Clearing the Financial Record

[KevinG]

Blink,

This is part of the genious of having local authority and controll over a majority of the decisions made financial and otherwise. Did you know that property is purchased and allocated for chapels at the Stake level? There is an approval process, but the substantive decisions are made at Stake or Ward levels.

As far as the GA's being able to sneak into meetings... I've seen it done by 70's, and it's hilarious to see the reaction of people when they find out they introduced themselves to the "visiting brother" only to find out later they shook the hand of a member of the quorum of the 70. Granted the apostles and prophet would be a hard "sneak", but they came up from the ranks, and spent lots of time in their own lives being Bishop, or brother so-and-so. They also get constant feedback from Bishop and Brother so-and-so. They aren't so out of touch.

Besides, it's not the Prophet I'd worry about if I got off topic in Sunday School. Our SS teachers prepare very hard in our ward, and they don't take kindly to wandering off topic.

[Del March]

Proof, Del? We know the church is heavily invested in big business, because Deseret Management isn't in the habit of giving away its assets. The King Ranch, Bonneville International, Beneficial Life, etc aren't money drains, they're big business. It isn't illegal for NFP's to invest in FP's, so there's no reason to believe the church limits its investments to just the FP arm.

Once again, you're just making assumptions: "they do this, so we can assume they also do that". That's assumptions, not proofs.

Moreover, even if they do invest money, you would need proofs that this takes away from the money that is used.

You still have showed no proof that the leaders are not making a wise use of the church funds.

That's the kind of stewardship you support, Del. I put no words in your mouth. You support the leadership we have, so that's the kind of stewardship, the kind that invests in big business, that you support. Or are you saying you don't support the current leadership? If that's the case, then I apologize for misreading you.

Can't you see the difference between supporting someone and supporting whatever they do? Can't you see the difference between supporting one group when they do something, and supporting that something in general?

Example: I don't support killing. But I support soldiers killing in a war. Does the fact that I support soldiers killing in a war mean that I support killing in general? Does the fact that I support soldiers going to war to defend their country mean that I support undiscriminately everything they might decide to do to fulfill that goal?

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.

And we see the tithing fund being used all around the world for what it is supposed to be used. Yes it's a big pot, but the demands on it are big too.

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.

Oh I see. Just because they don't know each and every one of us rank and file members, they don't know any of us. They don't have any rank and file family members, they don't have any rank and file friends, they never ever interact with rank and file people. They never receive letters from rank and file members. They never consult with their delegates about the concerns of rank and files members (makes me wonder how President Hinckley even heard of rave parties, or tattoos or piercing or *gasp* pornography on the net!) And they were never rank and file members themselves either.

Whatever.

This is criticism of a church policy that hurts our leaders' reputations, with no purpose and little justification.

The only thing I have seen hurting the reputation of our leaders on that matter is the unfounded suspicion of some people.

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

Forgive me, I don't know what you're referring to. This is my busiest time of the year, and I must have missed your post. (Although to be fair, I suppose I must say that it's entirely possible that I answered them already, but you just don't like what I said)

Let me re-post them (you can find them in the second half of the 7th page of this thread). And no you haven't answered them yet.

OK, Blink, let me ask you a few questions:

1. Is abscence of proof the same thing as proof of abscence? IOW, is the fact that we have no proof that the work is being done correctly the same as the fact that we have a proof that the work is not being done correctly?

2. Do you believe this church is the church of Christ, that it is led by Christ Himself, and that the leaders are His appointed and anointed stewards?

3. Have you asked the leaders to disclose to you the financial books? Or do you know of anyone who asked and to whom it was refused? Because before you can say the books are kept closed, you need to prove that they aren't open to anyone who asks to see them.

4.

Blink: Have you never heard of being your brother's keeper, Del? We are called to help and support all of our brothers, even our brothers who are our leaders.

Does "helping and supporting" mean "suspecting without any proof" in your eyes?

As for "naive and gullible", I prefer "trusting and faithful", as in "trusting faithfully that Christ is leading His church".

Del

Del

[John Russell]

Blink said:

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.

Maybe you've forgotten what you originally said. Here's a reminder:

Blink: 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.

You clearly stated that tithing is NOT used for humanitarian aid. Making such a statement presumes that you know what tithing is or is not used for. Perhaps you overstated your idea?

Blink continued:

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.

Sorry, I don't have it. Try writing to the ranch and asking for their statements. My apologies, but a credible and informed witness carries more weight with me than the disbelief of an internet ghoul (no offense intended, just using Kurt Vonnegut's terminology for unknown persons who haunt the net).

Blink added:

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.

