Church Finances---official source

[Maidservant]

Thanks, Jack. 😊

My only point was that the maps are different--different thought, emotion, belief structures.  There is not a one to one correspondence that would allow us to bridge the discussion.  Unless we really heard each other, and ain't nobody got time for that, ha ha ha.  I wasn't trying to maintain that my map was better-just that it's mine and didn't resemble the framework you had suggested.

Nevertheless, I don't mind dialoguing a bit on the matter.

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?   I actually rethought about this after I had written even before seeing your reply.  I am of myself not satisfied with the phrase "paying tithing".  For me, it is, rather, 'living the law of tithing'.  It has aspects and depth in addition to the money.  It has both inflow and outflow.  The money is the smallest surface of the law of tithing.  In fact, I live the law of consecration.  I offer everything to God, and receive the everything that God offers to me.  Obviously, I'm not good at that, but that is how I approach my life.  I would make this approach regardless of the Church; and in fact, such an offering (law of sacrifice) transcends any church, and can be lived by any human being.  This God is not an old man sitting on a throne.  This is GOD--the wind of reality.  Tithing is a small sign of understanding of the mechanics of abundance and providence.  If tithing is not understood this way, then I agree tithing becomes pretty useless if thought of as a payment.  I wouldn't, if that's all I thought of it.  I am not asked to give my tithing--I seek for the privilege of living the law of tithing>consecration>sacrifice>receiving the fulness.  I trust my life to be made from the law of tithing.  I love the inflow that arises from living the law of tithing/consecration.

 

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.   While tithing is an 'easy' thing for me, so I don't really think of it on the voluntary-involuntary axis--I do understand this as I feel some other laws more keenly as perhaps being less voluntary on my part, grudging if you will and disagreeing, and feeling that even if I "chose" to not live the law, the consequence would too big, so that's not much of a choice.  I am trying to get to a more 'choice' stage one way or the other (on those laws I struggle with)--either freely choosing yes or freely choosing no.  So I do get this.

 

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.   Can't speak to that, as the only hells I think exist are here on planet earth and/or carried with us wherever we go, based on our own creation.  Maybe it means that if we can't build temples (because of no tithing support), then the world will be a much worse hell than it is now.  That the existence of temples and what happens from them (the union of families and mankind) is what will rescue us all from the burnings we are otherwise going to do to each other.

 

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.  I have to admit this way of thinking of tithing and the temple dumbfounds me.  You have to obey several laws for temple recommends.  Tithing is the least law.  I don't really know the answer to this or if what I'm about to say really represents God, or just my idea (probably just me), but when a person doesn't pay their tithing, they are saying they don't want the temple to exist.  So why do they want to enter something they don't support to exist at all?  How would any temple exist without someone paying tithing? In the past, we built temples with our own work, but it's truncated into money now. If we still built the temples ourselves, it would be like the prophet asking us to go hew rock for the temple foundation or sew the veils, and we say, "No, sir, absolutely not."  Nowadays, it is made into one thing, a money.  That's actually easier and smoother and more efficient.  But tithing is US building the temple with our body and soul.  When we withhold, it means we want no temple built--and we are granted our choice.  "Okay, you don't have to come in.  Just imagine it's not there.  Because in your world it isn't, as you showed by your choice to refrain from tithing."  Tithing means that we want the covenant and the community to continue and ALL that that entails, temporal and spiritual.   Tithing IS temple building.  The Lord requires his people to build temples (not his leaders).  At this time in history, this is done symbolically with tithing, rather than in real time with our muscles and smashed China.   But if you don't put your hand to the building (tithing), it's as if it wasn't built at all (in the world you live in and the law you live).  So that's why you can't come in--because you didn't build the temple yet in your world, in your choice.  Anyway, I'm sure this is just my idea, but it's the kinds of thoughts I've had when I ponder on it myself.

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.

Referring you back to my first answer, 'paying tithing' or 'paying God' is not the way to think of it.  I absolutely do live the law of tithing between me and God.  That is what is happening.  If it is not, I would make no offering (no sheep, dove, surplus agriculture, dollar) to anyone anywhere at anytime. That is what is happening from inside of myself.  If I thought anything other, I wouldn't do it. 

If I don't think that God's servants have the representation of him, then what am I doing participating at all? I am giving my all to God, including this particular expression of money.  The money we pay now is actually a policy, in that the money is to represent the other items of tithing we might give, and did more in the past (eggs, or time, or whatnot).  The tithing is the giving of the portion of all that we have--and consecration is to give all that we have.  It is a policy to have that be cash these days, a sign of the way our economy works more than how the Lord works, I think.  The "donating to a charity or non-profit" is such a NOW thing, too.  Tithing is timeless.  If I thought I couldn't trust our leaders--I wouldn't.  So that is just based on an individual's personal experiences and interpretation of those experiences.  Mine are fine (on the issue of tithing--I have other issues, lol).

