The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Gray]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

You knowing about the finances of the church wouldn't impact whether or not the money is being used correctly though.  That's why I don't understanding this line of reasoning.  

The church already keeps track of it's money very carefully, and audits all areas to make sure that money is being used in accordance with the rules and bounds that the Brethren have set.   You and I don't need to know all the particulars in order for the church to make sure that the money is being used correctly.  Us not knowing doesn't mean that other people don't know.

It seems like all financial transparency would do is to allow each member to see if the money was being used in a way that they agree with.

Transparency actually does help people behave more ethically. People make better decisions when they know their actions will not be shielded from scrutiny.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

You are making the mistake of thinking that a desire for financial transparency is desiring to know what is happening with one’s donations.  That is not the case. 

I pay to tithing the church. I do that because it is a commandment.  And I do it regardless of what the church does with it.  My obligation to tithe exists even if the Brethren flushed it down the toilet. 

My desire for the church to disclose its finances rests with my desire to understand how we are building the kingdom of God and fulfilling the mission of the church using what the Lord has consecrated to us. 

 

I am making an observation about control (as evidenced in describing what members “should” vs “would” find faith affirming) and offering examples of expectations to control vs expectations let go of one’s free-will offerings.

I think you have it backwards; the correct principle is that we consecrate our tithe unto the Lord (2 Chronicles 31:6), and Lord consecrates our performance, in this case, the payment of tithe, unto the welfare of our souls under His terms (2 Nephi 32:9).

What one desires others to do for him and what one desires to understand  is based in his attitude in relation to control, which includes defining the terms of consecration, welfare, knowledge and understanding. We had a conversation about the terms for reporting common consent in relation to fiscal matters.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think that's reasonable. I just think we should all have the expectation that any church leader at any level can make errors in any area of their stewardship - including very serious errors.

I think that's par for the course, and we have controls in place to prevent all kinds of abuses. Fiscal reporting just doesn't happen to be one of them, based on D&C 104 and 70.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am making an observation about control (as evidenced in describing what members “should” vs “would” find faith affirming) and offering examples of expectations to control vs expectations let go of one’s free-will offerings.

I think you have it backwards; the correct principle is that we consecrate our tithe unto the Lord (2 Chronicles 31:6), and Lord consecrates our performance, in this case, the payment of tithe, unto the welfare of our souls under His terms (2 Nephi 32:9).

What one desires others to do for him and what one desires to understand  is based in his attitude in relation to control, which includes defining the terms of consecration, welfare, knowledge and understanding. We had a conversation about the terms for reporting common consent in relation to fiscal matters.

I've read the above several times and can make heads or tails of what your point is.  It's like you just want to throw out a bunch of terminology and hope it sounds good.

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Transparency actually does help people behave more ethically. People make better decisions when they know their actions will not be shielded from scrutiny.

Since we know that everyone else is already scrutinized via the church's auditing department, it sounds like you are in favor of transparency because 1) transparency will make sure the quorum of the 12 and the first presidency do not behave unethically, and 2) transparency will improve their ability to do the Lord's will in regards to the church's finances. 

Am I understanding you correctly? 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since we know that everyone else is already scrutinized via the church's auditing department, it sounds like you are in favor of transparency because 1) transparency will make sure the quorum of the 12 and the first presidency do not behave unethically, and 2) transparency will improve their ability to do the Lord's will in regards to the church's finances. 

Am I understanding you correctly?  

Sort of. I think I need to be clearer in what I'm saying. I'm sure the money is used consistent with the law and with internal church guidelines. The vast majority of the funds go to either church operations or strengthening the financial assets of the church. That's ethical. Essentially they're using the funds to operate the institution and enhance its wealth.

I think the difference transparency would make would be that they would feel more pressure to use more of those funds towards philanthropic goals. It would look really good for the church, and I think with full transparency we'd be using a significant percentage of the church's assets and income toward philanthropy. So in this case I'm thinking transparency would enhance our morality as far as how money is used. We would be not just ethical but also more moral, financially speaking.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Gray

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps the Brethren could then share the standard to which the auditors are auditing. 

I think they do, each year when they share the auditing report in general conference-

"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."

The church further clarified last month-

"Additionally, the Church Auditing Department, which is independent from all other Church departments, employs credentialed professionals to ensure that Church funds are administered and recorded in accordance with Church policies and standard accounting practices."

