Church Finances---official source

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Anything is possible. I would think that religious participation in America would have to decline significantly before such a proposition would ever even have a chance at passing. 

I predict that when it does happen in the USA that people like yourself will consider it a non-issue and not even remember when you opposed the idea in the first place.  

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Once I hand over the money it is no longer my concern. Not know the exact dollars and cents of where it goes is not being in the dark. At least I don't feel that I am in the dark and that's what counts.

As soon as you hand over your taxes, are you equally as disinterested in what the government does with your money you pay. Not a perfect analogy because taxes aren't voluntary, but the level of disinterest is strange to me. Perhaps this is a better analogy; When you donate to a charity like BSA or Red Cross, are you unconcerned with how they use those funds? Or does it still matter to you even after you hand over the money?

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The main difference I see in this debate is that some people believe the institution and its leaders should be accountable to those whom they serve. The other side seems to believe leaders and the institution should not be accountable to the membership which donates to them. If we truly believe in fallibility as a reality among every human being and institution, then it is very reasonable to accept accountability as a standard for all, leadership included.

But I thought those same people would also admit that church leaders aren't infallible? 

Would people that support the church's lack of financial transparency apply this same standard to other institutions that they donate money too? 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As soon as you hand over your taxes, are you equally as disinterested in what the government does with your money you pay. Not a perfect analogy because taxes aren't voluntary, but the level of disinterest is strange to me. Perhaps this is a better analogy; When you donate to a charity like BSA or Red Cross, are you unconcerned with how they use those funds? Or does it still matter to you even after you hand over the money?

Still unconcerned. If I were concerned I would not donate in the first place. 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The main difference I see in this debate is that some people believe the institution and its leaders should be accountable to those whom they serve. The other side seems to believe leaders and the institution should not be accountable to the membership which donates to them. If we truly believe in fallibility as a reality among every human being and institution, then it is very reasonable to accept accountability as a standard for all, leadership included.

You left out the accountability that both members of the church as well as it's leaders have to God.  I believe He knows exactly what is going on in His church.

[Exiled]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Who is the "we" that you are referring to?  If you're talking about the people who are donating money to the church, I think "we" are fine with how the church is handling it's finances.  Those who are not, as has been pointed out, are not being forced by anyone to donate.

My suspicious is that many of those who are critical of church finances do not donate to the church.  Which makes me wonder why they even care.

My family still donates, so I have an interest. I don't want them to contribute blindly to an organization that doesn't give full disclosure.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Still unconcerned. If I were concerned I would not donate in the first place. 

It sounds a little apathetic to me, but at least you're consistent  

Quote

You left out the accountability that both members of the church as well as it's leaders have to God.  I believe He knows exactly what is going on in His church.

So if someone is going to be accountable to God, you have no interest? Are government leaders accountable to God? Do you care about government oversight and accountability or do you go with a life philosophy of hands-off everything because God will take care of everything? Just because someone is accountable to God doesn't mean they aren't also accountable to people.

I actually see you laissez-faire attitude as a very dangerous philosophy for life, but maybe it works for you.

Edited May 23, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You left out the accountability that both members of the church as well as it's leaders have to God.  I believe He knows exactly what is going on in His church.

I'm guessing you don't know very much about the Church's history with finances.

Edited May 23, 2018 by cinepro

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My family still donates, so I have an interest. I don't want them to contribute blindly to an organization that doesn't give full disclosure.

I do find the observation on target, and intriguing that the people making the most noise about the Church's finances don't themselves donate anything to the Church. For the most part.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You left out the accountability that both members of the church as well as it's leaders have to God.  I believe He knows exactly what is going on in His church.

God doesn't need financial transparency because God has omniscience.  Humans are the ones that need financial transparency.  

[cinepro]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that's a key difference.  Donations are voluntary.

If we get to select any minimally plausible excuse to avoid "transparency," then transparency must not be a very important consideration.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the difference in regards to the benefits of transparency between an organization that claims to represent God and asks, on His behalf, for its members to give it 10% of their income and a private individual who isn't soliciting anything from anyone is self evident. 

If you can't see it, then I'll probably have to chalk this one up to LDS Goggles and agree to disagree.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I do find the observation on target, and intriguing that the people making the most noise about the Church's finances don't themselves donate anything to the Church. For the most part.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

I think you may be making assumptions about who does and who doesn't donate to the church. Do you actually know that the majority of the people who would like financial transparency don't pay tithing?