Only those with covenants may pay tithing.  It's a piece of the whole covenant.  If you don't enter the covenant (baptism), you are not only not required to pay tithing, you aren't even allowed to.  Again referring to the temple, where we make a covenant to consecrate everything--why would a person who could not or would not give 10 percent benefit from making a covenant with a greater requirement?  There simply isn't a need for that person to go to the temple, if they are happy with their baptism and the level of covenant of that.  There is no use taking on something too big for them.  And it's not about what God doles out here or later, but about our own individual struggle for progression.  We may enjoy what we are willing to have and enjoy--we don't have to go faster than we are ready.

One of the main reasons I remain in the Church, even though I often struggle about whether I will or no, is because I know that if I go I will not be permitted to pay my tithing.  I can't bear the thought.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

55 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is an interesting statement since (unless you are an accountant for the Church) the only information given to the membership is a statement in GC from the auditing department.

 

I disagree that this is the only information I have.  I can see, evidently, what is being done with the money.  Like the sky is blue.  I have not heard any news about inappropriate vacations, mistresses kept in fine style, Lamborghinis, etc etc etc.  Not once.

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Unless, of course, we don't have a choice, or the choice is not meaningful.

But neither of those things applies to the discussion about tithing, since we do have a choice about that.

If one literally believes the promises made in articles and talks such as the Marion G. Romney one I quoted, is there really a choice? There are awfully big sticks and an awfully big carrots involved. If such sticks and carrots were attached to a "choice" in any other context, it would be considered extremely coercive. I think I've demonstrated that. Yes, many Saints don't pay in the end. To me, that simply indicates that they don't believe the rhetoric. Not in their heart of hearts. But that doesn't mean that the rhetoric wasn't intended to be manipulative.

Just to wrap this up, I'll try to briefly explain why it is a sensitive issue with me. Several years ago, somebody from the stake presidency came to speak at our ward. My wife said, "Oh no. Not another manipulative talk about tithing." I asked her what she meant. She said, "I've been counting. For the last six times in a row, every time somebody from the stake presidency or the stake high council came to talk, they gave a manipulative talk about tithing." Sure enough, the talk was about tithing. The blessings of paying up and the punishment for not paying up were both emphasized. Just two or three weeks later, there was another visit from the stake and sure enough, another manipulative talk about tithing.

At least my wife and I both personally found these talks manipulative. I suppose one could argue about whether they were really manipulative had to do with whether Jesus Christ would really stand behind what these guys were promising in His name. All I know is that these speakers sure wanted us to believe that Jesus endorsed what they were saying. But maybe they were bluffing?

In any case, the whole episode left a sick feeling in my stomach, and eventually we made the choice that we weren't going to pretend to believe this had anything to do with God. Perhaps we broke a contract by choosing not to pay. If I am punished with metaphorical and/or literal fire (for a duration of no more than 1,000 years, beginning at the commencement of Jesus' return, of course), then I hope to find a good attorney who will argue that the contract was invalid because we entered this contract at the age of 8 without any real choice or understanding of what the contract entailed. Maybe Jesus will or will not follow through with the promises I've quoted here repeatedly. But if he does follow through as promised, it's hard to take seriously the assertion that doing so is either just or merciful.

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not conflating.  I'm addressing several interrelated arguments at once.

The "threat" comes from God.  That's a question of belief.  You can choose to believe that, or not.  But that ability to choose rather negates the suggestion that we have no choice (an essential element of "coercion").

The "threat" is not "coercive" in any reasonable, meaningful sense.  There are plenty of Mormons who choose to not pay tithing.  Therefore, they have a choice.  Therefore, they are not being compelled.  Therefore, they are not being coerced.

Compulsion and lack of choice are essential components of "coercion."

I didn't drop it.  

-Smac

Hi smac where’d you get the idea that a person who is threatened or coerced has no choice?  We all have choices.  If someone attempts to coerce me to give them money it may be that I choose not to give any money.  But my choice is not a factor in the coercion.  Even if I do give money as a result of coercion it would have been possible, in theory, that I decided not to give in and thus not give the money.  This example works well, Right?  

Edited May 24, 2018 by stemelbow

[Stargazer]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:57 PM, smac97 said:

 

The above thread was started in October 2017.  And here we are, seven months later, re-plowing old ground.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

There is no expiration date on finding fault with the church.  Open season all year round, no matter what, no matter how, without letup.

