Clearing the Financial Record

[Blink]

Once more; has anyone asked the Church for a statement?

Nope. But according to some, we shouldn't have to ask, the Church should automatically provide.

Del

Exactly, Del. Now you get it.

[vistamod]

Once more; has anyone asked the Church for a statement?

Yes, I have called down to the HQ and requested financial information. This was about 8 months ago, and simply to see if it was something which they provided. ( because of a discussion) They do not provide that.

Is vistamod a 501 ( c ) 3, tax exempt organization? Is he a church? Is he a publically held corporation? Does he have billions of dollars donated to him every year? Does he have 12 million members? Does he require 10% of every member's income by commandment?

\

I am none of the above, but I have no problem opening up the financials of any of my business ventures to inquiring minds. I have nothing to hide.

One thing that the church may want to think about concerning opening the books is many cultwatch groups list a sign of a cult as organizations that do not offer financial transperancy. ( mind you, this is what THEY say, not ME).

That alone would be an issue that they should address in some form. I didn't coin the term, "avoiding the appearence of evil", but this is a place that it may come into play, and an issue which may need to be addressed.

[Zeta-Flux]

Is vistamod a 501 ( c ) 3, tax exempt organization? Is he a church? Is he a publically held corporation? Does he have billions of dollars donated to him every year? Does he have 12 million members? Does he require 10% of every member's income by commandment?

No? Then as soon as he becomes any and all of those things, and you are a member, you can request that his finances be open and that he publish a financial report. Until then, he's not in the same book, let alone on the same page as the church.

---

Wayde,

Is this ironic enough for your thread?

[wenglund]

I was especially interested to see how fully you disclose your company finances. Unfortunately, though, I couldn't find any disclosure of finances at all. Did I somehow overlook a prominent link to that material.

Is vistamod a 501 ( c ) 3, tax exempt organization? Is he a church? Is he a publically held corporation? Does he have billions of dollars donated to him every year? Does he have 12 million members? Does he require 10% of every member's income by commandment?

No? Then as soon as he becomes any and all of those things, and you are a member, you can request that his finances be open and that he publish a financial report. Until then, he's not in the same book, let alone on the same page as the church.

Uhmmm....nowhere in the statement you quoted of me will you find me asking him to disclose his finances.

What you will find me doing, is niavely assuming that those who preach "full disclosure" would actually practice what they preach? Nothing more.

And, while you, like Teancum, are very adept at noting striking, though irrelevant differences between the Church and individual members, you fail to see the simple and obvious similarities in principles between the two.

If you doubt there are any similarities, then ask yourself whether the differences you innumerated somehow exempt members from reporting their finances and tax-exampte contributions to the IRS like Billion-dollar organizations (including 501-3©) have to do.

If it is of any help, think of it, in part, as a matter of economy-to-scale.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Is vistamod a 501 ( c ) 3, tax exempt organization? Is he a church? Is he a publically held corporation? Does he have billions of dollars donated to him every year? Does he have 12 million members? Does he require 10% of every member's income by commandment?

No? Then as soon as he becomes any and all of those things, and you are a member, you can request that his finances be open and that he publish a financial report. Until then, he's not in the same book, let alone on the same page as the church.

---

Wayde,

Is this ironic enough for your thread?

Yes it is, as is also his "now you get it" comment.

Feel free to post it for everyone's enjoyment. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

At the risk of being entirely misunderstood again, or thought a "bully, " let me respectfully ask once more if any of the "full-disclosurists" will be disclosing their answers to my questions here:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=186045

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Blink]

My point, Wade, is that there is little if anything in common between the church and vistamod. He runs a business that hopefully makes him a profit at the end of the year. The church is a multi-million member multi-billion dollar world-wide NFP organization. Vistamod's not a church; 12 million people don't send him 10% of their income; he's not a NFP organization; he doesn't have tax exempt status. Unless you're saying the church is a private business, I don't see a reason to compare them at all.

Care to explain your comment:

I was especially interested to see how fully you disclose your company finances. Unfortunately, though, I couldn't find any disclosure of finances at all.

[vistamod]

I still find it interesting that the ones calling for full disclosure, and claiming that people "deserve the truth," as well as trumpeting "openness and honesty," are the ones here keeping their identity and personal information secret.

I am sure they have their good reasons. It just that I can't see why they don't grant the same as probably true for the leaders of the Church. Why don't they presume that the leaders have equally good reasons to keep portions of the Church's financial records discrete, confidential, sacred, private, etc.?

Vistamod: I am not keeping my identity and personal information secret. I have made it available to any and all that want to explore that avenue.

[Tchild2]

Outshined wrote:

Once more; has anyone asked the Church for a statement?