Hmmmm. Your scenario looks seriously and hyperbolically overblown, but I suspect that you are somewhat correct for treatment of the First Presidency and the Twelve, but this is far from accurate for the numerous 70's who make up the bulk of the GA's. Very few of the 70 are known to the general membership, and most are quite capable of walking into a meeting unrecognized if they are not assigned on official business. Would you expect to see a throng of people mob Mervyn B. Arnold, Shirley D. Christensen, Clate W. Mask, Jr., William W. Parmley, or W. Douglas Shumway if they walked into your building unannounced? Besides, these leaders also can visit with Bishops and other unit leaders to consider local issues of which YOU are not aware. I would hardly say that they are out of touch. Do you know some personally who are?

But you seem to be shifting the direction of the discussion. In your original comments, you said:

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.

Knowing what people's concerns are is a very different issue from being treated differently by people due to celebrity status. Should we assume that anyone who achieves some level of public recognition is automatically incapable of understanding the people's attitudes and feelings by virtue of the stilted interactions you presume for them? On what are you basing this assumption? And do they need to understand the problems of each and every member to serve? Mother Theresa was mobbed everywhere she went. Was she disconnected?

[Del March]

Granted the apostles and prophet would be a hard "sneak", but they came up from the ranks, and spent lots of time in their own lives being Bishop, or brother so-and-so.  They also get constant feedback from Bishop and Brother so-and-so.  They aren't so out of touch.

My husband almost came to hands with Elder Didier a few years ago. Some friends of mine talked freely to Elder Uchtdorf when he came to our Institute Campus a dozen years ago or so. And so on.

But I guess they forget all about being rank and file members when they reach a certain level in the "hierarchy", and they cut off all links they might still have with rank and file members... After all, they can't afford to be in touch in any way with the people they are serving...

Del

[Del March]

Very few of the 70 are known to the general membership, and most are quite capable of walking into a meeting unrecognized if they are not assigned on official business.  Would you expect to see a throng of people mob Mervyn B. Arnold, Shirley D. Christensen, Clate W. Mask, Jr., William W. Parmley, or W. Douglas Shumway if they walked into your building unannounced?

Who???

OK, maybe I would react at the name of Shirley D. Christensen (because I can't get over the fact that a guy could have such a girly first name ), and my husband also reacted to the name of W. Douglas Shumway (that he remembers because of a word association with another Shumway), but none of the others would ring a bell for us, and I highly doubt they would ring a bell to anyone but maybe the missionary couples in my district. And needless to say, we don't have the slighest idea what any of those people look like. Any of them could pretty much freely come on holidays in France or Slovenia, as long as they don't announce they are 70s. And even if they did, it wouldn't create such a turmoil. The First Presidency and the Apostles, yes, probably. But the 70s? There are too many of them to make a fuss for each one of them

Not to mention that once you've known someone who later became a GA, it loses all charm

Del

[Teancum]

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-

Wade,

I understand. To compare the church publishing it's financials to an indidual member is like a public corp saying to a shareholder that they will not publish financial data unless the shareholder does, or a private company telling a loan officer at the bank that they will not give the loan officer their financial statements until the loan offiecr gives then his personal financial data. Your comparison, frankly, is nonesense.

Teancum

[Teancum]

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.

I disagree with this but we really do not know.

Fast offering is used primarily on the local level. The welfare facilities and storehouses maintained by the church would seemingly need another source of funds to operate. The church owned humanitarian center also operates on other funds that are designated for humanitarian aid.

Tithing may or may not be used for humanitarian aid but I do not think fast offerings would do it alone. Most wards spend their offerings at the local level. Surpluses are then allocated to stakes with deficits.

Teancum

[Moksha]

All those other Churches publish their records because it is the right thing to do. We as the True Church should explain to them the benefits of secrecy. Even if they followed suit, we could say we have the One True Secret Ledger.

Still I would rather have the Church possess the One True Open Ledger.

[KevinG]

It's important the open/closed ledger issue is policy and not doctrinal.

For those who advocate an open ledger, just for the sake of (hopefully intelligent) discourse, how would you prevent the politicization of the budgeting process or protect the Church from frivolous suits if the big picture ledger were public?

[Teancum]

It's important the open/closed ledger issue is policy and not doctrinal.

For those who advocate an open ledger, just for the sake of (hopefully intelligent) discourse, how would you prevent the politicization of the budgeting process or protect the Church from frivolous suits if the big picture ledger were public?

Publishing willnot generate frivilous suits. The SBC publishes and they rake in a lot of money each year.

Everyone nows the LDS Church has deep pockets. The idea that open financials will create law suites anymore then we already have is only speculation.

Teancum

[Moksha]

If the books were open, to prove to the Churches critics that everything is above board, the Church members would suddenly care about how the money is spent?

After being indifferent and obedient for so long, it is hard to contemplate.