 

[cinepro]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I do find the observation on target, and intriguing that the people making the most noise about the Church's finances don't themselves donate anything to the Church. For the most part.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

If you're going to tell people that if the lack of transparency bothers them they shouldn't donate, then it would be more expected than interesting.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you may be making assumptions about who does and who doesn't donate to the church. Do you actually know that the majority of the people who would like financial transparency don't pay tithing?

 

 I would think that those that are disaffected but married to TBM spouses are still paying tithing.  Members are not going to complain..but they, if asked, would love to know where their dollars go...

[Storm Rider]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Still unconcerned. If I were concerned I would not donate in the first place. 

It does get silly. I want just one example from these fine, logical critics that ask the government how they spend their money. Or how they demand crystal clear documentation from each and every entity they have given donations.  I know for a fact that no one knows how the government spends money and there is no accountability in that entity. I also know no one knows what and how the Red Cross spends its money.  I don't think one of these people give two bits in a winter storm how any of the organizations to which they donate spends their funds.  

To me, it is hypocrisy of high order and it is tiresome.  If the church gave each of them audited statements none of them would know what they mean; what they really want to to be the decision maker for each and every expense in the Church and to receive each and every penny and from whence it came.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you unable to differentiate between a large organization which solicits millions/billions of dollars in donations annually, and an individual.

Yes.

But the Church's solicitations are entirely voluntary.  There are no threats, no coercion. 

We're just coming up with ad hoc justifications for exemptions to the total-financial-transparency-is-a-moral-imperative rule.  And to be honest, those justifications work.  There are all sorts of reasons, ad hoc or otherwsie, as to why total-financial-transparency-is-a-moral-imperative comes across as rather hokey.  You guys don't really believe it, since you can so easily come up with excuses for exempting yourselves from it.  I suspect you could also come up with all sorts of reasons to exempt any other individual or group with whom you sympathize, while simultaneously refusing to grant any plausible grounds for exemption to the LDS Church because . . . well, we all know why.  The Church is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't, darned no matter what it does.

You'll understand, then, why I don't think much of ad hoc and arbitrary moral imperatives imposed on the LDS Church by its critics and opponents, particularly when those critics and opponents immediately turn around and fabricate convenient cop-outs and carve-outs and exemptions and "yeah, buts."

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If an individual asks me for money, and I donate to them, I think it's reasonable to know how the money is being spent.

But that's not the deal.  The Church asks for donations, asks you to trust that the funds will be well spent, to exercise some measure of faith, sustain those who are responsible for managing those funds, etc.

I also think "how the money is being spent" is a far, far cry from the never-ending calls/demands for "transparency" from the Church.

I also think that the Church does give us a pretty good idea of "how the money is being spent."  

Moreover, I think the calls for "transparency" are either duplicitous (since the demand is vague, it can be constantly revised so that the Church fails the test no matter what) or ignorant (the demand is too vague to mean anything).  

Here is a fairly interesting blog entry on this topic (by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

Some excerpts:

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.

...

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.

...

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.

Unfortunately, their grouping totally fails for me, because those Episcopal financials don’t allow me to voyeuristicly understand how they use their money. Heck, it doesn’t even tell me how much they spent on Communion Crackers!

For them, though, it works. Their goal was likely to prove that they are spending less than they make, and on that point, mission accomplished.

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.

Hence my suspicion that calls for further "Financial Transparency" would be followed, endlessly, by more calls for "Financial Transparency."  Because the objective of the critics is digging for dirt, that's about it.

More from the blog:

Quote

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?

Look, I really don’t mean to come across as harsh, I just fail to see how financial ledgers, no matter how detailed or how summarized, matter. Either the Church is true, or it’s not. I believe that it is. Yes, it’s absolutely run by imperfect people, and they will make financial mistakes. But like Tomas at the beginning of this post so wisely told me, if they screw up, it’s on them.

I think these are fair questions for you.  What do you propose to do with the further-disclosed information about the Church's finances?

And more (emphasis added):

Quote

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.

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.

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.

Could we make our temples look a little less nice? On this one, I think not. The new, smaller temples already have several changes to help cut back on expenses, but we can only go so far.