I don't see a point in responding to these people.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

Maybe your right and I don't understand any more. I just can't wrap my head around joyfully giving and the amount of trust needed to do so when there is little disclosure. I guess I forgot how it was.

Yep, I genuinely hope the Church is 'hiding' billions, possibly even trillions, of dollars that it can use to fulfil its mission. And I positively love that I get to contribute in my minuscule way to such a possibility. I rejoice in the combination of faithful tithe-paying and wise stewardship that makes all of this possible.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stormin' Mormon]

What can the church possibly do to compel or coerce the paying of tithing? They can exact no earthly consequences; they can only promise eternal ones. They are not going to reposses my house, break my kneecaps, or speak badly of me on Facebook. They will only warn me of the eternal consequences of my decisions.  

If you believe that the church has the authority to pronounce these eternal consequences, then you also believe that these consequences are not exacted by the church, but by God himself. If you don't believe the church can pronounce these consequences, you probably don't believe these consequences even exist. 

This reminds me of people who object to baptisms for the dead. The practice can only be objectionable if it can actually change something in the eternities. But if it has the power to change anything in the hereafter, then it must be a divinely authorized practice and therefore unobjectionable. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Stormin' Mormon

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What can the church possibly do to compel or coerce the paying of tithing? They can exact no earthly consequences; they can only promise eternal ones. They are not going to reposses my house, break my kneecaps, or speak badly of me on Facebook. They will only warn me of the eternal consequences of my decisions.  

If you believe that the church has the authority to pronounce these eternal consequences, then you also believe that these consequences are not exacted by the church, but by God himself. If you don't believe the church can pronounce these consequences, you probably don't believe these consequences even exist. 

This reminds me of people who object to baptisms for the dead. The practice can only be objectionable if it can actually change something in the eternities. But if it has the power to change anything in the hereafter, then it must be a divinely authorized practice and therefore unobjectionable. 

Wait, what? You think you set the terms for what other people can or cannot legitimately find objectionable? Unbelievable.

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What can the church possibly do to compel or coerce the paying of tithing?

They can (and do) meddle in your marriage. How? Directly through local leaders getting ideas above their station and suggesting wives or husbands put pressure on their non tithe paying spouse to stump up the cash. Because, eternity. Indirectly through every fear monger in talk at General Conference and in lesson manuals about families not being together forever if they don’t go to the temple (pay tithing) etc.

They can (and do) meddle in your family. Because hey, only tithe payers can witness their child’s temple marriage. Temple marriages remove the privacy of tithe paying decisions. Every family member knows who isn’t paying their tithing, so you get the coercion of family peer pressure.

Etc.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

On 5/23/2018 at 1:58 PM, CV75 said:

See the Q&A section:

Q: Why doesn’t the Church publish its financial information?

The Church is not a financial institution or a commercial corporation. It has no other objective than preaching the gospel and inviting all to come unto Christ. While the Church chooses not to publish the details of its finances, the Church does provide public information on the financial principles it follows, the financial controls in place to protect Church funds and the source and use of these funds. The Church also provides all financial information required by law.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:14 PM, Amulek said:

The question was, "Why doesn't the church publish its financial information?" That question was answered.

Now, I know that It isn't the question you want to have answered - I get that - but that doesn't mean the question wasn't answered. 

 

No, the question wasn’t answered. The question that was answered is “Does the Church have to publish its financial information?”

The bit I’ve put in bold is interesting in context of an article on the use of Church funds. What happened to helping the poor and the needy?

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, the question wasn’t answered.

Yes. It was. 

Again, the question asked was "Why doesn't the church publish its financial information?" 

The answer to that question is that, since we are under no legal obligation to publish our financial information, we have the choice as to whether or not we wish to publish it, and we choose not to publish it. 

Again, as I said before, I understand that that isn't the question you want to have answered. I know you want the church to explain why it chooses not to publish its financial information. 

That's fine. But just because you aren't satisfied with the questions asked in the QA doesn't mean that the questions which were asked weren't answered. They clearly were.

 

Quote

The bit I’ve put in bold is interesting in context of an article on the use of Church funds. What happened to helping the poor and the needy?

That is encompassed within the gospel of Jesus Christ. Or does your bible not contain James 1:27: 

        Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

No, the question wasn’t answered. The question that was answered is “Does the Church have to publish its financial information?”

The bit I’ve put in bold is interesting in context of an article on the use of Church funds. What happened to helping the poor and the needy?

See the "Conclusion":

Conclusion

Presiding Bishop Gérald Caussé has said, “We are the Church of Jesus Christ, and this Church has no other objective than that which the Lord Himself assigned to it; namely, to invite all to ‘come unto Christ, and be perfected in him’ (Moroni 10:32), by ‘helping members to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, gathering Israel through missionary work, caring for the poor and needy, and enabling the salvation of the dead by building temples and performing vicarious ordinances’” (“In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Mormon Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018).

