Clearing the Financial Record

[vistamod]

Teancum,

Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to even pose a question that doesn't toe the party line. Isn't it wonderful to be treated so nicely for disagreeing. Nothing like brotherhood.

[wenglund]

Teancum,

Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to even pose a question that doesn't toe the party line. Isn't it wonderful to be treated so nicely for disagreeing. Nothing like brotherhood.

Yes, and welcome to the wonderful world of the Great and Spacious Building types who feign victimhood when met with questions about their questions, if not the same kind of "disagreement" they are want to dish out. Nothing like endearing double standards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[vistamod]

Yes, and welcome to the wonderful world of the Great and Spacious Building types who feign victimhood when met with questions about their questions, if not the same kind of "disagreement" they are want to dish out. Nothing like endearing double standards.

[personal comments deleted. You are now are our watch list, Vistamod.]

I have no suspicions about the Church's financials. I think they are heavily invested in the world of big business and they are probably just embaressed for members and non-members to have a handle on just how entrenched they are in the things of the world.

[Blink]

I have no suspicions about the Church's financials. I think they are heavily invested in the world of big business and they are probably just embaressed for members and non-members to have a handle on just how entrenched they are in the things of the world.

Agreed, that the church is likely heavily invested in big business. That's the type of stewardship that Del praises, after all. Is that such a bad thing, that the richest church on earth would be heavily invested in whatever means necessary to make more money? Surely we wouldn't expect them to actually *cough* give it away to the poor and the widowed, now would we?

Embarrassed? Oh, I don't think our leaders are embarrassed at all. I don't think they're close enough to the rank and file to feel anything of the sort. The whole thing reminds me of Marie Antoinette.

I'm just sorry that poor Teancum got caught up in Wade's anti-Mormon diatribe. Usually he's on the other end of that stick, and it's really too bad he's lumped with Blink, Vistamod, and Moksha. Although perhaps now he knows how it feels to be unjustly accused. Frustrating, that.

[KevinG]

Of course the money is invested carefully. It is also distributed carefully. I have collected and distributed the money myself, and there is a great genius in the system that returns the money at a local level to local needs. It is surplus that goes to SLC, and gets distributed further in services, facilities and humanitarian aid.

They myths about investment in tobacco and coke are just that, myths.

All capital is tied together in some fashion when it is invested, and I doubt there is a single account in the world that couldn't be traced back to someone doing something bad somewhere, but that is a far cry from the conspiracy theory that is being sold here.

As far as Teancum, he isn't in danger of Church discipline or being ostracized. He disagrees with many members here. He is certainly recognised as someone who is supportive of the faith. I happen to think he made a good point, but disagree that it would be a practical move, given the potential down sides.

I wouldn't be too confident that he feels a sudden kinship with those who mock and degrade our faith because he has a disagreement.

I guess that does shoot the lock-step morg theory in the foot though.

[vistamod]

I wouldn't be too confident that he feels a sudden kinship with those who mock and degrade our faith because he has a disagreement.

Who is mocking and degrading the faith? I notice that I get lumped into that catagory even though I am LDS, yet sometimes take a not so toe the line approach on everything.

I wasn't being confident that he was feeling a sudden kinshipo with anybody. I was asking him how he was feeling for being treated in the manner that he was being treated, because he was in disagreement. Its a pretty wierd feeling when you are LDS and you are all of a sudden treated so poorly for having a different opinion, by your fellow brothers and sisters.

It is something that is pretty strange when you first experience it. Ones alligience, faith, obidience, etc are called into question simply for having a different opinion. Then some call you "anti" or lump you into a catagory of "mocking and degrading" the church. It really is an interesting experience. I was welcoming Teancum to that experience.

[Blink]

Of course the money is invested carefully. It is also distributed carefully. I have collected and distributed the money myself, and there is a great genius in the system that returns the money at a local level to local needs. It is surplus that goes to SLC, and gets distributed further in services, facilities and humanitarian aid.

Since you seem to know so much, even though the books are closed, Dadof7, what percentage of tithing is distributed as humanitarian aid? I was under the impression that all humanitarian aid was either taken from a specially designated humanitarian fund or else via Fast Offerings.

They myths about investment in tobacco and coke are just that, myths.

Tobacco? Tobacco stocks have the highest yield of any other, and the most consistently high yield. However, I've never heard any rumor that the church invested in tobacco. And I thought it was Pepsi, not Coke. But again, how do you know this is a myth, since the books are closed?

All capital is tied together in some fashion when it is invested, and I doubt there is a single account in the world that couldn't be traced back to someone doing something bad somewhere, but that is a far cry from the conspiracy theory that is being sold here.

