The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[ksfisher]

Just now, rockpond said:

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?

You would need to talk to one of them about that.

I'm by no means espousing the idea that we should read anything into the passing of any church leaders.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

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.

It's trust.  And it's not blind.  The Brethren are not enriching themselves.  They live financially moderated, though comfortable, lives.  They could be living like kings.

The Church is pouring money into places that are not self-sufficient.  South America.  Asia.  Africa.  

The Church is building church buildings.  And temples.  And administering the Church's missionary program.  And humanitarian efforts.  

The Church has fairly extensive and effective oversight and safeguard mechanisms in place to make sure that the Church's funds are being properly utilized.

There is no evidence of corruption or substantial financial mismanagement.  To the contrary, all evidence points to the Church being an excellent steward of its finances.

Most members of the Church trust the leaders of the Church because they are trustworthy.

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

By virtue of them being called as leaders and still living, one can then assume God is pleased with what they are doing.

Nope.  Our trust is based on a lot more than an assumption.  

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Yes as to the presumption of "approval from God," no about "a defacto stamp of infallibility."

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

There's more than that.  The Brethren are making tough calls.  All the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

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

So the Vatican is where you draw the line?  These are all okay?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

I think it's blind because those who are against transparency are unwilling to even see the possibility that there could be problems with the ethics or morality of those they trust. Past behavior isn't a perfect predictor of future behavior, so just because someone was "righteous enough" to be called to a position doesn't mean they will make good decisions or act appropriately. Do we really want to open the can of worms about leaders misbehaving. It happens. Pretending it doesn't is placing blind faith in the arm of the flesh...IMO.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's trust.  And it's not blind.  The Brethren are not enriching themselves.  They live financially moderated, though comfortable, lives.  They could be living like kings.

CFR- you assume this is true but you can't know

The Church is pouring money into places that are not self-sufficient.  South America.  Asia.  Africa.  

CFR- how much money is the church pooring into these places? How much are they receiving in income from these places verses expenses?

The Church is building church buildings.  And temples.  And administering the Church's missionary program.  And humanitarian efforts.  

I won't challenge this because we can see buildings and temples being built even if we don't know how much money is being spent on these things.

The Church has fairly extensive and effective oversight and safeguard mechanisms in place to make sure that the Church's funds are being properly utilized.

The church audits itself according to church policies. The audit report shows that those policies are being followed yet we don't know what those policies are. The church could literally have a financial policy for anything it chooses and the audit will simply say whether or not they are following the policy.

There is no evidence of corruption or substantial financial mismanagement.  To the contrary, all evidence points to the Church being an excellent steward of its finances.

I agree. That seems to be the case. But should we take it for granted that there will never be financial mismanagement going forward? Are leaders infallible in this regard?

Most members of the Church trust the leaders of the Church because they are trustworthy.

Define most. Are you talking about a majority of the 16 million plus members the church claims as membership, or most of the active membership which would be closer to 5-6 million? Which ones count?

Nope.  Our trust is based on a lot more than an assumption.  

Agree to disagree

Yes as to the presumption of "approval from God," no about "a defacto stamp of infallibility."

If you won't consider the possibility of fallibility, doesn't that mean that you believe in infallibility?

There's more than that.  The Brethren are making tough calls.  All the time.

I'm not sure what making touch calls has to do with it. Tough calls can be right or wrong. Of course if there isn't transparency to evaluate it will likely be assumed that all calls are right.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

OK, there are 3 or 4 points (so much for being brief!):

1. Just as you posted that “it's interesting (and possibly telling) where most people's thoughts seem to go when you ask for financial disclosure from the church,” it is interesting and possibly telling when someone uses “should” instead of “would” in describing the perception of financial disclosure as a faith affirming measure for members.

2. It is interesting and telling because “should” (delineating an action to be correct) is a more controlling auxiliary verb than “would” (expressing the possibility of how an action). There is an element of excessive control in deciding what should be faith-affirming to others as opposed to simply a possibility.

3. Contrary to your understanding that the Lord is consecrating things to us, the correct principle in relation to tithing is that we consecrate our tithe unto the Lord (2 Chronicles 31:6), and Lord then consecrates our performance, in this case, the payment of tithe, unto the welfare of our souls under His terms of the relationship (2 Nephi 32:9). Contrary to what you assert, the Church is not using what the Lord has consecrated to us, but His agents are using what we have consecrated to Him. There is an element of unwarranted control demonstrated in conflating the use of what we have consecrated unto the Lord with what the Lord consecrates unto us, by changing the established relationship.

Since financial disclosure is not called for in scripture (for some practical examples see D&C 70 and 104), telling the saints they should find it faith affirming and tying it to the Lord’s consecration of our performance for the welfare of our souls (the reverse of how the Lord says consecration works), is a controlling narrative.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

My obligation to tithe exists even if the Brethren flushed it down the toilet.