So what do you think happened to it?

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

They can (and do) meddle in your marriage. How? Directly through local leaders getting ideas above their station and suggesting wives or husbands put pressure on their non tithe paying spouse to stump up the cash. Because, eternity. Indirectly through every fear monger in talk at General Conference and in lesson manuals about families not being together forever if they don’t go to the temple (pay tithing) etc.

They can (and do) meddle in your family. Because hey, only tithe payers can witness their child’s temple marriage. Temple marriages remove the privacy of tithe paying decisions. Every family member knows who isn’t paying their tithing, so you get the coercion of family peer pressure.

Etc.

Exactly.  The only tool that the church has at its disposal is "threats" about an eternity that may or may not exist.  Temple privileges and peer pressure are secondary and tertiary consequences to that tool.  And its debatable how much control the Church actually has over those secondary and tertiary consequences. 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

They can (and do) meddle in your marriage. How? Directly through local leaders getting ideas above their station and suggesting wives or husbands put pressure on their non tithe paying spouse to stump up the cash.

I don't think local leaders are trained to do this.  And if they are "getting ideas above their station," if they are acting improperly, then that should be addressed.

But that would be the exception, I think, not the rule.  The "rule" is that the Church has significant constraints on what it can do.  See D&C 134:10.  And as far as tithing goes, the only things the Church can do are 1) withhold or withdraw a temple recommend, and/or 2) limit the individual's calling in the Church (some callings require the individual to be a full tithepayer).

That's about it.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Because, eternity. Indirectly through every fear monger in talk at General Conference and in lesson manuals about families not being together forever if they don’t go to the temple (pay tithing) etc.

This gets a bit silly, doesn't it?  If you believe these things, then you can choose to act accordingly, or not.  If you don't believe these things, you can choose to act accordingly, or not.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

They can (and do) meddle in your family. Because hey, only tithe payers can witness their child’s temple marriage.

This is false.  Only those with a valid temple recommend can attend a temple marriage.  There are plenty of tithe payers who do not have temple recommends.

I am curious as to your thoughts on a couple who chooses to get married in, say, Japan (let's say the husband is from there, and the wife is an American).  Would you harangue the couple for their decision?  Would you fault them for choosing to be married in Japan instead of the U.S.?  Of course, if were married here, then the husband's family must bear the expense and burden of traveling to the U.S. to witness the marriage.  What would you do in such a situation?

Or what about a couple who just want to be married in an exotic place, like Bora Bora?  If you lacked the resources to travel there, would you berate them for their decision?  Would you publicly call them out?  Would you exert pressure on them to change their plans to suit your preference that they be married in a place where you can witness it?

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Temple marriages remove the privacy of tithe paying decisions.

Not really.

I have attended many sealing ceremonies.  Nobody is counting noses.  Nobody is snickering or gossipping.  Everyone is there to celebrate the couple's union.  There are virtually always family members and friends who are waiting outside.  Some are not members.  Some are but lack temple recommends.  Some are members with temple recommends, but there were not enough seats in the sealing room.  Some are members but are too young to attend.  Nobody polls these folks and asks them why they are not in the temple.

I acknowledge that not being able to attend a temple sealing (or not wanting to) can be a difficult circumstance, to be sure, particularly where a family member is relentlessly hostile to the LDS Church.  I would hope, though, that family members could set aside such resentments and respect the couple's religious convictions.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Every family member knows who isn’t paying their tithing, so you get the coercion of family peer pressure.  Etc.

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Yes. It was. 

Again, the question asked was "Why doesn't the church publish its financial information?" 

The answer to that question is that, since we are under no legal obligation to publish our financial information, we have the choice as to whether or not we wish to publish it, and we choose not to publish it. 

The question was why the Church chooses not to publish. “We choose not to” is not answering the “Why” of the question.

Quote

Again, as I said before, I understand that that isn't the question you want to have answered. I know you want the church to explain why it chooses not to publish its financial information. 

Yes, because that’s the question President Causse pretends he’s answering. 

Quote

That's fine. But just because you aren't satisfied with the questions asked in the QA doesn't mean that the questions which were asked weren't answered. They clearly were.

No, the question asked was not answered.

“We don’t have to and we don’t wanna..” is not answering the question, it’s avoid By answering the question. That’s the last time I’m going to point that out to you.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

Again, the question asked was "Why doesn't the church publish its financial information?" 

...

“We don’t have to and we don’t wanna..” is not answering the question, it’s avoid By answering the question. That’s the last time I’m going to point that out to you.

