The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Marginal Gains]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why would anyone be in an organization when do not trust the leaders to use the money wisely?

If you don't trust the leaders stop paying tithing.

It's simple.

I agree with your suggestion. Members with concerns should stop paying tithing until they see full disclosure.

Quote

Don't keep paying and then crab about where the money goes.

If you stop paying taxes the government will put you in jail.

The church doesn't do that.

It kind of does. If you stop paying tithing you don’t get to go to your tithe paying son or daughters wedding.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t see it that way. Fundamentally the debate is around how much members should know about Church finances and the decisions the decision makers are making about donated funds and the proceeds of donated funds. The Church could fill the vacuum within which this debate is taking place simply by being open and transparent. 

Could you help me understand what difference it would make for members to know about Church finances and the decisions the decision makers are making?  If it is not to influence those decisions, is it just to satisfy personal curiosity?

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

I agree with your suggestion. Members with concerns should stop paying tithing until they see full disclosure.

It kind of does. If you stop paying tithing you don’t get to go to your tithe paying son or daughters wedding.

If I stop paying membership dues at my gym, I can't keep going there to exercise.  

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I think it is quite possible to share more with the public about the Church finances.  I don't know what difference it would however.

 

However, comparing it to corporations isn't valid either.  The corporations are FORCED to disclose their financial positions to the government.  They also want to share some of their grandiose vision with the public so they will continue to buy into the company in terms of stock price.    The church isn't forced or compelled to do either, and corporations wouldn't do it either if they weren't legally forced into it.

Corporations would likely still provide disclosure for their stockholders even if it wasn't required by law.  But we all agree that the Church is not legally compelled to do it (here in the US).  The point is that it's possible.  If you want to argue that the Church shouldn't do it for other reasons, that's fine.  I think it is invalid to suggest that it isn't possible to do it (which was the post I was replying to).

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

If I stop paying membership dues at my gym, I can't keep going there to exercise.  

Just so I'm clear, you're making an analogy between paying tithing and paying dues to a gym, and you're doing that in defense of the Church (and the doctrine of tithing)?

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think all here would probably agree that the stewardship lies with the Brethren.  But that part of that stewardship ought to be transparency so that we, as members, know how church funds are being used.  I don't think it is a matter of questioning the stewardship but questioning why things must be done in secret.  I believe that accountability is an important part of stewardship.

I guess I don't understand this.  You say it isn't a matter of questioning the stewardship, but then proceed to claim the portion of stewardship about how transparent to be.  It seems that the stewardship assigned to the Council for the Disposition of Tithes is how to use the money and how much of that information to make public.  Is there something I'm missing?

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I understand your concern and I think it's valid. The problem is I see it is that we have absolutely no understanding of what the plans are for the church and transparency cannot be the answer for that.

I am not a great fan of Trump but the fact is that why do you let the enemy know what your plans are it weakens your position.  Just in real estate acquisition if you let someone know your plans of a huge development the price will go up.

We have no clue what plans the church has and ought not to know.

How can the church be transparent about funds when we have no idea what the plans are?

We might as well have the Pentagon be transparent.  Good luck with that. And yet the government exist to serve us. The church does not exist to serve us it exist to serve God's will, scoff at that as some may.

At some point you have to trust the leaders. If you don't then you don't belong.

Why would anyone be in an organization when do not trust the leaders to use the money wisely?

If you don't trust the leaders stop paying tithing.

It's simple.

Don't keep paying and then crab about where the money goes.

If you stop paying taxes the government will put you in jail.

The church doesn't do that.

Is your whole argument against transparency that we don't know what the church leaders have planned and we "ought not to know"? We have no clue what their plans are because they don't tell us. Transparency would cure that condition. It's a solvable problem. The church can be transparent about its plans and how it uses funds.

You state that we ought not to know the church's plans or how it goes about funding them as if it is a foregone conclusion. Yet I don't understand it. Why should church membership be left unaware of the plans and funding? What is the reasoning for that? Are we only to give common consent to the people serving and not to what they are doing? How can church membership give consent to that which they have no clue about?

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, kllindley said:

Could you help me understand what difference it would make for members to know about Church finances and the decisions the decision makers are making?  If it is not to influence those decisions, is it just to satisfy personal curiosity?

Once full disclosure has been made it is likely that people withholding paying tithing due to suspicions that Church Leaders aren’t operating in a faith promoting manner would see their suspicions to be unfounded. That would be a good thing, and likely lead to more people paying tithing than currently.