Yet you say in another post that if you knew the Brethren were flushing tithing money down the toilet or using it to fund their drug addictions, you would send my tithes elsewhere. That's quite the quandary!

[CV75]

3 hours 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.

This why the Lord calls people He finds faithful to manage the sacred funds and conduct the temporal business of the Church (see D&C 70 and 104), which includes internal safeguards against mistakes and corruption, but does not require common consent disclosure of financial records and decisions.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's blind because those who are against transparency are unwilling to even see the possibility that there could be problems with the ethics or morality of those they trust. Past behavior isn't a perfect predictor of future behavior, so just because someone was "righteous enough" to be called to a position doesn't mean they will make good decisions or act appropriately. Do we really want to open the can of worms about leaders misbehaving. It happens. Pretending it doesn't is placing blind faith in the arm of the flesh...IMO.

This bolded part is not a correct blanket statement. I see no scriptural justification for common consent in financial reporting and decision making -- just the opposite -- yet I accept the fallibility those entrusted with sacred funds. I think you can easily learn about the financial and other controls in place to prevent abuse. Neither transparency nor common consent in financial reporting and decision making will change the ethical or moral behavior any more than the internal controls do--that's why they have them!

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK, there are 3 or 4 points (so much for being brief!):

 

1. Just as you posted that “it's interesting (and possibly telling) where most people's thoughts seem to go when you ask for financial disclosure from the church,” it is interesting and possibly telling when someone uses “should” instead of “would” in describing the perception of financial disclosure as a faith affirming measure for members.

 

2. It is interesting and telling because “should” (delineating an action to be correct) is a more controlling auxiliary verb than “would” (expressing the possibility of how an action). There is an element of excessive control in deciding what should be faith-affirming to others as opposed to simply a possibility.

 

3. Contrary to your understanding that the Lord is consecrating things to us, the correct principle in relation to tithing is that we consecrate our tithe unto the Lord (2 Chronicles 31:6), and Lord then consecrates our performance, in this case, the payment of tithe, unto the welfare of our souls under His terms of the relationship (2 Nephi 32:9). Contrary to what you assert, the Church is not using what the Lord has consecrated to us, but His agents are using what we have consecrated to Him. There is an element of unwarranted control demonstrated in conflating the use of what we have consecrated unto the Lord with what the Lord consecrates unto us, by changing the established relationship.

 

Since financial disclosure is not called for in scripture (for some practical examples see D&C 70 and 104), telling the saints they should find it faith affirming and tying it to the Lord’s consecration of our performance for the welfare of our souls (the reverse of how the Lord says consecration works), is a controlling narrative.

 

You're reading too much into the "should".  Feel free to replace it with "could".  My intended meaning is still the same.

Consecrated means to make or declare for a divine purpose.  If it makes it more clear, I'll restate:  We consecrate our tithes to the Lord.  He then gives us stewardship over those funds to be used according to His will.

As for the scriptural support for common consent and the need for financial disclosure as part of exercising that common consent and fulfilling our stewardship, I've already provided my references.

My thoughts in relation to this matter are not about "controlling", I'm sorry if my choice of words led to that conclusion.

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This why the Lord calls people He finds faithful to manage the sacred funds and conduct the temporal business of the Church (see D&C 70 and 104), which includes internal safeguards against mistakes and corruption, but does not require common consent disclosure of financial records and decisions.

 

I don't think there is any corruption. But philanthropy has not been an emphasis, and I don't think that would be the case if there were transparency.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yet you say in another post that if you knew the Brethren were flushing tithing money down the toilet or using it to fund their drug addictions, you would send my tithes elsewhere. That's quite the quandary!

You'll note that I commented a few posts later that that was an exaggeration.  I assume you agree with me that... even though we both believe in the commandment to tithe, if we KNEW the Brethren were flushing it down the toilet, we'd likely find some other way to satisfy the commandment with the Lord.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This bolded part is not a correct blanket statement. I see no scriptural justification for common consent in financial reporting and decision making -- just the opposite -- yet I accept the fallibility those entrusted with sacred funds. I think you can easily learn about the financial and other controls in place to prevent abuse. Neither transparency nor common consent in financial reporting and decision making will change the ethical or moral behavior any more than the internal controls do--that's why they have them!

Is there a scriptural justification that exempts finances from the law of common consent? Or are you claiming that because it isn't specifically enumerated, that common consent doesn't apply to finances?

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's trust.  And it's not blind.  The Brethren are not enriching themselves.  They live financially moderated, though comfortable, lives.  They could be living like kings.

