Clearing the Financial Record

[Zeta-Flux]

So if I were a slick lawyer or accountant, your would look to me more for correct guidance?

Urging a policy of being honest and above board isn't persuasive enough?

How is this policy dishonest or below board?? They are audited by independent firms. They are obeying all the laws. etc... etc...

My comment about being a lawyer or accountant was with regards to wisdom in financial matters. We've been commanded to be wise in the mammon of unrighteousness. If competant lawyers and/or accountants are telling our Church to not publish our finances, then that is the wise thing to do. If they aren't, then maybe you have a point that the policy should be changed back. But, currently, you have no expertise in this area, so why should I listen to your opinion on the matter? No, rather I will trust that our leaders have a good reason for what they are doing, since they have shown themselves to be trustworthy in the past.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[Teancum]

So if I were a slick lawyer or accountant, your would look to me more for correct guidance?

Urging a policy of being honest and above board isn't persuasive enough?

How is this policy dishonest or below board?? They are audited by independent firms. They are obeying all the laws. etc... etc...

My comment about being a lawyer or accountant was with regards to wisdom in financial matters. We've been commanded to be wise in the mammon of unrighteousness. If competant lawyers and/or accountants are telling our Church to not publish our finances, then that is the wise thing to do. If they aren't, then maybe you have a point that the policy should be changed back. But, currently, you have no expertise in this area, so why should I listen to your opinion on the matter? No, rather I will trust that our leaders have a good reason for what they are doing, since they have shown themselves to be trustworthy in the past.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

How is this policy dishonest or below board??  They are audited by independent firms.  They are obeying all the laws.  etc... etc...

Let's get this straight. The books are not audited by and independent accounting firm. The for profit parts of the Church are, and I believe BYU is, but not the NFP part of the church.

Teacnum

[Zeta-Flux]

That is correct. It is also correct that the other parts of the Church are also audited by an arm of the Church which is separate from the other parts of the Church (as explained in General Conference).

[Del March]

I would suggest this quote is a good summary of why disclosure especially from Christ's Church is a good thing:

A quote from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability ??

Simply put, Christian organizations provide current financial statements to anyone who submits a written request for them because it is the right thing to do.

As I asked Blink: have you or anybody else you know ever asked the church to provide the current financial statements, and was refused them?

Del

[Blink]

That is correct. It is also correct that the other parts of the Church are also audited by an arm of the Church which is separate from the other parts of the Church (as explained in General Conference).

There is no part of the church that is separate from other parts of the church. There is no part of the church that is not under the control and direction of the GA's and FP.

[Zeta-Flux]

Blink,

If you read my post in context you would know what I was talking about. The auditing part of the Church reports directly to the First Presidency, and is independent of the other arms of the Church.

[Blink]

Blink,

If you read my post in context you would know what I was talking about. The auditing part of the Church reports directly to the First Presidency, and is independent of the other arms of the Church.

The auditing dept is under the direction of the FP. Keeping the books closed to the members makes the FP look like the fox guarding the henhouse.

[Del March]

I'll repeat the question: does anyone on this board know anyone who ever asked to be shown the financial records of the Church, and whose request was refused?

Discussing on whether the church financial records should be made public is silly if we don't even have a proof that they are actually kept secret.

Just because something isn't published doesn't mean it is kept secret, not if it will be shown to anyone who asks.

Del

[Zeta-Flux]

As Del asked:

Have you written them and asked if they will give you the financial statements?

If not, then you are making unfounded accusations. And no, it doesn't make it look like the fox and the henhouse. It makes it look like wisdom in dealing with financial matters by having a branch of the Church specifically set up to deal with the finances to avoid such things.

[Blink]

I'll repeat the question: does anyone on this board know anyone who ever asked to be shown the financial records of the Church, and whose request was refused?

Discussing on whether the church financial records should be made public is silly if we don't even have a proof that they are actually kept secret.

Just because something isn't published doesn't mean it is kept secret, not if it will be shown to anyone who asks.

Del

Why should anyone have to ask? Why would it not be in the conference issue of the Ensign? Why would it not be mailed to or handed to every member at the end of the year?

My favorite non-profit gives the yearly financial report to every person they ask for money from. Even if they don't get any money from the potential donor, they still make sure the potential has their report, so they know what the NFP does with the money they're given, so they can prove they're good stewards of donor dollars. Any 501©3 that hides their financials isn't being fiscally responsible to its donors.

The whole change in policy makes me wonder what happened in 1959.

[Del March]

Why should anyone have to ask? Why would it not be in the conference issue of the Ensign? Why would it not be mailed to or handed to every member at the end of the year?

Looks to me like your problem is that the leaders don't do things your way. Well, you know what? They don't have to. If the records are open to anyone who actually bothers consulting them, then they are not kept closed as you pretend. It's that simple. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with the matter. So as long as you or anybody else won't present a solid proof that any member cannot access those records, it will be quite clear to me that you are simply enjoying criticising the leaders, and that your goal is not to edify or protect anyone.