Standard accounting practices are otherwise known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and they can be found online.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sort of. I think I need to be clearer in what I'm saying. I'm sure the money is used consistent with the law and with internal church guidelines. The vast majority of the funds go to either church operations or strengthening the financial assets of the church. That's ethical. Essentially they're using the funds to operate the institution and enhance its wealth.

I think the difference transparency would make would be that they would feel more pressure to use more of those funds towards philanthropic goals. It would look really good for the church, and I think with full transparency we'd be using a significant percentage of the church's assets and income toward philanthropy. So in this case I'm thinking transparency would enhance our morality as far as how money is used. We would be not just ethical but also more moral, financially speaking.

So you believe that the current way the church finances are handled is not moral and that transparency would make it more moral, is that right?

Have you considered that your definition of being "more moral" might not be God's definition of 'more moral,' or are you coming at this from a purely personal opinion point of view?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think they do, each year when they share the auditing report in general conference-

"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."

The church further clarified last month-

"Additionally, the Church Auditing Department, which is independent from all other Church departments, employs credentialed professionals to ensure that Church funds are administered and recorded in accordance with Church policies and standard accounting practices."

Standard accounting practices are otherwise known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and they can be found online.

The approved budgets and policies are what I was referring to.  It's great to say that something is audited but if you don't know the standard to which it is being audited, you really know nothing.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The approved budgets and policies are what I was referring to.  It's great to say that something is audited but if you don't know the standard to which it is being audited, you really know nothing.

They tell the us the standard (I even underlined it for you in the above quote).  Standard accounting practices are an actual thing that you can look up online.  Now, without transparency we can't prove they are telling us the truth about that and actually following standard accounting practices, but it doesn't sound like you are concerned that the brethren are lying to us so I'm not sure what the concern actually is.

Edited June 7, 2018 by bluebell

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you believe that the current way the church finances are handled is not moral and that transparency would make it more moral, is that right?

Have you considered that your definition of being "more moral" might not be God's definition of 'more moral,' or are you coming at this from a purely personal opinion point of view?

I think the overarching concern is the strength of the institution. That's not immoral per se, but a better, higher moral choice would be to put more funds to use for philanthropic purposes.

My take on what is moral here is informed by my understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I believe that is a good, Godly view of morality.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They tell the us the standard (I even underlined it for you in the above quote).  Standard accounting practices are an actual thing that you can look up online.  Now, without transparency we can't prove they are telling us the truth about that and actually following standard accounting practices, but it doesn't sound like you are concerned that the brethren are lying to us so I'm not sure what the concern actually is.

"administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices"

Agreed, accounting practices are standard.  But we don't know what the budgets and policies are.  For example, is there a policy that says we should invest 20% of all tithing income in stock funds or is it 80%?

What's the budget for meetinghouse construction vs temple construction?

How much do we pay to subsidize missionary service?

An auditor must start with a documented "standard" and then follow a process to make sure that the standard is being followed.  Knowing that an organization is audited is only meaningful to the extent that one knows what the standard is.  Aside from the normal accounting practices, we do not know what standards to which the church is being audited.

Edited June 7, 2018 by rockpond

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I think the overarching concern is the strength of the institution. That's not immoral per se, but a better, higher moral choice would be to put more funds to use for philanthropic purposes.

My take on what is moral here is informed by my understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I believe that is a good, Godly view of morality.

Got it.

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

"administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices"

Accounting practices are pretty standard.  But we don't know what the budgets and policies are.  For example, is there a policy that says we should invest 20% of all tithing income in stock funds or is it 80%?

What's the budget for meetinghouse construction vs temple construction?

How much to we pay to subsidize missionary service?

An auditor must start with a documented "standard" and then follows a process to make sure that the standard is being followed.  Knowing that an organization is audited is only meaningful to the extend that one knows what the standard is.  Aside from the normal accounting practices, we do not know what standards to which the church is being audited.

So we don't know the budgets or policies and that's what concerns you.  Got it.  Thanks for explaining.

Can I ask, if you aren't concerned about unethical behavior, then why does it bother you not to know the budgets and policies directing the use church money?  Is it just for information's sake or some other reason that you believe we should know these things?