CFR- you assume this is true but you can't know

It's not an assumption.  It's pretty much a fact.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Mormons and others who wonder about the salaries of top LDS leaders got a possible peek at those numbers Monday, when purported pay stubs for a high-ranking church official emerged online.

Copies of the biweekly stubs for Henry B. Eyring — then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles — report that he earned $83,132.75 from the start of 2000 until the first week of December. Two more pay periods at $3,096.15 each would have put Eyring's salary at $89,325.05 for the year.

The 16-year-old records were posted by MormonLeaks and show Eyring's biweekly salary broken down into a living allowance ($2,192.31), parsonage or clergy housing, ($826.92) and a child allowance ($76.92).

A second newly leaked document, from a more recent year, is a 2014 memo from the church's Presiding Bishopric (which handles all financial issues for the faith), noting that the "base living allowance" for all Mormon general authorities was being raised from $116,400 to $120,000.

...

LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins declined to confirm the salary numbers Monday, while defending the payment of full-time ecclesiastical leaders.

"General authorities leave their careers when they are called into full-time church service," Hawkins said in a statement. "When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the church and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all general authorities [including First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First and Second Quorums of the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric]."

No funds for this "living allowance," the spokesman said, "come from the tithing of church members but instead from proceeds of the church's financial investments."

Many of those 109 men in the top tiers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — including Eyring — attended elite schools such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale and the University of Chicago and built successful careers as college presidents, lawyers, surgeons and CEOs.

And yet when they work for the LDS Church, they bring home far, far less than what they would have earned had they continued to work "as college presidents, lawyers, surgeons and CEOs."

And they would have also been able to retire at their discretion.  As it is, members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve work until they literally die.

They are not in it for the money.

Quote

Religious historian Jan Shipps, who is not a Latter-day Saint but has studied Mormonism extensively, was astonished at how relatively low Eyring's living allowance was — even for one more than 15 years ago.

Many university presidents and even some faculty make much more, said Shipps, who taught American religious history in Indiana for years. "Compared to their pay, this is small potatoes."

A Methodist pastor of a middle-class congregation in the Midwest, she said, "is paid a $138,000 base salary plus a parsonage allowance."

General Authorities administering to a 16-million-member Church with many billions of dollars in annual revenues and assets are paid less than "[a] Methodist pastor of a middle-class congregation in the Midwest."

They are not in it for the money.

Quote

The Church is pouring money into places that are not self-sufficient.  South America.  Asia.  Africa.  

CFR- how much money is the church pooring into these places? How much are they receiving in income from these places verses expenses?

I don't have figures, but it's pretty much common knowledge.  My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe.  They previously served in Samoa.  The Church spends more in these places than it receives from them.  The same is true for many, many parts of the world.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Among the distinctions the LDS Church is known for are its missionaries in white shirts, its towering temples and saying next to nothing about its money.

After all, the Utah-based faith doesn’t have to reveal much about its wealth in the United States and many other locales around the globe.

But, in a few countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must make public at least some basic information about the revenue it collects, the money it spends and the assets it owns.

...

For his new book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” noted historian D. Michael Quinn obtained the LDS Church’s financial disclosures for 2010 in six countries that require churches or charities to make such filings: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Tonga and the U.K.

...

The combined assets in those six countries added to $1.8 billion in 2010. They include cash, investments and real estate like a stake center (regional meetinghouse) in view of Australia’s Gold Coast, the Mormon temple south of London and hundreds of chapels across the six countries.

...

The historian, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1993 for his writings about early Mormon polygamy, says he was most struck by the money church leaders in Utah directed overseas. Of the six countries, only Australia did not report a supplement from headquarters in 2010.

The church in Canada received $166,728, while the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue.

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

Based on some general statements Mormon apostles have made through the decades about the church’s income from profit-making corporations and members’ tithing, Quinn says, the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns.

"{T}he U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work {in other countries}."'

"Quinn says {that} the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns."

I am emphasizing this not to toot the horn of the American Saints, but to gently rebut the rather frequent criticism of the Church's ownership of business interests.  Those business interests seem to be revenue generators.  That is, they are making more money than they are taking in.  And those profits are, as we all know, being used to prop up the opulent and profligate "jetset" lifestyle of the General Authorities, what with all of their mansions, beachfront condos, private jets, wild n' crazy parties, and so on.

Oh, wait.  That's not it.  The profits are being used to subsidize the Church's efforts in places like Africa and Latin America.

Quote

The Church is building church buildings.  And temples.  And administering the Church's missionary program.  And humanitarian efforts.  

I won't challenge this because we can see buildings and temples being built even if we don't know how much money is being spent on these things.

Yes.  That is my point.