...

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.

Yep.  I think that's the endgame intended by critics demanding for more "transparency."

So perhaps you can understand my skepticism and resistance to such obviously agenda-driven demands.

And one more bit:

Quote

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret: there’s too many accountants at the LDS Church, including some who have turned against the Church, for unethical dealings to not have been leaked by now. Enron had a much shorter life than the LDS Church, and it was dismantled by someone on the inside, not someone reading financial statements. Considering that Enron was stocked full of self interested employees, not people who grew up believing that their organization should be held to a higher standard than everything else, serious Church financial wrong doing would have come out by now.

At best, if we had transparency, you’d get a small group of people complaining that the LDS Church is wrong because it does their finances differently than they would do it, while everyone else would get bored before scrolling to the end of the released PDF.

Going back to the cost, that sounds like a pretty low benefit to justify virtually any expense.

If the LDS Church does one day release their finances, so be it. In the meantime, there are much better causes to dedicate our time to. May I suggest helping the poor instead of complaining that the Church isn’t helping them enough?

Well said.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is a responsibility to the constituency from which you are receiving donations.

And that responsibility is met by the Church's annual statement during General Conference.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

An individual who does not ask publicly for donations doesn't need to make that information public, because it is in fact private.

The key words there are "ask" (as opposed to "demand" or "require" or "tax" or "extract through coercion or duress") and "donations" (as in "an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution").

I reject your assertion.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please, tell me you can see the difference.

I can see a difference.  I just do not accept it as sufficient grounds to evade the supposed moral imperative of "transparency."

The supposed grounds for demanding "transparency" of the LDS Church are coming across as nearly entirely arbitrary.  Ad hoc.  Post hoc, for pete's sake.

If there were some serious indicia of financial mismanagement by the Church, I think I'd be more willing to entertain good faith requests for "transparency."  But there aren't, as evidenced by D. Michael Quinn's book published last year.  The Church's leadership is doing a great job of handling the Church's finances.  Add to that the faithfulness of many of the Saints and their ongoing support of the Church (including financial support, and also the untold amounts of ongoing, unremunerated volunteerism in the Church).  Add to that the blessings which I believe accrue from God and relate to the obedience of the Saints to revelatory principles.  Taken in the aggregate, the Church has enough money to provide for its members and to substantially contribute to humanitarian aid efforts as well.

And yet the critics will complain about this.  It's almost as if criticizing the Church is an end unto itself, and that nebulous complaints about insufficient "transparency" are just a convenient brickbat.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I do find the observation on target, and intriguing that the people making the most noise about the Church's finances don't themselves donate anything to the Church. For the most part.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

How do you define people that "donate" to the church?  What if I've donated twice as much money as you have over my lifetime, but I stopped donating in the past 2 years.  Are my concerns about financial transparency all the sudden null and void?

The interesting thing here is how some people are trying to dismiss concerns by turning the attention to the people with the concerns instead of addressing the reasoning/logic of the concerns specifically.   Whenever that happens, I think we know who's losing the argument.  

Edited May 23, 2018 by hope_for_things

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Paying tithing is a principle of obedience for the individual.  So I think it's possible that people could disagree with the Church while still being willing to donate to it.

As it happens, I think publicly speaking against the Church on matters not within the member's stewardship is also a principle of obedience.  But that's another discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

With respect to obedience, I think fidelity to the principle of honesty in dealings with your fellow man, includes proper financial transparency for an institution like the church.  

And I think fidelity to the principle of honesty in dealings with your fellow man includes you uploading your last five years of tax statements.  And your bank statements going back at least one year (three would be better).  And documentation for each and every exemption you have claimed on your taxes.  And all available paperwork about your investments and business interests.

Golly!  Fabricating arbitrary and ad hoc definitions of "honesty" is fun!

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I also think that reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon is another principle that we as members should obey, even when that reproof needs to be directed towards the church.  

So it's your job to publicly "reprove" the General Authorities of the Church?  While hiding behind a pseudonym?  And while refusing to disclose your own finances?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Yes, the church could make enough money (tax free!) to buy the whole world eventually. 

This is totally a rational fear. 

I figured there would be some sort of straw man response, exaggerating what I said.

Well, when you make ridiculous comments, you shouldn't be surprised when people point out how ridiculous they sound. 