If on the off chance that did happen, the Church would learn how to cope with democracy somehow.

[Blink]

It's important the open/closed ledger issue is policy and not doctrinal.

For those who advocate an open ledger, just for the sake of (hopefully intelligent) discourse, how would you prevent the politicization of the budgeting process or protect the Church from frivolous suits if the big picture ledger were public?

For Dadof7;

Were there more lawsuits in 1958 and before that, proportionally speaking, of course? The books were open then.

Was there a lot of criticism about how the funds were spent, prior to 1959? The books were open then.

I don't know; I was just a child then. I think the speculation about lawsuits and grumbling if the books are open is just that: speculation. There is no guarantee that such things will transpire.

=============

For Del:

Del asks:

1. Is abscence of proof the same thing as proof of abscence? IOW, is the fact that we have no proof that the work is being done correctly the same as the fact that we have a proof that the work is not being done correctly?

You don't have any more proof that the work is done correctly than any critic has that the work is done incorrectly. If the books were open, there would be no question.

2. Do you believe this church is the church of Christ, that it is led by Christ Himself, and that the leaders are His appointed and anointed stewards?

What I believe is not the subject of this thread. To comment further would be to derail the intended subject of this thread.

3. Have you asked the leaders to disclose to you the financial books? Or do you know of anyone who asked and to whom it was refused? Because before you can say the books are kept closed, you need to prove that they aren't open to anyone who asks to see them.

The books are closed if the books are not open for public scrutiny via published financial documentation. If the church wanted me to see the financials for the church, they'd be sending them out with my Ensign. At the very least, they'd be publishing a yearly page in the Ensign. None of that is happening. The books are closed.

4.

QUOTE 

Blink: Have you never heard of being your brother's keeper, Del? We are called to help and support all of our brothers, even our brothers who are our leaders.

Does "helping and supporting" mean "suspecting without any proof" in your eyes?

I've never said I suspected anyone, with or without proof. Perhaps you can point out where I stated that I suspected anyone, and please be sure to quote where I named names.

=============

For John:

When I say "GA", I mean apostle. When I say "FP", I mean First Presidency. When I say "70", I mean 70. My apologies if I wasn't clear on my designation. So all your references to 70's mean nothing to me.

If an apostle walked into my ward, he would definitely be treated differently than any other visitor. His ability to hear and feel what is said by the rank and file is compromised by his position and his rank, just as a king or president is separated from the rank and file citizen.

And perhaps you are correct, that I overstated that tithing is not used for humanitarian aid. My assumption was that humanitarian aid is normally dispensed locally, and that local funds, as in Fast Offerings, were the source of the funds. But I could be wrong. Without access to the financials, it would be difficult to know for sure.

However, that doesn't say what tithing is used for. We don't know; the books are closed.

[Del March]

You don't have any more proof that the work is done correctly than any critic has that the work is done incorrectly. If the books were open, there would be no question.

Actually, I do. I have multiple proofs that a good deal of the money is used in exactly the way it is supposed to be used. As many of us have pointed again and again, things (buildings, bills, help, etc...) ARE being taken care of. The critics, on the other hand, don't have a single proof that money is not being used the way it is supposed to be used. All they have are unfounded suspicions. I have hard, verifiable, material proofs.

2. Do you believe this church is the church of Christ, that it is led by Christ Himself, and that the leaders are His appointed and anointed stewards?

What I believe is not the subject of this thread.

Oh no? Isn't the bulk of this thread about the fact that you and some others BELIEVE that the church should publish its books?

So it matters that you believe the leaders should act differently than they do, but it doesn't matter whether you believe they are called and appointed, and led by Christ Himself? Okie dokie...

The books are closed if the books are not open for public scrutiny via published financial documentation. If the church wanted me to see the financials for the church, they'd be sending them out with my Ensign. At the very least, they'd be publishing a yearly page in the Ensign. None of that is happening.  The books are closed.

It seems like you don't know the difference between closed and private. It seems you don't know the difference between not publishing something and not disclosing it to anyone.

And most of all, it seems you don't remember the old counsel : "ask, and it shall be given you". Why should the church bother giving you the financial records (at a great financial price), if you can't even bother asking for them? If you can't bother asking, it means you don't care. If you don't care, then nobody has any duty of catering to you.

If an apostle walked into my ward, he would definitely be treated differently than any other visitor. His ability to hear and feel what is said by the rank and file is compromised by his position and his rank, just as a king or president is separated from the rank and file citizen.

That answers my question as to when GAs forget about ever having been a rank and file members: when they are called as Apostles. I guess that's part of the ordination process...

Del

[Blink]

You don't have any more proof that the work is done correctly than any critic has that the work is done incorrectly. If the books were open, there would be no question.