Quote

The Church has fairly extensive and effective oversight and safeguard mechanisms in place to make sure that the Church's funds are being properly utilized.

The church audits itself according to church policies. The audit report shows that those policies are being followed yet we don't know what those policies are. The church could literally have a financial policy for anything it chooses and the audit will simply say whether or not they are following the policy.

If you have evidence that "those policies" are allowing corruption of financial mismanagement, then let's see it.

Otherwise, the proof is in the pudding, I think.

Quote

There is no evidence of corruption or substantial financial mismanagement.  To the contrary, all evidence points to the Church being an excellent steward of its finances.

I agree. That seems to be the case. But should we take it for granted that there will never be financial mismanagement going forward? Are leaders infallible in this regard?

No, we shouldn't take it for granted.  But we aren't asked to.  We have 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 (see here).

Moreover, we have a robust missionary program.  And meetinghouses.  And temples.  And educational and humanitarian efforts.  And Fast Offerings.  And so on.

We also have a generalized knowledge that the General Authorities live very moderate lifestyles, particularly given the huge amounts of money to which they have access.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have tens of thousands of bishops and stake presidents and other local leaders who work for free.

We also have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."

We also have Quinn's assessment.

We also have an overwhelming lack of financial scandals in the Church (rather astonishing, given the large amounts of money that flow through the Church).

So I don't "take it for granted."  I use my eyes and ears.  I repose trust in the foregoing oversight and safeguard mechanisms.  I monitor the news about the Church quite regularly.  In the aggregate, all evidence points to the Church being an excellent steward of its finances.

And no, the leaders are not infallible.  I have previously noted a mistake the Church (and its attorneys) made regarding the acquisition of the Main Street Plaza property.  In essence, the Church paid for the easement across the property twice.  The property was originally appraised and its value assessed without any easement (property is worth less when it has an easement across it).  Then Salt Lake City came back and changed the deal to put an easement in place.  The Church agreed to the change, but paid the original price.  So they paid more than the land was worth.  Later, when the City sold the easement to the Church, the Church paid for the easement again.  Moreover, the Church entered into a deal with the City wherein the City would allow the Church (a private actor) to regulate speech on the easement, which is constitutionally impermissible.  So the Church and its attorneys made some pretty substantial errors here (so did the City).  But I think the Church learned and moved on.  It's not really my place to harangue the Church and forever hold these mistakes over its head.  

Quote

Most members of the Church trust the leaders of the Church because they are trustworthy.

Define most. Are you talking about a majority of the 16 million plus members the church claims as membership, or most of the active membership which would be closer to 5-6 million? Which ones count?

Allow me to clarify: Most members of the Church who trust the leaders of the Church do so because they are trustworthy.

That's my generalized observation from active, observant members of the Church.  Those who are not active generally don't pay attention to the Church's finances.

Quote

Yes as to the presumption of "approval from God," no about "a defacto stamp of infallibility."

If you won't consider the possibility of fallibility, doesn't that mean that you believe in infallibility?

I do consider the possibility of fallibility.  And not only that, I acknowledge the existence of fallibility by the leaders of the Church.

Quote

There's more than that.  The Brethren are making tough calls.  All the time.

I'm not sure what making touch calls has to do with it.

Tough calls.  AkA "judgment calls."  AKA "decisions about which reasonable minds can disagree."

Quote

Tough calls can be right or wrong.

Exactly my point.  The Brethren are making tough calls all the time, and yet the Church is - by virtually every measure - an excellent steward of its finances.  So the General Authorities appear to making tough calls that are predominantly "right."

There are all sorts of discretionary decisions the Brethren have to make.  Just because someone else disagrees with their decision doesn't make it "wrong."  And for decisions where the Church's financial decisions are objectively wrong, well, we live and learn.  But objectively "wrong" decisions seem to be fairly few and far between, as evidenced by the Church's excellent financial health.  So what we are discussing are decisions that critics and opponents subjectively feel are "wrong."  Well, I get that, but at the end of the day I have two choices:

• A) I can repose trust in the combined experience and competence and good will of the General Authorities of the Church (and the oversight mechanisms in place to monitor their decisions - see above), and also look around and see all the things that the Church is spending money on (buildings, temples, missionary work, humanitarian efforts, etc.), and also look around and see an overwhelming lack of financial mismanagment/scandal, and also look around and see the fairly middle-of-the-road lives of the General Authorities (who have access to billions of dollars, but clearly are not using it to enrich themselves), and so on, or
• B) I can listen to laregly baseless speculation and hostile guesswork from critics and opponents of the Church.

You'll not be surprised with which option I have chosen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not an assumption.  It's pretty much a fact.  See, e.g., here:

 Yes, we know that because information was leaked. See how nice it is when there is transparency, even if the church is dragged into it.