(Speaking for myself, I would love to know those things, because it would be so interesting to understand how the church runs better.)

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So we don't know the budgets or policies and that's what concerns you.  Got it.  Thanks for explaining.

Can I ask, if you aren't concerned about unethical behavior, then why does it bother you not to know the budgets and policies directing the use church money?  Is it just for information's sake or some other reason that you believe we should know these things?

(Speaking for myself, I would love to know those things, because it would be so interesting to understand how the church runs better.)

Unethical behavior is not a big concern for me.  But I do think that there is a benefit in keeping things out in the open.  As Gray mentions, it encourages better behavior.  The Lord warns us in the D&C of human nature which can lead to unrighteous dominion... and He was speaking to and about priesthood leaders at the time.  So, is unethical behavior likely?  No.  Is it possible?  Yes.  Do we as members have some measure of responsibility over consecrated assets?  Yes... that's why we operate by common consent.

That said, I think the more important reason for the church to return to financial disclosure is what you describe in your final parenthetical note above.  Imagine a church in which we understand what greater good the Brethren were able to accomplish with the funds that were saved by having members clean the buildings?  Imagine a church in which we understand that the $400/month we pay for missionaries is only half(?) of what it actually costs to serve?  Imagine a church in which we understand the true cost of maintaining a temple?  Imagine a church in which ward budgets are likewise presented to members each year?

I think the impact would be extraordinarily positive.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Relax, man!  Try and be less emotional, and more pragmatic.  Pragmatism is a great tool for finding truth. I’m just trying to better understand others’ positions who have the ability to put a lot more trust in men than I am.

Re-read my response to @rockpond. I’m very clear that my hypothetical situation is far from plausible.  Hypothetical questions are great mental exercises to test ideas! 😊

Not when they are self contradictory 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Give me a break.

You believe in Golden Plates and the Book of Mormon, but suddenly think they are using your money to snort coke with absolutely no evidence ever?

Very strange.

And now you are saying that if there was evidence they were snorting Coke that we would still keep contributing?

Where do you get this stuff?

Where do you get the idea that this is unquestioned obedience?

I have direct evidence that the law of tithing works. You don't have to believe it but I have direct evidence.

WOW! MF, did you even read the comment you were responding to? Either this was very sloppy response to SouthernMO's hypothetical or an intentional mischaracterization.

Quote

SouthernMO-

In some ways, this shows a lot of commitment to an organization and/or those leading it.  I think this can be seen as admirable in may ways.  Very dedicated.

Would you take this principle of unquestioned obedience to an extreme?  If, for example, you learned for a fact that the first presidency was using tithing money to fund their drug addictions, or a myriad of other indulgent sins (use your imagination), would you continue to tithe as you are?  Cut a check to the LDS church?

Or, would you find a more charitable way to us that 10% of your money that you’ve dedicated to obediently giving to serve others?

I realize that this is an extreme hypothetical - and highly unlikely - but I’m trying to better understand the principles of those who give without caring what it’s used for.  It’s a big step for some to have your faith in an organization.

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Unethical behavior is not a big concern for me.  But I do think that there is a benefit in keeping things out in the open.  As Gray mentions, it encourages better behavior.  The Lord warns us in the D&C of human nature which can lead to unrighteous dominion... and He was speaking to and about priesthood leaders at the time.  So, is unethical behavior likely?  No.  Is it possible?  Yes.  Do we as members have some measure of responsibility over consecrated assets?  Yes... that's why we operate by common consent.

I agree, but we aren't just talking about the possible unethical behavior of a priesthood leader.  We're talking about the unethical behavior of 18 men (the quorum of the 12, the first presidency, and the presiding bishopric) who would have to unanimously decide to be unethical and then work together to pull it off.

Under those circumstances, I think the possibility of unethical behavior goes down to practically zero.

Quote

That said, I think the more important reason for the church to return to financial disclosure is what you describe in your final parenthetical note above.  Imagine a church in which we understand what greater good the Brethren were able to accomplish with the funds that were saved by having members clean the buildings?  Imagine a church in which we understand that the $400/month we pay for missionaries is only half(?) of what it actually costs to serve?  Imagine a church in which we understand the true cost of maintaining a temple?  Imagine a church in which ward budgets are likewise presented to members each year?

