church, which is a non-profit organization (pretty sure  )you are placing your faith in the church organization and its leaders using it as God desires. We are often told not to place our faith in the arm of the flesh, so while church leaders may be very good men, they are still human and capable of making errors in judgement and even ethical use of tithing. You would have a strong point if you were able to pay directly to God, but there's no way to do that, so you pay to the church and there are promised blessings and consequences, both temporal and eternal associated with that.

On the other hand, if the law of tithing meant that you donated (paid) 10% to an organization/charity of your choosing for the benefit of humankind, without risk of man inflicted consequences if you didn't, then it would be a more voluntary and less coercive request.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there are differences between public institutions and private ones.

I have also liberally quoted from a pretty good blog entry (written by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

Differences yes.  But I'm advocating for greater transparency for both, and I think there are some exceptions to this for things like national security and proprietary intellectual property of course, but in general greater transparency I see as a boon for society at large.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's right.  So I am going to interpret scriptures and insist that you submit to my interpretation.  It's my way or the highway.

Or not.  I actually have no right to "apply the scriptures" and foist that interpretation on you.  You are not in my stewardship.  It is not part of the Plan for me to exceed the bounds of my stewardship.  So I do not foist my interpretation of things on you.  I do not publicly insist that you adopt my perspective on these things.  I do not publicly denigrate you if and when you fail to bend to my will.  And you know what?  I am glad of that.  I don't want self-appointed ark-steadiers to go around telling others what to do and how to do it.  That's not their job.  That's not their stewardship.  

Histrionic much?  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fine.  I insist that you upload the last five years of your tax returns in PDF format.  Since we are dispensing with any notion of stewardship or authority, and since you feel at liberty to instruct prophets and apostles as to how to discharge their responsibilities re: "honesty," I must suppose that this free-for-all applies to you also.  If you get to arbitrarily make up rules for those outside your stewardship, then surely others get to do the same to you, right?

Hard to have a thoughtful exchange of ideas when you resort to this kind of hyperbole. 

HFT: I think the church needs to be more financially transparent. 

Smac: Stop trying to instruct the prophets, you're being an ark steadier!!!  

HFT: Financial transparency is required for churches in many countries around the world.

Smac:  Oh yeah, you should release your tax returns first, lets see that!  

HFT: Institutions with tax exempt status have an obligation to their stakeholders and citizens. 

Smac: Who do you think you are to arbitrarily make up rules, you're going outside your stewardship, who appointed you regulator in chief.  

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I know there are academic arguments for transparency, but would you mind sharing your #1 (or top 2-3) personal reason(s) for wanting the Church to be more explicit in reporting her financial details?

Fair question. I'm having to think about it a little because the academic arguments are actually important to me. I think they speak to the psychology of why transparency is important in my relationship with the church. They can't be fully segregated.

But for me I think it comes down to issues of trust. Whether it is treatment I've experienced by local leaders that have impacted my trust at the micro level or what I perceive as incompatible history/behaviors/policies of the church and its leaders with the teachings of Christ and even the church's own core teachings at the macro level, I don't have trust that leaders and the organization are always doing God's will or even understanding God's will. But there seems to be an expectation that we should treat them as infallible. These leaders have total control with no accountability. I find the idea that there is no "appropriate" way to communicate disapproval or even consider better ways of doing things, or that it's inappropriate to be loyally opposed to certain things, to be harmful to the culture of the church. Church leaders seem to act more like kings that cannot be challenged than servants of the people. I think that is backwards. I find it arrogant for leaders to act like they are above challenge and accountability to members.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand and appreciate your point but it's a little different than that.

Its more like saying, if you don't do X then I (or the church) will do Y to you. If you don't pay your tithing the bishop will not allow you to go to your daughters wedding in the temple.

Again, admission to the temple is an entirely voluntary thing.  And the Church doesn't hide the requirements.  

If I want to go see a movie, I pay for the ticket.  The movie theater is not "coercing" me into buying the ticket.

Tithing is a commandment from God.  That's a principle of faith.  I can accept it, or not.  I can pay it, or not.  If I don't, I am not able to hold certain callings in the Church, and I am not able to attend the temple.  I know that going in.  Those blessings are predicated on obedience.  Obedience is a choice.  I have never been "coerced" into paying tithing.  Nobody has.  

Quote

It's a consequence inflicted by one person (or organization) on another person.

But it's not coercive.  It's a farcicle claim to suggest that it is.  I do not say this lightly.  It's a farcicle claim.

Quote

You can call it a natural consequence if you want, but the fact remains that one person (organization) is inflicting the consequence on another. That's why it's coercion.

Non-sequitur.  

By your reasoning, a movie theater "coerces" its patrons by requiring payment for a ticket.

By your reasoning, a university "coerces" its students by requiring attendance in classes and passing grades for a diploma.

By your reasoning, an employer "coerces" its employees by requiring work in exchange for wages.

By your reasoning, a parent "coerces" his child by warning him against the dangers of using meth and heroin.

By your reasoning, a parent "coerces" his child by withholding dessert until after the child eats his vegetables.

By your reasoning, Christ "coerced" His followers when he said "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

By your reasoning, Christ "coerced" HIs followers when he said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21).

And so on, ad infinitum.  

You are stretching the definition and concept of "coercion" to absurd lengths, solely to make the LDS Church look bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

You'll keep insisting on more detailed reports until you can find something to complain about.  Which is probably reason number one as to why the church doesn't make the records public in the first place. 

What's reason number one? One of the documents that has been leaked shows a breakdown of who is authorized to see different details of the financial records. As it turns out, there are only seven(!) people in the entire church who are authorized to view the Church's balance sheet: the First Presidency, the Presiding Bishopric, and the Church Controller.

The balance sheet shows a summary of the Church's assets and liabilities. Not only do they keep this information hidden from anonymous internet gadflies, they also keep it hidden from church members, priesthood holders, bishops, stake presidents, regional representatives, seventies, and apostles. So when addressing why they keep this information secret from the public, it is helpful to consider why they keep it secret from the apostles too. The only reason I can think of is that they are afraid that if the apostles knew the full scope of the reserve and related assets, the apostles would be inclined to reconsider the way budgets are constructed to continually ratchet up how much is saved into the reserve accounts, and would be more inclined to spend more money on the things that are important to them.

Of course the following view is from a non-LDS source and isn't binding on the Church, but it is worth considering how non-LDS Christians generally view the topic of financial transparency:

Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christ-centered organizations. It may be true that public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of Christ-centered ministries in general is at stake.

Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal.

Just my own humble opinion, of course. But in terms of why the LDS Church doesn't comply with an "accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large," the bolded sentence seems awfully prescient.

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, admission to the temple is an entirely voluntary thing.  And the Church doesn't hide the requirements.  

If I want to go see a movie, I pay for the ticket.  The movie theater is not "coercing" me into buying the ticket.

If you want to get your daughter back, you pay the ransom. The kidnapper isn't "coercing" you into paying. It is an entirely voluntary thing. The kidnapper isn't hiding the requirements.