And yet when they work for the LDS Church, they bring home far, far less than what they would have earned "as college presidents, lawyers, surgeons and CEOs"

That's probably true, assuming they are still at working age. While there are some exceptions, when apostles are called fairly young, they are usually called near retirement age.

General Authorities administering to a 16-million-member Church with many billions of dollars in annual revenues and assets are paid less than "[a] Methodist pastor of a middle-class congregation in the Midwest."

They are not in it for the money.

I agree with that. And it's great that we know how much they actually make. Transparency works.

I don't have figures, but it's pretty much common knowledge.  My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe.  They previously served in Samoa.  The Church spends more in these places than it receives from them.  The same is true for many, many parts of the world.  

Common knowledge doesn't really cut it. There have been many things that are common knowledge yet not exactly accurate. It may be in this case. I don't know. But neither do you. BUT there is a very simply way we could know.

Yes.  That is my point.

If you have evidence that "those policies" are allowing corruption of financial mismanagement, then let's see it.

I never made a claim that those policies allow financial mismanagement but we don't really know what those policies are, do we. That's a solvable problem.

Otherwise, the proof is in the pudding, I think.

No, we shouldn't take it for granted.  But we aren't asked to.  We have 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 (see here).

So we should count on the bureaucracy policing the bureaucracy. I get it. Yes, we have all of those councils yet we don't really know who serves on them or in what capacity. We don't know what they do. Or at least I don't know what they do.

Moreover, we have a robust missionary program.  And meetinghouses.  And temples.  And educational and humanitarian efforts.  And Fast Offerings.  And so on.

We also have a generalized knowledge that the General Authorities live very moderate lifestyles, particularly given the huge amounts of money to which they have access.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have tens of thousands of bishops and stake presidents and other local leaders who work for free.

We also have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."

They are clearly living within their means. Enough so that they can have $32 billion in stock. Let's pretend I have a family of 10 and make $100K per year. I set a family budget that allows for a $100 per month food budget for the family. I review the finances regularly and confirm that the finances are following the budget I set. Yippee for me. But perhaps someone should be able to ask if that $100 is a sufficient budget to feed my family. If I don't tell my wife how much I make, or how much I spend, but merely give her the $100 and don't share any other info, she may not know the finances are being handled poorly. Even if I tell her I have $1 million saved for a rainy day, that really doesn't put food on the table, does it.

We also have Quinn's assessment.

We also have an overwhelming lack of financial scandals in the Church (rather astonishing, given the large amounts of money that flow through the Church).

So I don't "take it for granted."  I use my eyes and ears.  I repose trust in the foregoing oversight and safeguard mechanisms.  I monitor the news about the Church quite regularly.  In the aggregate, all evidence points to the Church being an excellent steward of its finances.

And no, the leaders are not infallible.  I have previously noted a mistake the Church (and its attorneys) made regarding the acquisition of the Main Street Plaza property.  In essence, the Church paid for the easement across the property twice.  The property was originally appraised and its value assessed without any easement (property is worth less when it has an easement across it).  Then Salt Lake City came back and changed the deal to put an easement in place.  The Church agreed to the change, but paid the original price.  So they paid more than the land was worth.  Later, when the City sold the easement to the Church, the Church paid for the easement again.  Moreover, the Church entered into a deal with the City wherein the City would allow the Church (a private actor) to regulate speech on the easement, which is constitutionally impermissible.  So the Church and its attorneys made some pretty substantial errors here (so did the City).  But I think the Church learned and moved on.  It's not really my place to harangue the Church and forever hold these mistakes over its head.  

Allow me to clarify: Most members of the Church who trust the leaders of the Church do so because they are trustworthy.

That seems like faulty logic to me. Would you also argue that most members who do NOT trust church leaders do so because they are NOT trustworthy?

That's my generalized observation from active, observant members of the Church.  Those who are not active generally don't pay attention to the Church's finances.

I do consider the possibility of fallibility.  And not only that, I acknowledge the existence of fallibility by the leaders of the Church.

Tough calls.  AkA "judgment calls."  AKA "decisions about which reasonable minds can disagree."

Exactly my point.  The Brethren are making tough calls all the time, and yet the Church is - by virtually every measure - an excellent steward of its finances.  So the General Authorities appear to making tough calls that are predominantly "right."