The Church publishes an annual report each year regarding its finances.  Here's the most recent one:

Quote

To the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Dear Brethren: As directed by revelation in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes—composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric—authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. Church entities disburse funds in accordance with approved budgets, policies, and procedures.

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

Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2017 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Kevin R. Jergensen

Managing Director

Now, some people are not satisfied with this, and instead call for "more." 

It is noteworthy that these folks virtually never identify what they mean by "more."

Further, most of these folks are, I suspect, generally not well-informed regarding how financial reporting works.

Further, the folks on this thread calling for "more" have apparently either not read, or else have refused to address, pretty good blog entry (written by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency, which I linked to yesterday (see here).

I encourage such folks to give this article a read.  Some relevant excerpts:

Quote

Financial Statements – A Review

Since I’ve only seen non-accountants request that the LDS Church spill their financial guts (there’s probably accountants who want it too, I just don’t know them), I’m going to assume that many of the people wanting this change have little to no financial background. If you’re already a financial expert, feel free to skip this section, where I briefly review the secular doctrine of financial statements.

I suspect most of the folks issuing nebulous calls for "more" and "transparency" have little to no financial background.  I suspect this because, again, they never really get around to explaining what they mean by "more" or "transparency."  So either they are being disingenuous (deliberately vague so that they can more easily shift the goal posts of their demands), or they are not well-informed (since they don't really know what they are asking for when they speak of "more" or "transparency").

Quote

Financial Statements are a snapshot into the financial health of a business or organization, designed to allow stakeholders (i.e. a person who has a stake in a business. Not like “Stake Boundary” stake, more like “interest” stake) to determine, on a macro level, the well being of the company.

Different organizations have different requirements for financial statements. For example, if you’re doing a personal budget more complicated than the “check the cash in your pocket” method, you’re going to have some sort of summary of how much money you brought in, how much money went out, and how much money is going to go out (i.e. debts). That’s your rudimentary financial statement.

...

Sliding that size scale all the way to 11, let’s look at large, publicly traded corporations. Their financial statements are required by law, must follow certain prescribed rules (GAAP in the US), and tend to run into the hundreds of pages. Despite rivaling War and Peace in length, the statements are designed to say the very bare minimum, and not a word more, to give investors a snapshot into the company’s past performance.

Keep in mind that financial statements are at a painfully high level. Ask any auditor and they’ll tell you the same thing until they’re blue in the face. It doesn’t tell most of the transactions. It’s not a blueprint on how to run a company. It’s not designed to detect fraud. Although our accounting overlords continually add new rules to try to prevent the next Enron or WorldCom, neither a thorough, expensive audit nor the resulting financial statements are a guarantee to that.

This is an important point.  Financial disclosures, even those running into hundreds of pages, are "not designed to detect fraud."  I emphasize this because I suspect that critics and opponents of the Church are not really looking for "transparency."  They are looking for dirt.  They want to comb through the Church's financials so as to find fault.  Second guess.  Grist for the anti-Mormon mill.  In other words, many (not all, but many) of the calls for "transparency" are, I think, not presented in good faith.

And even if they were, they are likely to be more or less futile.  John Q. Mormon simply doesn't have the training and competency to figure out complex financials.  D. Michael Quinn spent what, a decade looking through financial data?  And that's based on information he was able to get through public records from six countries other than the U.S. (see here).  And what was his reaction to what he found?  Well, let's take a look at that (from a Trib article) (emphases added):

Quote

Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments. (The Bloomberg Businessweek piece from five years ago cited an investigation pegging the LDS Church’s worth at $40 billion.)

No matter the precise bottom line, these figures represent an astonishing accomplishment, Quinn says.

“It is an American success story without parallel,” the longtime historian says in an interview. “No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.”

...

Yet LDS general authorities — from the most senior apostle to the lowest-ranking Seventy — all receive the same yearly “living allowance”: $120,000. Though the church has enormous wealth, he {Quinn} says, none of the leaders is getting rich off it.

...

{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is “an enormously faith-promoting story.”

If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would “breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.”

...

Quinn’s tome does not reveal any hidden slush funds, untoward personal spending or malfeasance at the highest levels, Wimmer says, but it offers insights through the arc of history the professor has never before recognized.

“I felt by the end I knew where the church is today,” Wimmer says, “and how it got there.”

Like Quinn, the economist was impressed by the skilled leadership of men who brought their financial wizardry to their religious assignments.

...

They brought Canadian N. Eldon Tanner on board as an apostle. Tapping his enormous financial know-how, the church began to rebuild its nest egg, cutting back on building projects and overseeing investments until it could get back in the black.

Tanner was “methodically rescuing the church from the brink,” Quinn writes. “By 1964, commercial income accounted for about 40 to 45 percent of its total income.”