Oh, and if they did publish those records that most members couldn't care less about in the millions of magazines published all over the world, I guess you would complain about all the money spent in publishing those many useless pages, and that you would argue that anyone who wants to see them should simply ask for them? Right? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?

My favorite non-profit gives the yearly financial report to every person they ask for money from.

Oh, I get it! Because such-and-such organisations do things that way, then the church should do them to. The church shouldn't use the Priesthood of God, since most organisations don't. The church shouldn't have any prophets, since most churches don't. The church shouldn't be led by Christ, since most churches aren't. The church shouldn't have temples, since most churches don't. And so on.

The church is not any other organisation. The church is the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saint, it is unique, and it has a right to do things its own way.

Any 501

[Teancum]

That is correct.

I am not clear. Are you saying you agree that the church is not audited by an independent accounting firm?

If I am clear, there is a church audit committee that audits the church finances. This group is independent of all other parts of the church but is still a Church audit committee. In the fullest sense of independence they are not. The church is not audited by and independent accounting firm such as Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Cooper, etc. The for profit arms are audited by such firms.

Teancum

[Del March]

The church is not audited by and independent accounting firm such as Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Cooper, etc.

And if they were audited by such firms, you'd have people complaining that we shouldn't spend so much money on those audits...

Del

[Teancum]

A quote from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability    ??

And you dismiss this for that reason only? Gee, they want to be more above the Board then we do it seems. And we are The Church of Jesus Christ.

As I asked Blink: have you or anybody else you know ever asked the church to provide the current financial statements, and was refused them?

No and perhaps I should try it out.

Teancum

[Del March]

A quote from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability    ??

And you dismiss this for that reason only? Gee, they want to be more above the Board then we do it seems. And we are The Church of Jesus Christ.

Precisely. We are the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, as any EV would tell you, is definitely not evangelical. We do things our own way. The EV way is not necessarily bad, of course not, but even when it is good, it doesn't mean it is the only good way.

Moreover, there have been financial scandals at the top of some evangelical communities. Not so with the Church. So there's no reason for both organisations to necessarily handle things the same way.

As I asked Blink: have you or anybody else you know ever asked the church to provide the current financial statements, and was refused them?

No and perhaps I should try it out.

Maybe that would give us a substantial basis to work on.

Del

[Teancum]

The church is not audited by and independent accounting firm such as Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Cooper, etc.

And if they were audited by such firms, you'd have people complaining that we shouldn't spend so much money on those audits...

Del

I don't think so.

[Teancum]

Precisely. We are the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, as any EV would tell you, is definitely not evangelical. We do things our own way. The EV way is not necessarily bad, of course not, but even when it is good, it doesn't mean it is the only good way.

So the apostate church's believe in open financial data but the True Church of Christ does not? And you are ok with that?

Really this is not a big deal to me. I am not going to lose sleep about it or change me devotion to Christ and to His Church. I amnot going to stop serving, contributing etc.

I like to discuss this. I am amazed at how strongly some disagree, and who irrational their reasoning is. Sorry. That is the way I see it.

But not much will change either way.

Teancum

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes Teancum. That is how I understood it also.

And, to repeat again:

Until someone actually writes to these people and asks for the records, and if those aren't available asks for the reasons, this thread is entirely pointless. Maybe they have GOOD reasons for doing what they are doing. Until someone asks, we can't know.

[Del March]

So the apostate church's believe in open financial data but the True Church of Christ does not?  And you are ok with that?

Yes I'm OK with that, because open financial data is not one of the principles of the church. It is a good principle, but that doesn't mean it has to be a principle of the church of Jesus-Christ.

For example, men and women holding exactly the same jobs in an excellent principle in the world, but not in the church of Jesus-Christ.

Everything that is good doesn't have to be a part of the church, especially because sometimes the church has something even better. In this particular case, we have the ultimate accounting: being accountable to God Himself.

Del

[wenglund]

So silly you are being Wade.

I know. I don't actually think in those terms. I was just applying this unreasonable standard to you as you have been applying to the Church (suspecting the suspector, requiring full disclosure from the full disclosurist).

I am glad to see that you have finally recognized how silly and unwarranted are such suspicions (of you, and you of the Church) as well as the suggestion to abbrogate rights to privacy so as to quil such silly and unwarranted suscpicions.

That was all I had intended to accomplish with this exercise. So, as long as you get it, I am willing to let the matter drop.

However, if you still haven't figured out the silliness on your end, then I am fully prepared to continue pressing the point. The fact that I haven't paid you 10% of my income, will be shown to be irrelevant when it comes to suspicions about your membership and standing in the Church as an alleged full tithe payer.