Simply shining a light on behaviour generally improves behaviour. If the Church has nothing to hide, don’t hide it. Simple. It ends the debate. It ends the criticism about how funds are used.

At the moment the worldwide membership sees a Church with $32 billion stock options, plus bonds and commercial and residential property investments and for-profit business investments spending in comparison a relatively paltry amount on helping the poor and the needy whilst simultaneously asking the poor and needy to hand over 10% of all their income because that will make their poverty disappear.

That’s a big swallow on faith.

I also think that people have a duty to see that their charitable donations are doing the good they want them to do. How can members make a choice between paying tithing or giving 10% of their income directly to a worthy cause unless they have possession of the facts?

How can full disclosure about Church finances be a bad thing?

[Benjamin Seeker]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah. Front rent money for half the ward.

Great idea. Create temptation for Bishops. Excellent.

Have you ever been a bishop do you have any clue how demanding that would be on the Bishops budget?

A slush fund would be even worse. Now you have accounting problems.

I said Bishop’s storehouse.

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If I stop paying membership dues at my gym, I can't keep going there to exercise.  

I agree. It wasn’t me saying there weren’t consequences from not paying tithing.

And CFR that you go to the gym...

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, you're making an analogy between paying tithing and paying dues to a gym, and you're doing that in defense of the Church (and the doctrine of tithing)?

Is that actually a question about trying to be clear?  Or a rhetorical barb?  Because no.  I was not comparing tithing to dues.  

Did you likewise question the analogy of not being grated a recommend to participate in a sacred religious ceremony with being arrested and thrown in jail?  

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, you're making an analogy between paying tithing and paying dues to a gym, and you're doing that in defense of the Church (and the doctrine of tithing)?

I don't see a problem with the analogy given the context of the discussion with MG and no one tries to stretch the analogy past it's usefulness.

It seems like Kindley is just saying that paying tithing gives us certain privileges in the same way that paying a gym membership gives a person certain privileges.  It's not a perfect analogy but it's not horrible. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think all here would probably agree that the stewardship lies with the Brethren. 

Sounds good.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But that part of that stewardship ought to be transparency so that we, as members, know how church funds are being used. 

I am curious about this part.  Why are "we, as members" situated with such oversight responsibilities?  Or is it perhaps not a "responsibility," but rather a preference?  A bit of curiosity?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think it is a matter of questioning the stewardship

Oh, come on.  You'll have to admit that this is a huge part of the equation for a lot of people.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

but questioning why things must be done in secret. 

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "secret."  In my view, "secret" is not equivalent to "failure to disclose information to people who have no right or need to have it." 

Moreover, there appears to be some pretty good oversight of the Church's finances.  See here:

Quote

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION.

On July 8, 1838, a revelation was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith making known the method for the disbursement of tithing received by the Church: "Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it [tithing] shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council" (D&C 120:1).

Subsequently, the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, consisting of the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, was established. This council meets regularly and oversees the expenditures of all Church funds worldwide. It approves budgets and financial strategy and establishes financial policy.

Two subcommittees of the Council on the Disposition of Tithes are the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee. Both committees consist of the First Presidency, selected members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and members of the Presiding Bishopric.

The Church Budget Office provides staff support to the First Presidency and gives overall administrative direction to the preparation of the annual Church budget. At the beginning of each annual budgeting cycle, budget guidelines are given to Church administrative department heads, international offices, missions, temples, and other units. Within these guidelines, budgets are constructed at the lowest levels of accountability and scrupulously reviewed through various levels of management and councils. The Budget Committee meets periodically to provide in-depth budget review and to formulate budget recommendations to the Council on the Disposition of Tithes.

The Appropriations Committee meets each week. All expenditure requests throughout the world, except those few which have been delegated to a lower level of administration by the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, are reviewed, checked to make certain the request is within budget, and appropriated. Expenditures that have been delegated are reported to the committee.

FINANCIAL CONTROLS. Financial controls are administered through the use of financial policy, budgeting, organization structure, and regular, comprehensive audits. Key financial policy comes from the Council on the Disposition of Tithes. Additional financial policy and procedure directives are issued by the Finance and Records Department, which, under the direction of the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric, is responsible for the administration of treasury accounting/controllership, taxation, and risk-management functions.

The Church has an Audit Committee composed of experienced businessmen who are not associated with the Church as employees or General Authorities. This committee reports directly to the First Presidency of the Church and works closely with the Finance and Records Department and the Auditing Department to ensure strict adherence to ethical principles and rigid financial policies and procedures. The Auditing Department also reports directly to the First Presidency of the Church and thus maintains its independence from all other departments. Its staff of certified public accountants performs ongoing audits of finance, operation, and computer systems for Church departments and other Church-controlled organizations. Responses to all audits are required and are monitored.

