Church Finances---official source

[smac97]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

So if someone doesn't pay their tithing, what happens (both in this life and the next)?

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

Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

43 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say anything about 'question[ing] the church.' I was talking about your ridiculous comments about the church gaining enough financial wealth to become a major influence in society.

I'm sorry, but that's just laughably absurd. 

 

Weird. I was always taught that there's nothing wrong with questioning anything. There's nothing inherently sinful about questioning something. 

 

Right, Oaks never told PBS in the "Mormons" broadcast that members shouldn't question leaders even if the leaders are wrong. I guess denial of what the church teaches is sometimes necessary in discussions? Incidentally, one of the makers of the PBS's the "Mormons" commented on how amazed she was that mormons have a tendency to shy away from their own doctines and policies.  They don't own it.

As for the church's financial strength, we don't know, at this point, what it is because of non-disclosure. We don't know what it can be because of non-disclosure. So, I think you're comment is a little pre-mature.

[tulip]

I pay tithing and I want and expect transparency.   The church is feeling the pressure from the Millennials.  Millennials with their student debt are only giving their money to transparent organizations.   Why hide everything?

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Right, Oaks never told PBS in the "Mormons" broadcast that members shouldn't question leaders even if the leaders are wrong.

CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, tulip said:

I pay tithing and I want and expect transparency.   The church is feeling the pressure from the Millennials.  Millennials with their student debt are only giving their money to transparent organizations.   Why hide everything?

I think many members go into tithe paying with the wrong attitude. My tithing is not my money that I am giving. It is money I am giving back to God. Therefore if anyone is going to hold someone accountable for what is done with it, it is God who will hold church leaders accountable for it. Once I have donated it I have obeyed that commandment and no longer concern myself about it. It is now between God and the church leaders in charge of it.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I mentioned two things earlier in the thread, tax exempt status gives churches a subsidy, and the stakeholders have a right to know how their donations are being spent.  Cinepro also posted a link to a great argument that has been put forward from a political/legal perspective.  

I am aware of the academic arguments, so I was asking what your personal reasons are for wanting the Church to be more explicit in reporting her financial details, i.e. how does it impact or affect you personally? It's been said that members donate even though they don't like the reporting/lack thereof, so how would reporting change things for you on a meaningful personal level?

Edited May 24, 2018 by CV75

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think President Reagan is famous for the statement to "trust, but verify."  Its a good practice.  Apparently it's a Russian proverb, but I first heard it from Reagan.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

Well that is the point here now isn't it? When dealing with imperfect men, it is reasonable to require accountability even if you are sure of their good intentions.

Arguing that the money is no longer mine after I donate it misses the point of fallibility, that money doesn't belong to the people that receive it either, they just control it.

 

My wife and I both read a book called Three Cups of Tea about a guy named Greg Mortenson who built schools in Afghanistan for disadvantaged kids. My wife actually donated to his cause on several occasions. Turns out that, in spite of his good intentions he was not very good about accounting or even his spending and there was a lot of controversy regarding his finances. See here. It took me a while to convince my wife to stop writing those checks. Once we sent out a check, was the money ours any longer? No, but we still deserved some sort of accountability from those who spent it. something that was lacking for Mr. Mortenson.

If one is going to argue that the leaders are not infallible, then asking those same leaders to account for how they spend money that isn't theirs either, is not unreasonable. If one thinks that the leaders are infalible, or even defends them as if they are, I can see why they would not care about financial disclosure. 

[Thinking]

Quote

The Church is not a financial institution

Yes it is. It loans money to students for educational purposes. PEF

Quote

The Church is not...a commercial corporation.

Yes it is.

Quote

This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church owns shopping malls, among other things.

[carbon dioxide]

31 minutes ago, tulip said:

I pay tithing and I want and expect transparency.   The church is feeling the pressure from the Millennials.  Millennials with their student debt are only giving their money to transparent organizations.   Why hide everything?

Millennials this and Millennials that.   Its is as though this is the only group out there or that is important.  The Church is a global church and what is going on in America does not mean it is going on in other places.  Millennials however give their money to a lot of companies and organizations and they don't demand transparency from them.  They give money to the government. They are used to it. 

[carbon dioxide]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think many members go into tithe paying with the wrong attitude. My tithing is not my money that I am giving. It is money I am giving back to God. Therefore if anyone is going to hold someone accountable for what is done with it, it is God who will hold church leaders accountable for it. Once I have donated it I have obeyed that commandment and no longer concern myself about it. It is now between God and the church leaders in charge of it.  

Yes.  My responsibility is to pay tithing.  Once I do that, I am in the clear.  God does not hold me accountable for how it is used. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, tulip said:

I pay tithing and I want and expect transparency.   

Could you explain what you mean by "transparency?"  

1 hour ago, tulip said:

The church is feeling the pressure from the Millennials. 

It is?

1 hour ago, tulip said:

Millennials with their student debt are only giving their money to transparent organizations.   Why hide everything?

Also, have you read this blog entry (written by an accountant, regarding demands for "transparency" from the LDS Church): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

Also, have you read D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maidservant]

17 hours 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.

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.

 

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

So if someone doesn't pay their tithing, what happens (both in this life and the next)?

 

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

Edited May 24, 2018 by Maidservant

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, tulip said:

I pay tithing and I want and expect transparency.

To whom, specifically, do you pay tithing?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Weird. I was always taught that there's nothing wrong with questioning anything. There's nothing inherently sinful about questioning something. 

Right, Oaks never told PBS in the "Mormons" broadcast that members shouldn't question leaders even if the leaders are wrong.

Correct. To my knowledge he never said that.