 

Quote

In any event the church exerts too much control over the Utah legislature. I guess you aren't bothered by that.

I live in Texas and am not bothered by a great number of things.

However, I did live in Utah for a few years while I was attending BYU. In my limited experience, I would say that there is a distinction that should maybe be made between "the church" and "members of the church who happen to live in Utah." I'm a big fan of the former; the latter can definitely be hit or miss. 

 

Quote

Anyway, doesn't it bother you that your church doesn't respect you enough to tell you what it brings in? 

From whom? I know what it brings in from me. And, should I ever become uncomfortable with that number, it's entirely within my power to change it.

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

You do realize that 501(c) non-profits do have to disclose their financial statements, right?  It's done on a Form 990.  It's only churches that have a special exemption from this requirement.

I'm aware of the reporting requirements for churches. I don't have a problem with them. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you may be making assumptions about who does and who doesn't donate to the church. Do you actually know that the majority of the people who would like financial transparency don't pay tithing?

Yes, it is an assumption in general on my part. I'm confident that I'm correct, in the main, but nobody else needs to be bound by that. 

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If you're going to tell people that if the lack of transparency bothers them they shouldn't donate, then it would be more expected than interesting.

I agree that it isn't unexpected. What I find interesting is the inordinate obsessing over it when they have already voted with their feet (or their wallet).

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

How do you define people that "donate" to the church?  What if I've donated twice as much money as you have over my lifetime, but I stopped donating in the past 2 years.  Are my concerns about financial transparency all the sudden null and void?

People who currently donate --- good point. I realize that many of the critics have donated at some point or used to donate. The point is that the obsessive critics on this point aren't actually donating (according to my assumption).

The interesting thing to me here is how some people are trying to dismiss concerns by turning the attention to the people with the concerns instead of addressing the reasoning/logic of the concerns specifically.   Whenever that happens, I think we know who's losing the argument. 

I'm not dismissing their concerns. I understand them. I think it would be a really good thing if the Church were transparent with finances, but it is also a complete non-issue for me, personally. 

I think that the reason the Church doesn't release financial information like it used to is because they don't want people to see salaries and sheer amount of money (or lack) with certain priorities compared to others. I'm not trying to shift blame or change the subject. But I also think it's a valid point that the loudest critics have voted with their feet/wallet, but they can't stand that other people don't make the same decision. That's interesting to me. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Quote

I don't think that's a key difference.  Donations are voluntary.

If we get to select any minimally plausible excuse to avoid "transparency," then transparency must not be a very important consideration.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the difference in regards to the benefits of transparency between an organization that claims to represent God and asks, on His behalf, for its members to give it 10% of their income and a private individual who isn't soliciting anything from anyone is self evident. 

I don't.  I think "the difference" is fairly ad hoc and arbitrary.

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If you can't see it, then I'll probably have to chalk this one up to LDS Goggles and agree to disagree.

Sounds good (except I'll chalk it up to "Neverending Faultfinder Goggles").

Again, if there were some serious indicia of financial mismanagement by the Church, I think I'd be more willing to entertain good faith requests for "transparency."  But there aren't, so I don't.  This is just another fishing expedition by critics and opponents who have no particularized basis for questioning the honesty or competency of the Church re: its finances, but who want to find fault anyway.  Hence the arbitray "transparency for thee, but not for me" cop-outs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

But the Church's solicitations are entirely voluntary.  There are no threats, no coercion. 

Thanks,

-Smac

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

Quote

co·er·cion

NOUN

coercions (plural noun)

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

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  

[rongo]

Question: 

For those who pop a blood vessel about City Creek, what do you think about the Church doing the same thing (on a smaller scale) around the Mesa temple? The Church has bought the property around it, and has razed/is razing homes and businesses (prominently, an iconic Dairy Queen that has been there forever). The goal is to beautify what has become rundown blight around the temple, and to expand the grounds and build a new visitor's center.

I would imagine that City Creek critics also think that this is a bad and inappropriate use of tithing money. I also think that the price tag, while not as big as City Creek, is eye-popping. I could see people having unfettered access to financials raising no end of objections to unending things. 

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I predict that when it does happen in the USA that people like yourself will consider it a non-issue and not even remember when you opposed the idea in the first place.  

Is this just a backhanded way of saying  you don't think my opinions are principled?