You decide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Moksha]

That thinking that Joe Blow could receive the records just by asking is sheer folly. If they have been systematically kept from the members since 1959, they are not for the asking.

Probably Church discipline would be given for the asking.

It is interesting to see all the smoke screens that are given for a request that the Church be honest about its financial record.

I see having the Church open up its ledger book as a way of proving that it is as righteous as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think the people who want to hide the books, are more worried about what crimes will be uncovered.

[KevinG]

So far no one has offered any substantive argument that there is any misappropriation of funds.

However the following points have been made:

-the Churches finances are collected and accoutned for on the local level, which has open information for anyone who needs it.

-worldwide expenditures are very evident (temples, chapels, humanitarian aid)

-private comapnies owned by the church have published financial records, and are used for the payment of stipends and expenses of the general authorities)

-strict auditing and accouting practices are used throughout the Church and an indpenetant audit is done yearly.

-any mishandling of church funds is swiftly ended and the guilty parties disciplined.

-the ultimate handling and distribution of funds is done by a large contingent of persons including the first presidency/quorum of 12/seventy and presiding bishopric; preventing the control of funds by a small group of individuals.

- opening up the whole of the financial records could politicize the process and put undue pressure on those who distribute the funds to answer to groups with agendas, as opposed to the Lord, whos funds they are.

- a comprehensive publication of the Church's fiscal value could open them up to "deep pockets" nusiance lawsuits.

- donations are private and not public.

on the other hand an annual publication like those published by major corporations could ease the doubts of those who are troubled by the private nature of the books, and eliminate one criticism of the Church.

On the balance I (personal opinion alert) don't see the benefits outweighing the potential liability, and I suspect that may be part of the reason the Church stopped publishing data as they once did).

[John Russell]

My father-in-law is an accountant who has worked as a missionary doing accounting work at various LDS production sites (e.g., Deseret Ranch in Florida). He has never found hints of indiscretion at any place where he has worked, nor has he been pressured to be anything but scrupulously honest in how he handles the books.

Audits of the books in local units are conducted twice yearly, and these audits are then sent to Salt Lake, and the Church Accounting Department follows up very closely with any potential problems (e.g., missing receipts, etc.).

As to what the Church does globally with its funds, I can't really say. My experience on the local level has been very positive with respect to the level of responsibility and accountability. The extensive resources that repeatedly poured out of the LDS Storehouses after the hurricanes in Florida underscored the substantial investment the Church has in emergency relief.

Moksha, I'm one of those people who doesn't really care about seeing the books, and who has no worries about hidden crimes. I don't worry about how our finances stack up compared to other churches because to a large extent we end up comparing apples and oranges. The LDS Church separates welfare and humanitarian efforts in budgeting designation, which is not the case for at least several churches of which I am aware. We operate on somewhat different definitions, and it makes it very difficult to compare among them. For example, a large denomination in our community has spent almost ten times what our local LDS unit has on humanitarian efforts, if we use the budget breakdown they provide. However, they count among their humanitarian donations monies used to support international disaster relief, funds used for the local needy, donations for foreign ministries, funds for flowers and funerals, and a variety of other things. If we lump the funds donated by our ward earmarked for humanitarian effort on the offerings slip with fast offerings, ward and general missionary funds, perpetual education fund, and funds donated to "Other" for local needs (flowers, etc.), then we come up just a hair under their total humanitarian donations. Not bad, considering we have 110 active members, and they have over 2500 active. But all told, I don't think that the biggest donors win.

This is an issue that has never affected me a great deal. I worry more about whether or not global warming is going to desertify the US Midwest........

[Teancum]

So silly you are being Wade.

I know. I don't actually think in those terms. I was just applying this unreasonable standard to you as you have been applying to the Church (suspecting the suspector, requiring full disclosure from the full disclosurist).

I am glad to see that you have finally recognized how silly and unwarranted are such suspicions (of you, and you of the Church) as well as the suggestion to abbrogate rights to privacy so as to quil such silly and unwarranted suscpicions.

That was all I had intended to accomplish with this exercise. So, as long as you get it, I am willing to let the matter drop.

However, if you still haven't figured out the silliness on your end, then I am fully prepared to continue pressing the point. The fact that I haven't paid you 10% of my income, will be shown to be irrelevant when it comes to suspicions about your membership and standing in the Church as an alleged full tithe payer.

You decide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure I follow especially the last part.

Could you please clarify?

Teancum

[wenglund]

Not sure I follow especially the last part.

Could you please clarify?

Teancum

It is rather simple. I subjected you to the same kind of suspicion and call for full disclosure to which you have subjected the Church. You rightly found what I was doing silly and unwarranted. And, as long as you are able thereby to see that what you have been doing is silly and unwarranted as well, then my point has been made. However, if you have not come to this reasonable conclusion, then the point needs to be pressed further until you do get it. Let me know.

Does that clarify it enough for you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-