Step by step, the historian writes, Tanner introduced the church to “corporate financing.”

It never looked back.

...

At the same time, Mormon authorities did not act like corporate giants, enriching themselves on profits.

Through the years, they paid themselves less than what others in their employ made, Quinn says. Today, that is sometimes barely half as much as some of the church’s skilled bureaucrats.

CEOs of other top nonprofits, including Harvard, Yale and the United Way, make almost 10 times as much, he says. “It was truly humbling to see these men who preside over an institution making tens of billions of dollars turning [the funds] back to the benefit of the rank and file.”

That fulfills what Mormon leader Brigham Young, known as the “Lion of the Lord,” said in 1875. At that time, Joseph Smith’s successor and his apostles signed a document, decrying America’s approach to unregulated capitalism, including the “growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals.”

The country’s “priceless legacy,” they wrote, was “endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations.”

By pocketing such relatively small salaries and using church assets to serve the members, Quinn says, Mormon leaders have “maintained the spirit of that attitude.”

...

LDS author, researcher and blogger Jana Riess hasn’t read Quinn’s book, but was intrigued by his positive view of Mormon leaders and their handling of money for the global faith.

“If the church was in dire financial trouble as recently as the 1950s, that means there are still people in the hierarchy who remember that,” Riess reasons. “I tend to think the generation gap that exists in the church [apostles with an average age of 76] as always negative.

But having institutional memory — at least among a few — can be very helpful.”

The Cincinnati-based writer is also impressed with Quinn’s description of LDS leadership as a “form of service,” she says. “They are clearly not in it to get rich.”

If the critics and opponents of the Church had a good-faith basis for calling for "transparency" and if they presented a reasonable and coherent explanation by what "transparency" they have in mind, then I'd be willing to entertain such proposals.  But they aren't doing these things, so I don't give them much thought.

Back to the blog article:

Quote

Church Financial Statements – What Would It Accomplish?

Okay, so you now know, or can at least pretend to know, what a financial statement is. Here’s where I’m having problems: what would publicly releasing the LDS Church’s financial statements accomplish?

Before you answer that, want to see what you’ll be getting? I found the financial statements for the Episcopal Church, which happened to be put together by my former employer. Go ahead, read through the 2013 report.

So what did you learn? I learned that the Episcopal Church is financially sound right now. And…that’s about it.

How much do they donate to the poor? How much to give in foreign relief? How much do they use on buildings? I have absolutely no idea. The best we get is this scant breakout here:

What do they consider to be “Canonical and missional programs”? Is “General convention” a euphemism for the priests heading to ComiCon on the church’s dime? And what’s with this “other” amount grouped in with Grants?

In other words, we’re almost exactly where we started. We know how much money they brought in and how much money went out, but they grouped their expenses based on arbitrary categorizations invented by whichever accountant implemented Quickbooks for them.

And here's the rub.  If we emulated the Episcopal Church, would the critics be satisfied with that level of "transparency?"  Nope.  They'd just shift the goal posts and demand more.  And then again.  And again.  And again.

Quote

If we were to get public financial statements for the LDS Church, this is about as good as we could expect. Want proof? Turns out the LDS Church has financial statements in the UK (required by UK law). And considering that I haven’t heard a single person mention how great it is that the Church practices financial transparency overseas, I’m guessing the number of people demanding US financial statements that know about the UK financials are in the single digits.

What do we learn from the UK financial statement, anyway?  Well, the Church brings in more than it spends, and 97.66% of their expenses are related to “Charitable Activities.” It doesn’t tell us the most basic things us financial voyeurs need to know, like how much is spent on those amazing red and blue cleaning supplies.

If we mirrored the financial disclosure requirements for the UK for the Church here in the U.S., would the critics be satisfied with that level of "transparency?"  Nope.  They'd just shift the goal posts and demand more.  And then again.  And again.  And again.

Quote

I Want Transparency, Not Your Accounting Nonsense

Okay, so you’re not an accountant, and you’re not interested in stuffy financial statements made up by overweight accountants with little green visors and even smaller personalities. You just want more transparency.

But why?

What are you going to do with that information? Do you honestly believe that knowing how much the LDS Church depreciates the Salt Lake City Temple renovations every year will convince you that what goes on inside is sacred? Will seeing how much the LDS Church sends to Africa in financial aide have one bit of bearing on whether Joseph Smith talked with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove? Does the amount spent on basketballs each year have any relevance on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true?

"What are [critics and opponents of the LDS Church] going to do with that information?"  

Well, they'll try to make hay.  They'll second-guess.  They'll find fault.  They'll grip.  And then they'll shift the goal posts and demand more.