PARTICIPATION AND INVESTMENTS IN BUSINESS. The First Presidency has established other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves (see Business: Church Participation in Business). Each of these key committees is chaired either by a member of the First Presidency or by another appointed General Authority.

The Investment Policy Committee is chaired by the First Presidency and includes the president of the Council of the Twelve, other members of the Twelve as appointed, and the Presiding Bishopric. Its purpose is to establish investment policy and strategy and to review key investment decisions.

The Deseret Management Corporation (DMC) is a corporation with its own board of directors. DMC functions as a holding company for most of the commercial businesses owned by the Church. These companies pay all taxes that are paid by commercial corporations. Some properties are also held for reasons other than investment. In addition to protecting the surroundings of sacred properties, such investments may be maintained to support the ecclesiastical efforts of the Church.

So I guess my question to you is: So you think the foregoing safeguards are insufficient?  And if so, why?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that accountability is an important part of stewardship.

So do I.  But "accountability" appears to be well accounted for.  The Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Finance and Records Department, the Auditing Department, the Audit Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, the Deseret Management Corporation and its board of directors, the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, "other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves," and on and on.

Why are these insufficient?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I agree. It wasn’t me saying there weren’t consequences from not paying tithing.

And CFR that you go to the gym...

Then I misunderstood you.  I didn't see anyone saying there weren't consequences; I saw that the person said the Church doesn't throw you in jail.  

 

and to answer the CFR. . . . I will have to retract that or rephrase "If my friend. . . . "  

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't see a problem with the analogy given the context of the discussion with MG and no one tries to stretch the analogy past it's usefulness.

It seems like Kindley is just saying that paying tithing gives us certain privileges in the same way that paying a gym membership gives a person certain privileges.  It's not a perfect analogy but it's not horrible. 

And, in context, I agree with Kindley’s point. I thought it a perfectly good analogy for what we were discussing.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I know its a priority, but it wasn't one of the official missions of the church,

I think it was part of "Perfecting the Saints."  

It's not like the Church wasn't helping the poor prior to 2009.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

and when President Monson announced it as one of these missions, I think that elevated it to a new status. 

I agree.  The added emphasis has been worthwhile.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just perplexed as to why so few members know about it, and these same members could easily tell you the other 3 pillars of missions of the church.  

"Why so few members know about" the missions of the Church?  How do we know how many are unaware? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I guess I don't understand this.  You say it isn't a matter of questioning the stewardship, but then proceed to claim the portion of stewardship about how transparent to be.  It seems that the stewardship assigned to the Council for the Disposition of Tithes is how to use the money and how much of that information to make public.  Is there something I'm missing?

I'm not questioning that those responsible have the stewardship to handle the funds.  But I believe they ought to be transparent in how they are doing it.  We used to publish financial reports each year at general conference.  I think that practice ought to be reinstated.

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, rockpond said:

I'm not questioning that those responsible have the stewardship to handle the funds.  But I believe they ought to be transparent in how they are doing it.  We used to publish financial reports each year at general conference.  I think that practice ought to be reinstated.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why doing so would be a bad thing.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.

I am curious about this part.  Why are "we, as members" situated with such oversight responsibilities?  Or is it perhaps not a "responsibility," but rather a preference?  A bit of curiosity?

Oh, come on.  You'll have to admit that this is a huge part of the equation for a lot of people.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "secret."  In my view, "secret" is not equivalent to "failure to disclose information to people who have no right or need to have it." 

Moreover, there appears to be some pretty good oversight of the Church's finances.  See here:

So I guess my question to you is: So you think the foregoing safeguards are insufficient?  And if so, why?

So do I.  But "accountability" appears to be well accounted for.  The Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Finance and Records Department, the Auditing Department, the Audit Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, the Deseret Management Corporation and its board of directors, the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, "other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves," and on and on.

Why are these insufficient?

Thanks,

-Smac

Members are responsible for common consent.  If common consent is done in an information vacuum it becomes meaningless.  You don't believe members have a right to know Church finances, I disagree.

I understand the auditing process.  I've been through it on a stake level (as you have as well).  I don't believe that there is any fraud.  But auditors don't evaluate how funds are being used to further the mission of the church.

They are insufficient because members do not know how sacred funds are being used.  In my professional capacity I have worked with a number of churches.  The leaders of those churches publish church finances to their church members because it is a good practice.  It would be a good practice for our church to return to.  Additionally, we have the mandate of common consent.