I absolutely guarantee you that asking for the church's financials, as either a member or non-member will get you the exact same result....zilch.

I have a friend that worked at the COB as a leader in the IT department. I asked him if in his duties doing the church IT work if he ever saw the church's financials. He told me they were very closely guarded and that most of the accountants who work for the church only know portions of the total. He told me that there are only a few individuals who know the complete financial picture of the church. He related that anytime he did IT or computer maintenance work on a computer or on the back-up drives, that contained information on the church's finances, that he was accompanied by one or more people that watched his activities.

The church does not and will not reveal the financials of the church upon request.

[Zeta-Flux]

But will they give their reasons for this secrecy (whether we agree with those reasons or not is another question)?

[Jipsy]

Why would they have to give reasons for keeping it non-public? It's none of our buisness. When we voluntarily pay tithing, its not on the stipulation that we then get receipts for how our 12 year old daughters' .50 cent donation was spent.

That would be an absurd waste the church's time to present the financial records publically just to satisfy curiosity. The church reports to outside auditing agencies already. If someone REALLy wants to see everything- they can sue the church over their last tithing donation.

[Moksha]

Wade,

I think your questions boil down to: "Why do we as Mormons continually bury our heads in the sand". And, I think the implied answer you want for your question is, "Because we as Mormons should keep our heads buried and not ask questions".

Look, the LDS Church has put itself in a bad spot by hiding its finances. Why is is bad? Because openness is a sign of honesty and the Church appears uncaring of whether it looks honest. I sincerely hope everything is above board. But we will never know as long as the Church stonewalls it.

As I have said, keeping your books closed makes sense if you have something to hide. If you are honest, you should want everybody to know it.

Why is a Church, so otherwise concerned with its members not looking improper, suddenly so cavalier with its own financial appearance of impropriety? Most people would conclude it is because they fear disclosure.

I say open up the books and show the world that we are honest. If some have stuck their hands in the money drawer, let's rectify the problem.

LDS members deserve honesty as much as anybody. Besides, sticking your head in the sand is not in the Word of Wisdom.

[Moksha]

LDS members deserve honesty as much as anybody. Besides, sticking your head in the sand is not in the Word of Wisdom.

Moderator: Didn't you just say this? Bumper sticker style posting tends to annoy the natives.

[Golden Tapir]

WEngland:

why I, as an active tithe-paying member of the Church, and other members, as well as the leaders of the Church, don't have the same need as others for addition financial disclosure by the Church in order to informedly exercise my "common consent?"

Why do we believe we now have all the "truth" we "deserve" on the matter, and others believe we "deserve" more?

Why doesn't the lack of full disclosure not trouble us in the least, or even register on our radars (until the subject is raised), while it seems to be of at least some concern to others--such that they feel a need to raise the issue and press it on public forums?

Why do some of us believe the Church is doing the "right thing" in keeping the financial records partially discrete, confidential, sacred, private, etc., whereas others believe the "right thing" is full disclosure (whatever that entails--even corporations are not legally required to disclose each and every financial transaction)?

If it is not suspicion and distrust, then what explains the difference?

And, given these differences, whose preferences should prevail? Why?

And, how far down the road of full financial disclosure should the Church go? Why there? What difference will it make? What if there are members who think the Chruch should disclose more than what you believe they should?(end of quote)

ME: I will attempt my most respectful answer, even though I think you have NOT been respectful to me & others here.

The 'answers' actually replies to your questions are so subjective that they are not meaningful at all. why do YOU feel or think the way you do (differently from those who support disclosure) about this question? Who Knows, but You?

What standards should the statements conform to? the 'standard' of being honest and forthright, of trusting those to whom the information is given...Who knows- Maybe even the church could start LISTENING to the members (showing respect & trust) for those who sacrifice other economic alternatives... Even if some of them/us feel bullied into contributing.

That's my BEST answer/response to your 'questions'.

thank you.

[wenglund]

By the way, I enjoyed visting your company web site. It was very nice. I was especially interested to see how fully you disclose your company finances. Unfortunately, though, I couldn't find any disclosure of finances at all. Did I somehow overlook a prominent link to that material. I know how important such things are to you.

There are alot of things that I would like to put up on my website, unfortunately I am doing a work trade thing with somebody that owes me some money. Since the entire site is already in the program he uses, I have a hard time just adding stuff. I wish I could because I have an additional 150 prints and another 300 or so images I would love to put up on the site.

If somebody wants to know the financials of my company they are free to send me an email and inquire. Since you are so interested I bank at Washington Mutual and I have an inventory of around 37,000 prints. I have a personal collection of around 160 rare framed prints, thats worth probably more than my home. i am actually getting everything ready to take to the accountant to finish taxes. Would you like me to email you my spread sheets?