Quote

But Look At the Suffering

The thing is, I get what many people are trying to say. It’s easy to look around the world and see all the suffering, then look at the (non-released) financial situation of the LDS Church and think, “surely we can do better.”

Whether we can or can’t, I really don’t know. As individual members of the Church and followers of Jesus Christ, especially ones living in the wealthiest country in the world (or wherever you are on that list if you’re not in the the US), absolutely. I throw myself into that bucket for sure. All of us can get a little caught up in what should be considered a “want” and what should be considered a “need,” forgetting that the amount we spend on those alleged needs could be better served helping those with real needs.

But can the actual organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better allocate it’s resources to give more to the poor?

The LDS Church recently included “caring for the poor” among their missions, bringing the total missions to four. I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by saying that this new mission takes money. What about the other three? Proclaiming the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, Redeeming the Dead? All of them take money, too.

Yes, they do.  But I don't think critics and opponents of the Church care about such considerations.

Quote

Could we ask missionaries to pay a bit more to cover the expenses related to the mission? Maybe, but for many what’s being asked is already a huge burden.

Yep.  But the critics and opponents don't care.

Quote

Could we worship in buildings that aren’t quite as nice? Perhaps, but most of the newer buildings are pretty utilitarian, even reusing the same architecture plans to save on costs.

This one is interesting.  I've heard critics complain about how drap LDS buildings are.  But decreasing the drab would mean increased expenses, which the critics would then turn around and complaint about.

In the eyes of our critics, we're darned if we do, darned if we don't.  We're darned no matter what we do.

Quote

In other words, 7 billion dollars a year (or whatever the Church actually collects in tithing) is really not that much considering the many expenses we have worldwide.

To put that 7 billion dollars in perspective, I’ve often heard the Church income compared to Gap, Inc. in terms of revenue. Based on my reading of Gap’s 2013 financials, they brought in about $9.6 billion after taking out the cost of clothing (i.e. Cost of Goods Sold). Of that $9.6 billion, they were only left with about $1 billion at the end of the year. That’s over $8 billion a year just to keep a company with about 180k employees running.

No corporation is ever going to be a perfect example, but considering the Church’s millions of members, and its reach across the globe, their operating expenses WILL be in the BILLIONS, even with their relatively small amount of employees.

I note that critics often frame this issue in terms of how many dollars the Church donates to humanitarian efforts.  But they conveniently gloss over the substantial expenses involved in buying land, building and maintaining buildings, missionary work, educational endeavors, and all the other operating costs the Church bears.  The critics just ignore these expenses, which are huge.  

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.

"The numbers will be truncated into nearly meaningless oblivion."

Which means the critics will have an unending basis for demanding more.  And more.  And more.  

Quote

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.

"Mondgay Morning Quarterbacking" is probably the most charitable characterization for critics and opponents of the LDS Church who are presenting insincere, pretextual demands of "transparency."  "Meddling, faultfinding, ark-steadying, why-was-not-this-ointment-sold-for-three-hundred-pence-and-given-to-the-poor busybodies" would also be apt.

And he's right: there's no reason to think that these Monday Morning Quarterbacks could no any better at handling the Church's finances.

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.

Huh.  So placating the "We Want Transparency!" critics and opponents of the Churchwould cost quite a bit of money. 

Here's a sincere question: Are you folks who are calling for "more transparency" willing to pony up and pay for the expenses necessarily incurred in the Church providing "more transparency?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Atheist Mormon]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:29 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”.

It probably never  will....As long as tithe paying members are OK with it.

[smac97]

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”.

Here's my guess:

The Church already has some very good internal safeguards regarding its finances. 

The Church is already fully complying with the law. 

The Church is doing a very good job at managing its finances (as evidenced by Quinn's book).

The Church presents an annual statement to the body of the Church regarding the Church's finances. 

The overwhelming majority of the faithful, tithe-paying members of the Church are not making demands for "more transparency."

The trust reposed in the leaders of the Church by the overwhelming majority of the faithful, tithe-paying members is justified (again, as evidenced by Quinn's book).

Most of these demands for "transparency" come from critics and opponents of the Church. 

Many of these demands are probably not presented in good faith.  They are not presented out of concern that the Church's finances are being mismanaged.  Rather, these demands are presented as a pretext, as an excuse.  The real objective of many of these critics is to find fault, to second-guess, to gainsay, to foment seeds of doubt and discord, to demean and slander the Church, to alienate the members of the Church from the leaders of the Church, and so on. 

Moreover, many of these critics are not tithepayers, and hence really don't have any standing to present demands to the Church.