What conspiracy theory? The only conspiracies erupting around here are the suspicions of the apologists when someone questions a policy eminating from the church office building in SLC.

As far as Teancum, he isn't in danger of Church discipline or being ostracized.  He disagrees with many members here.  He is certainly recognised as someone who is supportive of the faith.  I happen to think he made a good point, but disagree that it would be a practical move, given the potential down sides.

I wouldn't be too confident that he feels a sudden kinship with those who mock and degrade our faith because he has a disagreement.

Woe, woe unto him. And I doubt he feels any sort of kinship with the likes of Blink, Vistamod, or Moksha. Which is another reason to not judge a man by his companions.

I guess that does shoot the lock-step morg theory in the foot though.

Actually, it doesn't. It just shows the attack dog mentality of the apologists, when one of their own puts up an opinion that causes the siege mentality to activate. Poor guy. He needs an asbestos suit, but the distribution center is all out.

[KevinG]

Ummmm... I wasn't saying you were mocking or detracting. And I'm not sure it's fair to lump me in with those who are abusive. If there is something I've said that struck you as abusive then please understand it wasn't my intent and forgive me. I have noticed a tendancy for those who make a hobby out of telling TBM's where they are full of it, to crow and cheer the moment a few of us have a disagreement over policy.

I'm still not ready to send the Danites out for Teancum or even condemn you to the telestial kingdom for wanting the church to publish an annual report. I do reserve the right to disagree without being accused of stoning someone.

[KevinG]

The books are not closed, they just aren't published. There are a heck of a lot of accountants, department managers, general authorities and members who have a really good idea of where the money is going. The vast bulk of the funds are used on the local level to pay for phones, buildings, sacrament cups, water bills, light bills hymnals, etc. even if the checks are written by an accountant in SLC.

Offerings can be earmarked for humanitarian aid, but can also be given to a general fund or tithing, which can be used as needed. Fast offerings are all local unless there is a surplus, and sadly living in relatively wealthy areas of the world I've seen more go out than come in more than once, requiring the Church to send more to our area from other funds.

I coulndn't give you a percentage, other than to say 100% of fast offerings go to local needs, with no overhead other than the paper and the electricity to light the bishops office. The best part is that the donations as well as the receipts are both confidential, and those who need help can attend Church in full fellowship without others knowing their needs or trouble. As far as the guy writing the check, the bishop and his counselors take confidences very seriously, and don't even discuss them with their wives. I've been the check writer and the recipient at different times of my life.

As far as the Church in general, if we are to take the $5billion figure reported in newsweek and divide the $650million reported here we come up with 13% of the Churches donation going to humanitarian aid outside of the Church membership. But you would be correct in saying those numbers are probably a guess. I do know that I have worked in the local Atlanta humanitarian center, canning food grown by the Church for humanitarian purposes, packing grocery baskets for the poor, cleaning floors in the warehouse. This is the same place that has three semi-trucks parked with emergency water, chainsaws, food and cleaning kits - that usually get to disaster stricken areas prior to FEMA or the Red Cross. I've also arrived in a parking lot with 900 other Mormon men, called overnight, to help dig people out from a tornado breakout, and we didn't charge a thin dime to do it.

As far as investments... http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp

If the Church or specifically the Corporation of the President, where the moneys are held in trust, were a major institutional investor in "vice" products or services it would be a major story and not just an internet rumor. The books may not be open, but the investors in a public company are known.

Excuse me perhaps "innuendo of conspiracy" would be better than "conspiracy theory"? I question a lot of policies coming from Church headquarters. There are the brethren and then there are the bureaucrats, who in my opinion are much more worrisome. But then again someone has to count money, buy light bulbs, publish hymn books and hire accountants.

Although I'm not a professional apologist, I can't say I've seen an attack dog mentality or even a propensity to be more disagreeable than others here seeking to tell us how full of it we are. If you were to take the bulk of the comments on both sides you will see that most here are capable of mature discussion. They also have the capacity to question and disagree agreeably.

[Moksha]

I am certain almost all people here support the church. I think this argument involves how to best support it. Should I support a policy that is akin to the Church continually shooting itself in the foot, or should I courageously buck the trend and say, "You are better off to quit shooting yourself"?

Not releasing the records is continually shooting yourself. I say it is time to unbind the dirty rags covering the wound, and let it see the light of day. Let the pus drain away so the financial ledger can be exposed. Clean the wound and dress it. Examine it on a yearly basis to make sure it is not still festering. Publish the results of an independent audit in a three page financial report covering income and expenditures each year in the Ensign.