There are all sorts of discretionary decisions the Brethren have to make.  Just because someone else disagrees with their decision doesn't make it "wrong."  And for decisions where the Church's financial decisions are objectively wrong, well, we live and learn.  But objectively "wrong" decisions seem to be fairly few and far between, as evidenced by the Church's excellent financial health.  So what we are discussing are decisions that critics and opponents subjectively feel are "wrong."  Well, I get that, but at the end of the day I have two choices:

• A) I can repose trust in the combined experience and competence and good will of the General Authorities of the Church (and the oversight mechanisms in place to monitor their decisions - see above), and also look around and see all the things that the Church is spending money on (buildings, temples, missionary work, humanitarian efforts, etc.), and also look around and see an overwhelming lack of financial mismanagment/scandal, and also look around and see the fairly middle-of-the-road lives of the General Authorities (who have access to billions of dollars, but clearly are not using it to enrich themselves), and so on, or
• B) I can listen to laregly baseless speculation and hostile guesswork from critics and opponents of the Church.

You'll not be surprised with which option I have chosen.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not an assumption.  It's pretty much a fact.  See, e.g., here:

 Yes, we know that because information was leaked. See how nice it is when there is transparency, even if the church is dragged into it.

I'm open to more transparency, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Quote

General Authorities administering to a 16-million-member Church with many billions of dollars in annual revenues and assets are paid less than "[a] Methodist pastor of a middle-class congregation in the Midwest."

They are not in it for the money.

I agree with that. And it's great that we know how much they actually make. Transparency works.

Apparently not, since even when information is divulged, it doesn't satisfy the critics, who just shift the goal posts and demand more (or presume to publicly - and ignorantly - find fault with the Church's decisions).

Quote

I don't have figures, but it's pretty much common knowledge.  My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe.  They previously served in Samoa.  The Church spends more in these places than it receives from them.  The same is true for many, many parts of the world.  

Common knowledge doesn't really cut it. There have been many things that are common knowledge yet not exactly accurate. It may be in this case. I don't know. But neither do you. BUT there is a very simply way we could know.

Agree to disagree.

Quote

Yes.  That is my point.

If you have evidence that "those policies" are allowing corruption of financial mismanagement, then let's see it.

I never made a claim that those policies allow financial mismanagement but we don't really know what those policies are, do we. That's a solvable problem.

A "problem" that, by design, will never, ever go away.  It will never be solved.  The Church will never ever be able to satisfy its critics and opponents on this issue.  It's not about transparency.  It's about finding fault.  Demands for more "transparency" are just a means to that end.

Quote

Otherwise, the proof is in the pudding, I think.

No, we shouldn't take it for granted.  But we aren't asked to.  We have 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 (see here).

So we should count on the bureaucracy policing the bureaucracy. I get it. Yes, we have all of those councils yet we don't really know who serves on them or in what capacity. We don't know what they do. Or at least I don't know what they do.

I get it, too.  No amount of "transparency" will ever be enough.  There will always be room for more suspicion and accusations.  There will always be room for second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking.  There will always be room to find fault.  That's the endgame.

Quote

Moreover, we have a robust missionary program.  And meetinghouses.  And temples.  And educational and humanitarian efforts.  And Fast Offerings.  And so on.

We also have a generalized knowledge that the General Authorities live very moderate lifestyles, particularly given the huge amounts of money to which they have access.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have tens of thousands of bishops and stake presidents and other local leaders who work for free.

We also have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."

They are clearly living within their means. Enough so that they can have $32 billion in stock.

See?  Finding fault.  Second-guessing.  Armchair quarterbacking.  That's the endgame.

Quote

Allow me to clarify: Most members of the Church who trust the leaders of the Church do so because they are trustworthy.

That seems like faulty logic to me. Would you also argue that most members who do NOT trust church leaders do so because they are NOT trustworthy?

Nope.  I think members who do not trust church leaders tend to be big into finding fault.  Second-guessing.  Armchair quarterbacking.

The Brethren have earned my trust.  They have not earned yours, apparently.  I'd be surprised if they ever will.

• Accusation: "We don't know how much money the Church has!  The Church is dishonest!"
• Leaked Information Responsive to Accusation: "The Church has $32 billion in investments, according to MormonLeaks."
• Pivot: "The Church is greedy!  The Church is not spending its money the way I think it should!"

Rinse, lather, repeat.  Over and over.  Forever and ever.  It will never end, no matter what the Church does.  Because it's not about "transparency."  It's about finding fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm open to more transparency, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Apparently not, since even when information is divulged, it doesn't satisfy the critics, who just shift the goal posts and demand more.

Agree to disagree.

A problem that will never, ever go away.  The Church will never ever be able to satisfy its critics and opponents on this issue.  It's not about transparency.  It's about finding fault.  Demands for more "transparency" are just a means to that end.

I get it, too.  No amount of "transparency" will ever be enough.  There will always be room for suspicion and accusations.  There will always be room for second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking.  There will always be room to find fault.  That's the endgame.  

See?  Finding fault.  Second-guessing.  Armchair quarterbacking.  That's the endgame.