Now, to be fair, I never watched the PBS "Mormons" broadcast, so I'm just going by the transcript which is available online here.

The quote I assume you are referring to is the following:

Quote

DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

So, to begin with, he doesn't say members shouldn't question leaders; he says it's wrong to criticize leaders. You may not find this surprising, but I actually agree with that sentiment. 

There is a marked difference between merely asking questions and criticizing someone. If you can't tell the difference, well...that's on you.

The other point that I wanted to make about the quote is that, as near as I can tell, it only appears in the lead-out / lead-in for the program - you know, the hook they use to try to keep you interested in watching.

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to the actual program, I couldn't find the quotation being used in context with any question posed to Elder Oaks in the transcript. We don't know what question he was responding to, nor do we know what he said before or after that. 

I can make a pretty educated guess though that the full recorded tape containing Elder Oaks uttering those words doesn't containing anything sensational at all; if it did, it would have made the cut. 

 

Quote

 I guess denial of what the church teaches is sometimes necessary in discussions?

Right, so you make a false statement, and when I don't accept it I'm the one in denial? 

 

Quote

As for the church's financial strength, we don't know, at this point, what it is because of non-disclosure. We don't know what it can be because of non-disclosure. So, I think you're comment is a little pre-mature.

No, my comment is realistic. Do you have any idea what kind of funds the church would have to possess to do the kinds of crazy stuff you're talking about? Trillions and trillions of dollars.

Move over Black Rock! Deseret Management Corp. is coming for you. 

 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm surprised you ask for the obvious:  http://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/script.html

Look to the end of the transcript when PBS is talking about what to look forward to in part 2:  DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

Here is the video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvNDjND4eLI

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I am not! not! donating.

I am paying tithing.

I agree but we have to call it a donation so we can deduct it from our taxes 🙂 

[Maidservant]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I agree but we have to call it a donation so we can deduct it from our taxes 🙂 

Touche, ha ha.

Well, we can talk about it all over the place with whatever terms we like.  But I would rather not lose sight of the biblical, eternal principle as the starting place for this as to why it is happening at all. 😁

Edited May 24, 2018 by Maidservant

[Exiled]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Correct. To my knowledge he never said that.

Now, to be fair, I never watched the PBS "Mormons" broadcast, so I'm just going by the transcript which is available online here.

The quote I assume you are referring to is the following:

So, to begin with, he doesn't say members shouldn't question leaders; he says it's wrong to criticize leaders. You may not find this surprising, but I actually agree with that sentiment. 

There is a marked difference between merely asking questions and criticizing someone. If you can't tell the difference, well...that's on you.

The other point that I wanted to make about the quote is that, as near as I can tell, it only appears in the lead-out / lead-in for the program - you know, the hook they use to try to keep you interested in watching.

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to the actual program, I couldn't find the quotation being used in context with any question posed to Elder Oaks in the transcript. We don't know what question he was responding to, nor do we know what he said before or after that. 

I can make a pretty educated guess though that the full recorded tape containing Elder Oaks uttering those words doesn't containing anything sensational at all; if it did, it would have made the cut. 

 

Right, so you make a false statement, and when I don't accept it I'm the one in denial? 

 

No, my comment is realistic. Do you have any idea what kind of funds the church would have to possess to do the kinds of crazy stuff you're talking about? Trillions and trillions of dollars.

Move over Black Rock! Deseret Management Corp. is coming for you. 

 

Of course.  Questioning a leader's decision is never criticism - in bizaro world.  If I say to Nelson that I question that he actually received a revelation regarding the November policy change regarding children of lgtb parents and baptism, that wouldn't be criticism.  I question Holland's use of the exaggerated Idaho biker reactivation story.  Of course that isn't criticism at all.  I question E. Causse's financial numbers because they don't really add up against what others have said, but there again, that isn't criticism either.  If I stood up in testimony meeting and told the congregation that I question the Bishop's fitness as a leader, that wouldn't be criticism of him.  Finally, 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. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Exiled

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am aware of the academic arguments, so I was asking what your personal reasons are for wanting the Church to be more explicit in reporting her financial details, i.e. how does it impact or affect you personally? It's been said that members donate even though they don't like the reporting/lack thereof, so how would reporting change things for you on a meaningful personal level?

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.  

[JAHS]

6 minutes 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.  

So do you not trust how they are handling the money?  What will you do if they do publish it? Donate more? donate less? 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But they only pay taxes on the revenue that they are required to pay taxes on, or are you suggesting the church is also paying taxes on the tithing donations?   

All I'm saying is that they are allowed to add money to their reserve fund. This sometimes has tax implications, sure. But as they said in the website, they pay the taxes they owe.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So do you not trust how they are handling the money?  What will you do if they do publish it? Donate more? donate less? 

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.  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Analytics said:

All I'm saying is that they are allowed to add money to their reserve fund. This sometimes has tax implications, sure. But as they said in the website, they pay the taxes they owe.

And they only owe taxes on their non-exempt business revenues, not on charitable donations, so that alone tells us that they are tracking those revenue streams separately at the very least for proper taxation purposes.  

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

More information would help everyone to make more informed decisions about what they donate, certainly.

Members  are supposed to give 10% of their income. How can any member in good standing pay more or less?
If you don't trust how the other donation categories monies are spent (FO, Humanitarian aid, etc) you don't have to pay into them and still be a member in good standing.

 

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Members  are supposed to give 10% of their income. How can any member in good standing pay more or less?
If you don't trust how the other donation categories monies are spent (FO, Humanitarian aid, etc) you don't have to pay into them and still be a member in good standing.

How people interpret paying a full tithe is a personal and private thing, not to be judged by you or I.