The moral low ground is no place for our Church. It deserves to be beyond reproach.

It doesn't hurt to help establish that your blind devotion is warranted.

[Del March]

Agreed, that the church is likely heavily invested in big business. 

Any proof of that? And any proof that if they do do that kind of investments, they don't redistribute every cent of benefit to the poor and the needy?

Proofs, Blink. Do you know what proofs are? Do you know how dishonest it is to accuse or even to make negative suppositions without any trace of proof?

That's the type of stewardship that Del praises, after all.

Where did I say that? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with that kind of stewardship, I'm just saying that you are putting words in my mouth that I have never said. Another dishonest maneuver.

Is that such a bad thing, that the richest church on earth would be heavily invested in whatever means necessary to make more money? Surely we wouldn't expect them to actually *cough* give it away to the poor and the widowed, now would we? 

Then how come they do give it to the poor and the widowed in every single unit I've ever lived in?

Accusations without basis.

Embarrassed? Oh, I don't think our leaders are embarrassed at all. I don't think they're close enough to the rank and file to feel anything of the sort. The whole thing reminds me of Marie Antoinette.

Do you personally know any of those leaders that you are so freely dirtying? Have you ever tried getting to know them? Does anyone you know knows one of them and has some basis for that kind of monstruous accusation?

Although perhaps now he knows how it feels to be unjustly accused. Frustrating, that. 

Ever heard of the Golden Rule, Blink? How can you complain about being unjustly accused when you so liberally unjustly accuse our leaders?

And I notice you haven't answered the few questions I specifically asked you...

Del

[Del March]

Not releasing the records is continually shooting yourself.  I say it is time to unbind the dirty rags covering the wound, and let it see the light of day. Let the pus drain away so the financial ledger can be exposed. Clean the wound and dress it.  Examine it on a yearly basis to make sure it is not still festering. Publish the results of an independent audit in a three page financial report covering income and expenditures each year in the Ensign.

Let me get this straight:

- There isn't the beginning of a hint that anything is being done wrong with the church's money

- Tons and tons and tons of money are spent by the church on exactly what they are supposed to be spent

And yet:

- You openly accuse the leaders of being corrupted and/or covering corruption

- You demand that the church spend tons of money on getting professional audits every year and on publishing millions of pages to report those audits.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

The moral low ground is no place for our Church. It deserves to be beyond reproach.

Show me a substantiated financial reproach that's made against the church leaders.

It doesn't hurt  to help establish that your blind devotion is warranted.

Heh! We have more indirect proofs that our leaders are not doing anything horrible with our money than we have proofs that God and Jesus are actually who our leaders tell us they are and that things happen after we die as our leaders tell us they will. But who cares? What matters is the money! We must demand that our leaders tell us how they take care of our money! We blindly believe our leaders when they tell us about the eternal plan of God without giving us any hint of proof, but we won't trust them with our money!! No sir!! Our money is more important that our soul!!

Sad.

Del

[Scott Gordon]

Moksha

I don't mean to derail this thread, but is this you at the grokutah forums?

moksha

blossoming beehive

Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:26 pm

[Teancum]

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-

I get it.

And the two are not the same

And I have no suspicion of the church.

I have other reason that have been well stated here.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Teancum,

Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to even pose a question that doesn't toe the party line.  Isn't it wonderful to be treated so nicely for disagreeing.  Nothing like brotherhood.

Yes, and welcome to the wonderful world of the Great and Spacious Building types who feign victimhood when met with questions about their questions, if not the same kind of "disagreement" they are want to dish out. Nothing like endearing double standards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is a great difference between being asked questions and challenged then being called suspicious and questioning ones support of the brethren.

A great difference.

I am surprised that you cannot see this.

Teancum

[Teancum]

1: I do not believe the leaders are mis-using funds.

2: The church's largest assets are property which are typically income consuming assets. The temples and chapels and other buildings do not generate revenue.

3: I hope the church is investing wisely and using the funds from those investments wisely. I am not the least up set that the leaders saw fit to buy the crossroads mall or build the conference center. I have no problem with reserve assets and I hope they are being managed well. If there are those that criticize for the church investing and not giving out more then we can discuss that. But we have no way to know that at this point.

4: I am suspicious of nothing.

5 I believe the church is very generous based on my experiences with local fast offering assistance. The ward I attend has had great demands on the fast offering funds for many, many years. Typically it was very negative in the balance. While our SP encouraged to work on increasing the offerings a well as helping people get back on our own, he taught us to be generous. We often assist people out of the church in our community as well.