Nope.  I think members who do not trust church leaders tend to be big into finding fault.  Second-guessing.  Armchair quarterbacking.

The Brethren have earned my trust.  They have not earned yours, apparently.  I'd be surprised if they ever will.

"We don't know how much money the Church has!  The Church is dishonest!"

"The Church has $32 billion in investments, according to MormonLeaks."

"The Church is greedy!  The Church is not spending its money the way I think it should!"

See the pivot?  See the shift?  It's not about transparency.  It's about finding fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't believe any of those things, I don't believe the church is dishonest, they have a reason for not being transparent. I don't believe the church is greedy, they are definitely saving for a rainy day. 

I do wish the church would be more conservative with productions, PR, adverts and videos. But I guess we are all living day to day, and we need to have some inspiration, and if costumes in a production do that, or church videos, I guess I can get behind it.

I only fault the church for not doing enough, but maybe there is a good reason. And I guess I need to take a wait and see attitude. 

This advertisement is one that goes through my head every time we are discussing the matter. 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's blind because those who are against transparency are unwilling to even see the possibility that there could be problems with the ethics or morality of those they trust. Past behavior isn't a perfect predictor of future behavior, so just because someone was "righteous enough" to be called to a position doesn't mean they will make good decisions or act appropriately. Do we really want to open the can of worms about leaders misbehaving. It happens. Pretending it doesn't is placing blind faith in the arm of the flesh...IMO.

I'm not sure you're completely understanding other's point of view.  I could have missed it, but I can't think of anyone on this board who is against blanket transparency who has said that the leaders are incapable of using church money incorrectly.

Most of what I've seen are posters who are against transparency but understand that the possibility of fraud or unethical behavior is still there.  Also, even though past behavior is not a predictor of future behavior, judging someone by their past behavior and trusting their future behavior because of past experience is not blind faith.  It's still faith, but it's faith based on experience.

Edited June 7, 2018 by bluebell

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't think there is any corruption. But philanthropy has not been an emphasis, and I don't think that would be the case if there were transparency.

If corruption isn't a problem then stinginess shouldn't be either...!  😊 But where philanthropy is an extension of moral and ethical values of the Church agents, transparency (common consent disclosure of financial records and decisions) would have no more bearing than the internal controls do for corruption as a lapse in their moral and ethical values. They manage and conduct the temporal business of the Church per D&C 70, 104 and specifically 120 (note the additional limitation of common consent in the procedure, “by mine own voice unto them”!)

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You'll note that I commented a few posts later that that was an exaggeration.  I assume you agree with me that... even though we both believe in the commandment to tithe, if we KNEW the Brethren were flushing it down the toilet, we'd likely find some other way to satisfy the commandment with the Lord.

There is only one way to satisfy the commandment – pay it – no matter what might have been done with it afterwards. Now anyone is free not to pay it if they are offended by anything the Brethren do, but that is not the same as keeping the commandment according to the instructions in the D&C.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there a scriptural justification that exempts finances from the law of common consent? Or are you claiming that because it isn't specifically enumerated, that common consent doesn't apply to finances?

Yes, there is plenty of scriptural justification that exempts finances from the law of common consent! I’ve been mentioning them a number of times at risk of becoming a crank! Let’s see if you can go back a few pages and track them all down before I do 😊

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe any of those things, I don't believe the church is dishonest, they have a reason for not being transparent. I don't believe the church is greedy, they are definitely saving for a rainy day. 

I'm glad to hear it.  But not everyone shares your viewpoint.  

Quote

I do wish the church would be more conservative with productions, PR, adverts and videos.

I'm not sure I understand this.  The Great Commission requires us to be a missionary church.  Proselytizing necessarily entails making use of the means by which we communicate.   Right now, that's the moving image.  That is what people listen to.  That is what people watch.  

If we were to fall silent, if we were to not present our message, if we were not not define ourselves, then the critics and opponents of the Church (who themselves have a pretty substantial aggregate effort in opposing the Church) would step in and fill the foice.  They would speak for us.  They would tell others what we believe.  They would define us in the minds of those not yet familiar with us.  Shoot, they are already doing this.  The Church abdicating its efforts to present its message would, I think, be a bad thing.

In a perfect world, the Church would not need to rebut the neverending stream of negative, false, misleading, etc. information and characterizations about us our our faith.  Alas, we do not live in that world.

Quote

But I guess we are all living day to day, and we need to have some inspiration, and if costumes in a production do that, or church videos, I guess I can get behind it.

My sister-in-law has been part of several church productions.  They are pretty modest in what they pay to the actors.

Quote

I only fault the church for not doing enough, but maybe there is a good reason. And I guess I need to take a wait and see attitude. 