 

[Lemuel]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the recent press release, the Church said that its two most fundamental budgeting principles are the following:

• Expenditures will not exceed forecasted revenue.
• The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions.

What I infer from this is that they want to the church to perpetually grow its financial empire--the basic principle is that while sure, the "operating expenses" of spreading the gospel, redeeming the dead, and perfecting the Saints is great and all that, what's most important is that the corporate empire perpetually grows. (On the other hand I might be misinterpreting the relationship between "expenditures", "revenue", "operating expenses", and "tithing contributions." These are the hazards of dealing with a lack of transparency.)

To the extent I had a real point behind that scriptural quote, it would be that in general, nobody should hoard money. In terms of the Church, I would admire a specific saving goal of, say, fully funding its pension obligations, enough savings to continue operations in a severe, seven-year economic crisis, and enough cash on hand to pay all expenses for a year. But the idea of perpetually saving up money for a rainy day--even after you have enough money to recover from 100 huricains--seems wrong to me.

2

 

"The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions."

I think a possible clue lies here--perhaps the Church wants to be independent of tithing, much as the Catholic Church is independent of member donations ( I assume).  They will be free to pursue activities that the membership will find unpalatable if they don't have to worry about losing the tithing of those members.

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not questioning that those responsible have the stewardship to handle the funds.  But I believe they ought to be transparent in how they are doing it.  We used to publish financial reports each year at general conference.  I think that practice ought to be reinstated.

So you are questioning their stewardship over the information, correct?   

[Lemuel]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

One hallmark of the prosperity gospel is that donations to one's church will bring financial blessings from God.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

 

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-the-person-you-were-born-to-be?lang=eng

 

Quote

 

When we’re desperate to be guided by heaven, we work harder than ever to tune in to heaven. When we’re desperate to be physically healthy, we eat and exercise accordingly. No excuses! When we’re desperate to have more money, we eagerly follow the Lord’s law of finances—which is, of course, tithing!

Consider President George Q. Cannon’s approach to tithing when he was an impoverished young man. When his bishop commented on the large amount of tithing poor young George was paying, George said something like: “Oh bishop, I’m not paying tithing on what I make. I’m paying tithing on what I want to make.” And the very next year George earned exactly the amount of money he had paid tithing on the year before!

 

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Understood, but "equivalent to" is not "the same as".  There are differences, some of which I mentioned, like how subsidies involve taking money you have and giving it to someone, and tax breaks do not.

In other words, "The real-world biological outcomes of execution by firing squad are equivalent to dying of old age".  Just a small matter of timing, agency, bad guys, etc.

When you call a tax break a subsidy, you convey a notion about how the government is giving an entity money.  It ain't so.  You have to believe that government owns all the money in order for it to be a valid statement.  And it doesn't.  Words mean things. 

Oh brother.

You don't have to believe that "government owns all the money" in order for a tax break to be financially equivalent to a subsidy. You only have to believe that the government's legal and moral authority to tax is legitimate and that the break in taxes is a break from a more equitable tax obligation. In the real world, nobody cares about the difference between receiving a subsidy check from the government for $1,000 vs. having their tax obligation decrease by $1,000. Either action has the same financial effect on the tax payer and on the government.

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So you are questioning their stewardship over the information, correct?   

You can label this how you choose, but I absolutely disagree with the Church Leaderships decision to keep full financial transparency from the membership.

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Members are responsible for common consent.  If common consent is done in an information vacuum it becomes meaningless.  You don't believe members have a right to know Church finances, I disagree.

I understand the auditing process.  I've been through it on a stake level (as you have as well).  I don't believe that there is any fraud.  But auditors don't evaluate how funds are being used to further the mission of the church.

They are insufficient because members do not know how sacred funds are being used.  In my professional capacity I have worked with a number of churches.  The leaders of those churches publish church finances to their church members because it is a good practice.  It would be a good practice for our church to return to.  Additionally, we have the mandate of common consent.

 

I disagree.  The auditors do in fact evaluate how funds are being used to further the mission of the Church.  Unless you believe they are being dishonest when they say "Additionally, certified professionals perform regular audits to ensure strict adherence to standard accounting principles and Church policies."  and "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."  Emphasis mine.  

I further disagree.  I believe that members do know how sacred funds are being used.  I know that they are being used as the Council on the Disposition of Tithes has determined.  

I acknowledge that you and I have very different views of what "Common Consent" means, and that according to your perspective, it makes sense that you would also expect a greater level of information shared publicly.