I think you have me confused with the "full-disclosurists." My concerns are with my own business. Not yours or the Church's. I just wanted to check and see if you practiced what you preahced, and had proactively and fully disclosed your finances just as you and others seem to have expected the Church to do. And, you hadn't. That's all.

I am none of the above, but I have no problem opening up the financials of any of my business ventures to inquiring minds. I have nothing to hide.

Oh really?

So, if identity theaves wanted to know your social security number, bank account information, and so forth, or they wanted the same information about your clients and business associates, you would have no reason to hide anything from them?

If a theave wanted to see your full geneological family tree so as to get your mother's maiden name to use in gaining access to your bank account and financial assets, then you have nothing to hide?

If a pedaphile wanted to know the names and addresses of the precious children you have pictured on your web site, you would have nothing to hide? (You may want to know that there are such unimaginable perverts out there on the web who have taken innocent pictures of children posted on the net, and digitally super-imposed naked bodies onto them, and posted them on their own sites or sold them to other perverts. I know of this through my volunteer work in child advocacy and protection on the internet--i.e. my efforts to keep certain things hidden from children and keep children hidden from certain things.)

If porn spammers or other spammers wanted to know your email address, or email addresses of your clients, business associates, family and friends, you would have nothing to hide?

If hackers wanted to know the IP address for your friends web site, you have nothing to hide?

I could go on and on, but hopefully you and others will start to see the point that there are, indeed, things that are prudent for individuals and organizations (including the Church) to keep hidden.

Just imagine how careful you might be about disclosing various bits of information if you, like President Hinckley, had to live in a home equiped with bullet-proof windows, and be acompanied by security gaurds, because of the many threats made on your life (If you have any doubts about this, ask Brent Metcalfe. He worked in the Church's security service, and could probably regail you with many a horrowing tale.) Imagine how cautious you would be with information about disclosing information regarding your loved one's if they were subject to the same intense and unrelenting level of mockery, denegration, and criticism that the Church has long faced.

Just some things to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade,

I think your questions boil down to: "Why do we as Mormons continually bury our heads in the sand". And, I think the implied answer you want for your question is, "Because we as Mormons should keep our heads buried and not ask questions".

If you think that is what my questions boil down to, then you really aren't "thinking" straight about them at all.

To use your own words, by so drastically mangeling the interpretation of what I said, it puts you in a "bad spot." It is a sign of "dishonesty" and "uncaring".

Not answering the simple and straight-forward questions "makes sense if you have something to hide. If you were honest, you would want everyone to know."

Why are you so "cavalier" about your "impropriety?" "Most people would conclude it is because you fear disclosure."

"I say answer the questions that were asked, and show the world that you are honest."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Moksha]

Wade,

What kind of inquisitor are you? Saying I have something to hide because I am urging the position that the Church be open and honest about its finances.

Actually, I considered your questions and replies to be merely attempts to cloud the issue that it would be in the Churches best interest to come clean with its financial record.

Maybe you are merely being the Devil's Advocate, but trying to cloud the issue of bringing openness and honesty to the fore does not help the Church.

[wenglund]

Vistamod: I cannot answer these questions for you, I do not know why some people think the way they do, I do not know why you think the way you do....Why do people walk around with their heads up their butt? Who knows, however it seems to be a kinda prevelant occurence. Distrust? Suspicion? Stupidity? Ignorance? The bliss of remaining ignorant? Who knows Wade. who knows.

I am assuming that the "head up their butt" and "Distrust? Suspicion? Stupidity? Ignorance? The bliss of remaining ignorant?" queries were self-referential. Surely they must be since you wouldn't think about hypocritically treating others so "un-nicely for disagreeing" with you. ;-)

Anyway, since you seem incapable of determining why others may think differently on this issue than you (and this in spite of not a few giant hints that have been given as to their reasoning), and if it is not asking too much, perhaps you can answer the questions solely from your perspective.

Why is this issue of such importance to you?

Why do you personally need the Church to "fully disclose" it finances, if not for reasons of suspicion and distrust?

What do you mean by "full disclosure"--i.e. do you believe nothing should be withheld (names of donors, how much has been contributed, bank account information, etc.), and that there are no rights to privacy that should be protected, no confidences that should be kept, nothing sacred that need be kept sacred, etc. And, if not, what information do you wish the Church would disclose that they don't already?

How will this additional information be of benefit to you personally?

What if others think the Church should disclose more than you think would be prudent?

What if others think what the Church is currently doing is "the right thing" and "prudent"?

Can you respect, as reasonable, the opinions of others who may disagree with you?