Moreover, the demands for "transparency" are nebulous and vague, which strongly suggests that those presenting such demands are A) ignorant of how accounting for large organizations works, B) they are keeping their initial demands for "transparency" deliberately vague so that they can shift the goal posts later on, and thus present ongoing and neverending demands for more "transparency," and "more" after that, and/or C) some combination of A and B.

My two bits.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

If one literally believes the promises made in articles and talks such as the Marion G. Romney one I quoted, is there really a choice?

Yes.  If you choose to believe the promises made, you still have an ongoing ability to make choices congruent (or incongruent) with that belief.

Quote

There are awfully big sticks and an awfully big carrots involved.

And yet there are many, many believing members who do not tithe (or pay a full tithe), despite those "big sticks" and "big carrots."

And they remain in the Church.  They are not physically punished or threatened.  They are not shunned.  They are limited in A) not being able to go to the temple, and B) not holding some callings.

Quote

If such sticks and carrots were attached to a "choice" in any other context, it would be considered extremely coercive.

I think that's a bridge too far.  We are speaking of matters that are purely questions of faith.  Matters which materialize only after death.  There's no way to empirically test or gauge the verity of what the LDS Church is saying.  You either believe these things or you don't.  You either act in accordance with these things, or you don't.  You get to choose.

In contrast, if I fail to pay my taxes, or register my car, or vaccinate my children, or do any of a hundred affirmative acts imposed upon me by the law of the land, I run the very real and likely risk of punishment.  In this life.  By secular government.  So the secular government can truly be said to wield coercive power.  It can threaten me with punishments in the here and now: fines, loss of property, loss of or limitations on my rights and liberties, and even death.  In contrast, consider D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

For me, this is quite a comforting thought.  I don't want to be coerced by the Church.  And I'm not.  I know, incontrovertibly, that it cannot "coerce" me in any meaningful sense.  The worst the Church can do to be me is place constraints on, or take away, my membership.  That's it.

Now, it so happens that my membership, and more particularly the covenants and sacred ordinances associated with it, are very important to me.  But that's a matter of faith.  I choose to believe that.  I am not compelled or coerced into believing that.

Quote

I think I've demonstrated that. Yes, many Saints don't pay in the end. To me, that simply indicates that they don't believe the rhetoric.

Or they believe, but still fall short.  In other words, they're human.  

We all fail to obey God in various ways.  None of us are perfect.  Hence the value of repentance and the Atonement.

Quote

Not in their heart of hearts. But that doesn't mean that the rhetoric wasn't intended to be manipulative.

I think "manipulative" has an inaccurate, and unnecessarily negative, connotation.  Perhaps "persuasive" would be better.

Quote

Just to wrap this up, I'll try to briefly explain why it is a sensitive issue with me. Several years ago, somebody from the stake presidency came to speak at our ward. My wife said, "Oh no. Not another manipulative talk about tithing." I asked her what she meant. She said, "I've been counting. For the last six times in a row, every time somebody from the stake presidency or the stake high council came to talk, they gave a manipulative talk about tithing." Sure enough, the talk was about tithing. The blessings of paying up and the punishment for not paying up were both emphasized. Just two or three weeks later, there was another visit from the stake and sure enough, another manipulative talk about tithing.

At least my wife and I both personally found these talks manipulative. I suppose one could argue about whether they were really manipulative had to do with whether Jesus Christ would really stand behind what these guys were promising in His name. All I know is that these speakers sure wanted us to believe that Jesus endorsed what they were saying. But maybe they were bluffing?

In any case, the whole episode left a sick feeling in my stomach, and eventually we made the choice that we weren't going to pretend to believe this had anything to do with God. Perhaps we broke a contract by choosing not to pay. If I am punished with metaphorical and/or literal fire (for a duration of no more than 1,000 years, beginning at the commencement of Jesus' return, of course), then I hope to find a good attorney who will argue that the contract was invalid because we entered this contract at the age of 8 without any real choice or understanding of what the contract entailed. Maybe Jesus will or will not follow through with the promises I've quoted here repeatedly. But if he does follow through as promised, it's hard to take seriously the assertion that doing so is either just or merciful.

I can understand your resentments.  I'm sorry to hear this happened.

I had a very unpleasant experience with a General Authority while I was serving as a missionary.  It made me question my entire worth and effort as a missionary.  Fortunately, I had other experiences with other leaders and members of the Church that helped me overcome the negative feelings fostered by that one experience.  

There's a lot of good in the Church.  We mess up a lot, yes.  But we get a lot right as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/24/2018 at 10:42 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

What can the church possibly do to compel or coerce the paying of tithing? ...

Well, there are always the jack-booted, black-clad hit squads of thugs from the Latter-day Danites who zip-line from the black helicopters through an open window into your house ...