6: I work in the financial industry. Disclosure is a huge part of what I do. Perhaps that is why I feel so strongly about this. I do not see any of the downside. Everyone knows the church has deep pockets already. I do not see disclosure changing that. I know the church has great controls in place on the local level and I would guess on the macro level as well. This is not my concern.

I guess the main issue is I really believe that keeping the financial records under cloak hurts us more then helps is.

That really is it.

Teancum

[wenglund]

I get it.

And the two are not the same

And I have no suspicion of the church.

I have other reason that have been well stated here.

Teancum

That you do not see that what you have been saying is clearly suspicion, tells me that you really don't get it.

But, since that term seems to be a stumbling block for you, go back through my last several post to you, and cross it out and/or replace it with whatever suites your fancy.

I'm not intent on quibbling over semantics. My point is to see just how comfortable (or uncomfortable) you are in having the standard you expect for the Church applied to you personally as a claimed stewart and faithful, believing, active, full-tithe-paying member of the Church.

Granted, there are differences between the church and you as a member. But, as I see it, there are enough similarities in principle to warrant the comparison in making my point.

If, after going back through the posts as suggested, you still are at a loss, please let me know and I will walk you through the principle similarites step-by-step.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Moksha]

Hi Scott, I am usually defending the Church on WWW.grokutah.com, but I do have a problem with FAIR. It started with the reviews for Grant Palmer's book, which I saw as sophistry based on personal attacks. It has grown with the denial of the need for keeping the Church beyond reproach regarding its financial records.

I see a lot of people here defending the Churches decision to keep things hidden, freely embracing the concept of openness and honesty under different circumstances. To me that seems dishonest in itself. I hope that answers the question you posed. I wouldn't want to say this on GrokUtah, because many there would use it as ammunition against the Church.

To me honesty is the best defense the Church has as well as being the best policy to follow. As such, I am also a true history Mormon rather than a legend Mormon. If you support the truth, then your testimony is never shaken.

I see FAIR as a defender of legends with sophistry as its weapon of choice.

[Blink]

Agreed, that the church is likely heavily invested in big business.

[John Russell]

Blink asked Del:

What fund is used for humanitarian aid to the poor and widowed, Del? Not tithing. I'll give you a hint: we fast once a month and give the money we'd have spent on food to the fund that is used for the poor and the widowed. Tithing, on the other hand, is a much bigger pot.

Well, there are several primary sources. One is the Humanitarian Aid allocation on the offerings slip that is specifically used for global humanitarian assistance. Fast Offerings are NOT considered humanitarian funds by the Church, as most of these funds are used to support the needy in local units. And how do you know exactly where tithing is going? You seem unaware of the breakdown of other funds. Just as an FYI for you, the net financial gain from the Deseret Ranch in Florida is used entirely for global humanitarian efforts. The same is true of every other large agrarian operation of the Church of which I am aware. I only know this because of my father-in-law's accounting work with the ranches. He was amazed to learn it. The Church derives substantial funds for humanitarian assistance from many of its "big business" resources that you seem to decry. Do you find this offensive?

Blink continued:

Dirtying? What is dirty about acknowledging that our GA's and FP have little if any interaction with the rank and file of the church? Really, Del. Be sensible. How could our GA's and FP know 12 million people? How could they know what problems each individual has? How could they spread themselves that thinly? Answer? They can't. And there's nothing dirty about it. They don't know the rank and file of the church, and that's not their fault.

Please keep in mind that some of us are in families that have been in the church since the beginning. We count prophets, general authorities, and historical figures in our family tree. If we took umbrage at every insult to a member of our family, we'd spend our days on Prozac and our nights with sleeping pills. Try to keep a little perspective here. This is not criticism of any individual. This is criticism of a church policy that hurts our leaders' reputations, with no purpose and little justification.

I have no idea where you come up with this stuff. I have relatives among the leadership of the Church (by marriage -- I'm a first-generation member) and they are quite involved with day-to-day life and very approachable. How have their reputations been hurt? How have they isolated themselves from the rank-and-file? Im afraid that you sound like you are ranting with no particular basis other than being angry about something.

[Scott Gordon]

Interesting. Thanks for filling me in.

The reviews of Grant Palmer are all done through FARMS except for this one http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom15.html by George Cobabe.

George's review is a summary of what is found in the various FARMS reviews. I asked him to put that together because the FARMs reviews were quite long and many people were asking for a quick explaination. We do link to the FARMS reviews here http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai186.html

I have Grant's book myself and find it gives an incomplete and biased view of several historical events. You have to read Bushman and other books by the historians (LDS and non LDS) to get a fuller picture than what Grant paints. I can certainly understand that some people who haven't studied LDS history might believe Grant gives a good picture.