Does this play out in countries where the church is transparent?  Are they experiencing a more positive impact than the church in the U.S.?  Has transparency helped them, spiritually speaking?  (Sincere question, i've never looked into it.)

 

[ksfisher]

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In some ways, this shows a lot of commitment to an organization and/or those leading it.  I think this can be seen as admirable in may ways.  Very dedicated.

Would you take this principle of unquestioned obedience to an extreme?  If, for example, you learned for a fact that the first presidency was using tithing money to fund their drug addictions, or a myriad of other indulgent sins (use your imagination), would you continue to tithe as you are?  Cut a check to the LDS church?

Or, would you find a more charitable way to us that 10% of your money that you’ve dedicated to obediently giving to serve others?

I realize that this is an extreme hypothetical - and highly unlikely - but I’m trying to better understand the principles of those who give without caring what it’s used for.  It’s a big step for some to have your faith in an organization.

The commandment, from the Lord, to pay tithing does not seem to be contingent on my being satisfied that it is being used correctly.  If He was not satisfied with the way His chosen leaders were handling His funds I am confident that He could remove them.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The commandment, from the Lord, to pay tithing does not seem to be contingent on my being satisfied that it is being used correctly.  If He was not satisfied with the way His chosen leaders were handling His funds I am confident that He could remove them.

I think many will agree with you on that. While I think it's a legitimate position to take, I hope those who make it recognize it as a blind faith in leaders. By virtue of them being called as leaders and still living, one can then assume God is pleased with what they are doing. The calling itself is tacit approval from God and is a defacto stamp of infallibility. I don't agree, but for those who believe God is involved in the day to day functioning of the church and would remove any leader not acting in according to His will, it makes sense.

[mrmarklin]

When the Church buys the Vatican, and the Prophet moves into the Palace, then I'll worry about how the money is being utilized.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think many will agree with you on that. While I think it's a legitimate position to take, I hope those who make it recognize it as a blind faith in leaders. By virtue of them being called as leaders and still living, one can then assume God is pleased with what they are doing. The calling itself is tacit approval from God and is a defacto stamp of infallibility. I don't agree, but for those who believe God is involved in the day to day functioning of the church and would remove any leader not acting in according to His will, it makes sense.

Most of these leaders have been in public leadership positions for decades, so I’m not sure how trusting that they aren’t being unethical is blind faith. 

Faith, sure. But blind faithful?

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, but we aren't just talking about the possible unethical behavior of a priesthood leader.  We're talking about the unethical behavior of 18 men (the quorum of the 12, the first presidency, and the presiding bishopric) who would have to unanimously decide to be unethical and then work together to pull it off.

Under those circumstances, I think the possibility of unethical behavior goes down to practically zero.

Does this play out in countries where the church is transparent?  Are they experiencing a more positive impact than the church in the U.S.?  Has transparency helped them, spiritually speaking?  (Sincere question, i've never looked into it.)

 

To what level do each of those 18 men participate in defining the budgets and policies?  How much detail are they aware of?  We don't know.  Those same 18 offices took the church into debt back in the 50's.  Did they do that in full awareness and accord?

From what I have seen of the reports from those countries that require transparency, it isn't much detail and funds are moved around so that they satisfy local law (for example, the Canadian tithes funding BYU).  So, what we end up with in those countries is something analogous to this latest leak that originated with filings required by the SEC.  There is money there but we don't know much about it.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I think it's a legitimate position to take, I hope those who make it recognize it as a blind faith in leaders.

I wouldn't characterize it as blind faith in leaders, but faith in the Lord and a willingness to be obedient to His commandments.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The calling itself is tacit approval from God and is a defacto stamp of infallibility.

I wouldn't agree with this, and I'm not sure who would.  Infallibility does not seem to be one of the gifts given to mortal man, even to the Lord's chosen leaders.  Nevertheless, I believe the Lord still expects us to give heed to the voice of His "fallable" leaders as if it were His own.

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The commandment, from the Lord, to pay tithing does not seem to be contingent on my being satisfied that it is being used correctly.  If He was not satisfied with the way His chosen leaders were handling His funds I am confident that He could remove them.

This is just a hypothetical and I mean no disrespect to President Monson, who I love dearly, I just want to explore the idea that you are espousing here:

In January of this year, was God displeased with the way church finances were being handled?  Or was it just President Monson's time?