The Church will never be able to do "enough."  There will always be critics and opponents of the Church demanding "more," second-guessing, criticizing, finding fault.

These lyrics from The Greatest Showman go through my head every time we are discussing critics and opponents of the Church and their neverending and intentionally vague demands for "more transparency" from the LDS Church:

Quote

All the shine of a thousand spotlights
All the stars we steal from the night sky
Will never be enough
Never be enough
Towers of gold are still too little
These hands could hold the world but it'll
Never be enough
Never be enough

For me
Never, never
Never, never
Never, for me
For me
Never enough
Never enough
Never enough
For me
For me
For me

😉

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there a scriptural justification that exempts finances from the law of common consent? Or are you claiming that because it isn't specifically enumerated, that common consent doesn't apply to finances?

Here you go for scriptural justification that exempts finances from the law of common consent:

2 Kings 12: 1-16 (2 Kings 22:7 also): disclosure is not required of those who deal faithfully (the two kings, years apart, handed fiscal responsibility from the to the scribes and officers without a reckoning requirement).

D&C 70 (note verses 3-6): The business affairs of those in the United Firm were not to be shared with the world or the church.

D&C 104 (notably verses 71-72) The United Firm (the first of all such entities in their successive iterations, the administrative bodies directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church) was to operate by common consent but only among those belonging to the order (or successor entity), not the church at large.

D&C 120:   “Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council [Council on the Disposition of Tithes], composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen.” No common consent there, especially in the “by mine own voice unto them” caveat.

Edited June 7, 2018 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

Sloppy? No question.

The point was that the only way of proving Mormonism is through pragmatic truth. William James and Alma 32, Moroni 10.

Either you believe in Golden Plates angels and the Book of Mormon because it works for you or you don't.

Either you believe in tithing because it works for you or you don't.

There is no reason to believe in any of it other than the fact that it works for you spiritually.

It doesn't matter if they're spending the money on cocaine or if the Book of Mormon never happened.

If you don't get back more than you have paid in tithing it's not worth it.

It is irrelevant what they are doing with it

If you don't get to have a purpose in life from reading the book of Mormon then don't read it and don't believe it.

That's true of any philosophy. If you don't believe in Kant, don't believe it. Find something else.

If you don't believe in Sartre,  find something else.

Do I care what Kant did with his money?

Incidentally  this logic is all straight Alma 32 AND William James and other philosophers. I have planted the seed in it's growing  in my breast and that's all that matters.

If Mormonism doesn't work for you find something else.

This is a purely rational and pragmatic exercise. If you don't see it that way there's nothing much I can do for you.

Now is that crystal clear?

Edited June 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here you go for scriptural justification that exempts finances from the law of common consent:

...

D&C 70 (note verses 3-6): The business affairs of those in the United Firm were not to be shared with the world or the church.

Here are the first six verses (emphases added):

Quote

 

1 Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.
2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—
3 I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them;
4 And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment.
5 Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof.
6 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world;

I would be interested in reading HJW's exegesis of these verses.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2018 by smac97

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No worries. 

Thanks Scott. You are a gentleman to accept my apology.  My comment really was not appropriate.

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sloppy? No question.

The point was that the only way of proving Mormonism is through pragmatic truth. William James and Alma 32, Moroni 10.

Either you believe in Golden Plates angels and the Book of Mormon because it works for you or you don't.

Either you believe in tithing because it works for you or you don't.

There is no reason to believe in any of it other than the fact that it works for you spiritually.

It doesn't matter if they're spending the money on cocaine or if the Book of Mormon never happened.

If you don't get back more than you have paid in tithing it's not worth it.

It is irrelevant what they are doing with it

If you don't get to have a purpose in life from reading the book of Mormon then don't read it and don't believe it.

That's true of any philosophy. If you don't believe in Kant, don't believe it. Find something else.

If you don't believe in Sartre,  find something else.

Do I care what Kant did with his money?

Incidentally  this logic is all straight Alma 32 AND William James and other philosophers. I have planted the seed in it's growing  in my breast and that's all that matters.

If Mormonism doesn't work for you find something else.

This is a purely rational and pragmatic exercise. If you don't see it that way there's nothing much I can do for you.

Now is that crystal clear?

I think I understand. Accepting Mormonism is an all or nothing concept for you?  I know some leaders have taught that one can’t be a “salad buffet” Mormon. I can see some logic in this.  There is a sense of strong dedication and clear path most of the time.

The struggle for me (and some others?) comes when we like so many aspects of Mormonism, but struggle with others (in this case how church funds are allocated).  My faith is not ready to accept it all.  I don’t think I have to accept it all to be a Mormon.

I wonder if a disagreement over “having to accept” certain Mormon practices and ideas is a divisive notion in our LDS community...