Whose opinion should prevail?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Moksha]

By making it look like the Church needs darkness and secrecy to transact its financial business, you are casting a shadow on the Church.

Let's remove the shadow by open financial disclosure. Let's do the right thing rather than something shady.

[Golden Tapir]

Wade my man:

the sum total of most of your points & posts seems to come to one point/argument:

Since you don't desire disclosure, others shouldn't either.

That is bunk, and I think you know it.

Other people than you or I have opinions on things for themselves, they're just as valid.

[wenglund]

Wade,

What kind of inquisitor are you? Saying I have something to hide because I am urging the position that the Church be open and honest about its finances.

I have said nothing of the sort (my comments were specific to your mangled interpretation of my questions, and your apparent reticent in fully disclosing your answers). To suggest that I have, merely "clouds the issue."

I think it is in your "best interest" to "come clean" with your answers to my simple and straightforward questions. Try to keep open and honest answers from coming "to the fore does not help [you or] the Church."

Don't you just love it when you keep getting bit by your own snarls? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade my man:

the sum total of most of your points & posts seems to come to one point/argument:

Since you don't desire disclosure, others shouldn't either.

That is bunk, and I think you know it.

Other people than you or I have opinions on things for themselves, they're just as valid.

GT, my o'l pal,

Your summarizing skills seem to be as poor and as errant as Moksha's.

Contrary to what you suggest, my point is to not only explore the "rationale" of the "full-disclosurist" in an effort to see whether their position is reasonable or not, or merely reactionary and emotive; but also to help the "full-disclosurist" to see that the Church's position, and the position of those of us supporting the leaders of the Church, is reasonable, valid, and even prudent (i.e. the "right thing" to do).

I also hope to raise the question of where the focus of our attention, as members, should be--whether we should be focusing on how our leaders should be doing their job, or on how we, as faithful SERVANTS of the Lord, are doing our "job." In other words, who should be giving an accounting of their stewardship to whom.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Golden Tapir]

Wengland:

Your summarizing skills seem to be as poor and as errant as Moksha's. (end of quote)

thanks, good buddy!

[wenglund]

By making it look like the Church needs darkness and secrecy to transact its financial business, you are casting a shadow on the Church.

The imaginary "shadow" only exists in the emotion-driven and conspiratorial minds of overly suspicious and distrusting busy-bodies who, ironically, don't practice what they preach.

Those of us who have a grasp of the pragmatic and prudent, who respect the right to privacy (for individuals as well as private organizations like the Church--as opposed to publically traded corporations and trusts, and non-exempt charitable organizations), who think it not only the responsible thing to do, but the "right thing" to do in keeping confidential thing confidential, and sacred things sacred, and who practice what we preach, see no illusionary shadow--particularly when our eyes and minds are rightly focused, as stewarts of the Lord, on OUR doing the "right thing," rather than on whether others (including those who have stewartship over us) are doing THEIR "right thing."

But don't let that stop your persistent snarls.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[vistamod]

I am assuming that the "head up their butt" and "Distrust? Suspicion? Stupidity? Ignorance? The bliss of remaining ignorant?" queries were self-referential. Surely they must be since you wouldn't think about hypocritically treating others so "un-nicely for disagreeing" with you. ;-)

Anyway, since you seem incapable of determining why others may think differently on this issue than you (and this in spite of not a few giant hints that have been given as to their reasoning), and if it is not asking too much, perhaps you can answer the questions solely from your perspective

I wasn't referring to the people who disagree with me Wade, I already stated that I couldn't answer for them. They were entitlted to answer for themselves and state their position.

My point in that reference was that there are many people who do not care to question things in life. Simply because they do not want to question things around them, does not mean that those things should not be questioned. Again, I cannot answer why some people would want answers and some do not, but it is not a sign that either party is correct.

I see you have taken financial information to its extreme, with ISP addresses, my clients names and addresses, etc. A far cry from what this topic is about.

I have repeatedly stated my position on this matter, as have others. I will state it again since you continue to claim I haven't and then assume to know my mindset.

My opinion was that the church should allow people to know where the money is invested ( the companies). I repeatedly stated that, they do not have to, and I do not need to contribute and I don't. So I really do not care if they do or do not. Its my opinion Wade, can't you accept that? Can't you accept that other people think differently than you. There is not a right answer, each side has an opinion. We come here to share those opinions and share information, hopefully to gain alittle more understanding, not to win. You can give all of your money to the church without any accountability, I could care less. Its your life.

My position with the church is that they are free to do whatever it is they want. They can set their grooming and dress standards, not disclose where their money is invested, whatever it is they want to do. They can have any policy they want and people are free to either agree or reject those policies.