As for financial disclosure, that is certainly the perogative of the church. I like full disclosure, but I'm not the one who makes that decision. They have every right to not disclose.

[Moksha]

Scott, so are you the leader of FAIR?

[Scott Gordon]

Scott, so are you the leader of FAIR?

I suppose my title would imply that.

Who actually does the leading is certainly open to debate.

Scott

[KevinG]

I don't think this issue is deep enough to accuse anyone of blind loyalty for the brethren. That's just silly.

I see the substantive disagreement in regards to the Church being:

Does keeping the financial record private engender mistrust about the Church and it's handling of funds on a world level?

Would publishing world finances openly risk politicizing important decisions, creating jealousy or encouraging frivolous lawsuits?

and, if so would open publication of all financial decisions at that level do more good than harm?

The tipping point for me is that I've worked with Church finances, and learned from those who have worked with them at a higher level enough to trust they are not being misused, and therefore see publication as an unneccesary risk vs. the potential public relations or transperancy benefits.

[Blink]

And how do you know exactly where tithing is going?

Did you not notice, John? I said nothing about where tithing is going. That's the whole point. No one knows where tithing is going, because the books are closed. Some of us trust our leaders, some of us don't, and some of us think it's pretty lame that we have a policy that places our leaders in such a position.

You seem unaware of the breakdown of other funds.  Just as an FYI for you, the net financial gain from the Deseret Ranch in Florida is used entirely for global humanitarian efforts.  The same is true of every other large agrarian operation of the Church of which I am aware.  I only know this because of my father-in-law's accounting work with the ranches.  He was amazed to learn it.  The Church derives substantial funds for humanitarian assistance from many of its "big business" resources that you seem to decry.  Do you find this offensive?

Please post the link to the financial report for Deseret Ranch in FL. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your FIL's verbal report doesn't carry much weight against a published financial report. Thanks.

I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.  I have relatives among the leadership of the Church (by marriage -- I'm a first-generation member) and they are quite involved with day-to-day life and very approachable.

So do I. And I highly doubt that he knows all 12 million members.

How have their reputations been hurt?  How have they isolated themselves from the rank-and-file?  Im afraid that you sound like you are ranting with no particular basis other than being angry about something.

I'm ranting? Please forgive me. Here I thought I was discussing an interesting topic with little if any ranting.

I didn't say they isolated themselves. I said they have little if anything to do with the rank and file of the church, and that's not their fault. Obviously I have no expressed myself clearly, and for that, I apologize. What I meant was: No GA can walk among the members of a randomly picked ward anywhere in the church and not be immediately known as a GA and be treated as such. You can walk into any ward and be immediately treated like everyone else. No GA can do that. They live in a world apart from the rank and file, because they are GA's. As such, they don't interact with the rank and file like everyone else, and they couldn't, even if they wanted to.

What's going to happen if a General Authority unexpectedly walks into my ward building on Sunday? (not that that's ever going to happen, even if the poor guy ever does get a vacation, but for the sake of discussion, what if it did?) First, the bishop is going to be very surprised and pleased. He's going to direct the Exec Sec to get the SP on the phone to tell him the great news. Second, the Foyer Sunday School class is going to be shooed to Gospel Doctrine. No discussing Friday night's ball game or the price of hay today! Third, the folding doors to the gym will be opened and chairs set up in there to capture the overflow from our sister ward who will come to hear the great man speak in SM or at least see him sitting on the stand, presiding over the meeting. Fourth, the speakers, if they aren't bumped, are going to be very nervous and may changed their talks to reflect whatever they think the GA wants to hear. Fifth, the Hall Roamers will make sure the small children that are usually their excuse for wandering the halls during Sacrament Meeting are quiet. Sixth, everyone will want to shake his hand and engage him in short conversation. Even if he's Emeritus, even if he's the FIL of the new family in the ward, even if he's on vacation, he's going to be treated very differently than any other visitor, because he's a GA. IOW, it's going to be very different than normal.

What's going to happen if you walk into my ward building on Sunday? Nothing different at all. Someone will greet you and hopefully help you feel welcome. They'll direct you to whatever meeting is taking place at the time. You won't be asked to speak or to sit on the stand. You can go to SS and priesthood or sit in the foyer on the couch, and hear exactly what the people in my ward think, even if it's not completely kosher. You, you see, aren't a GA.