Actually, I do. I have multiple proofs that a good deal of the money is used in exactly the way it is supposed to be used. As many of us have pointed again and again, things (buildings, bills, help, etc...) ARE being taken care of. The critics, on the other hand, don't have a single proof that money is not being used the way it is supposed to be used. All they have are unfounded suspicions. I have hard, verifiable, material proofs.

You have hard, verifiable proof that some money is being spent as intended. But you don't know if it's a "good deal" or a little bit, almost all or very little. What percentage of the annual contributions is spent on buildings, upkeep, overhead, administration, etc., Del? What amount is "a good deal"? Is it all? Is it some? Where does the rest of it go? You don't know. I don't know. If there was a financial report, we'd know.

2. Do you believe this church is the church of Christ, that it is led by Christ Himself, and that the leaders are His appointed and anointed stewards?

What I believe is not the subject of this thread.

Oh no? Isn't the bulk of this thread about the fact that you and some others BELIEVE that the church should publish its books?

So it matters that you believe the leaders should act differently than they do, but it doesn't matter whether you believe they are called and appointed, and led by Christ Himself? Okie dokie...

I'm glad you understand the difference, Del.

The books are closed if the books are not open for public scrutiny via published financial documentation. If the church wanted me to see the financials for the church, they'd be sending them out with my Ensign. At the very least, they'd be publishing a yearly page in the Ensign. None of that is happening.  The books are closed.

It seems like you don't know the difference between closed and private. It seems you don't know the difference between not publishing something and not disclosing it to anyone.

The result is the same.

And most of all, it seems you don't remember the old counsel : "ask, and it shall be given you". Why should the church bother giving you the financial records (at a great financial price), if you can't even bother asking for them? If you can't bother asking, it means you don't care. If you don't care, then nobody has any duty of catering to you.

Great financial price? What is so great about writing an article for the Ensign once a year? What is so great about making the report available online via lds.org? I'm not seeing a huge financial price. In the interest of complete and open disclosure, I'd think whatever the price was, it would be considered a legitimate expense.

If an apostle walked into my ward, he would definitely be treated differently than any other visitor. His ability to hear and feel what is said by the rank and file is compromised by his position and his rank, just as a king or president is separated from the rank and file citizen.

That answers my question as to when GAs forget about ever having been a rank and file members: when they are called as Apostles. I guess that's part of the ordination process...

Most of the apostles have been members for years and years, some of them for more years than the years when they weren't apostles. The lack of time for socializing and the amount of work to be done on a job that is 24/7 for life makes regular interaction with the rank and file, outside of one's own group or family, problematic at best. Add in the security measures required in our world today and the separation is complete. In the last several years, whenever an apostle visits my stake (which is rare and can be counted on two fingers in the last 20 yrs), he comes with his own bodyguards and driver, is driven around in a limo with tinted windows, and never interacts with the rank and file members, one on one, or in a receiving line. He stays at a hotel, meets with the stake president, and goes back to SLC. The last time Pres Hinckley was here, the security was even tighter. He flew in on a private jet, walked 2 steps from the jet to the private limo parked on the tarmac of the airport, was driven to the meeting site, was driven inside the building before getting out of the car, and was escorted to the podium. He never shook hands with any of the rank and file members who were there in the two sessions that were held. He was returned to the airport in exactly the reverse of the way he was brought, got back on his plane without ever going through the building, and flew back to SLC in the jet that brought him. He didn't shake the hand or talk to one ordinary rank and file member of the church.

If that sort of thing is the norm around the world, it's no wonder the apostles and FP don't interact with the rank and file of the church. All that's left is hero worship and awe. So yes, if an apostle walked into my ward unannounced, he'd be treated differently than any other visitor. He wouldn't sit in the Foyer Sunday School class, because the Foyer Sunday School class wouldn't be meeting there that day. He wouldn't sit in the audience with the members; he'd sit on the stand with the bishop. He wouldn't hear what we had to say; we'd hear what he had to say.

That's just the way things are. It's not their fault that their calling separates them from the rank and file. At least if there was complete financial disclosure, they'd be protected from any speculation about profiting from their pedestal position.

[Del March]

You have hard, verifiable proof that some money is being spent as intended. But you don't know if it's a "good deal" or a little bit, almost all or very little. What percentage of the annual contributions is spent on buildings, upkeep, overhead, administration, etc., Del? What amount is "a good deal"? Is it all? Is it some? Where does the rest of it go? You don't know. I don't know. If there was a financial report, we'd know.

So now we're down to discussing percentages. How much would be acceptable to you? Personally, I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that everything that needs taken care of is actually being taken care of. There's more than enough money available for what is needed. And that represents A LOT of money. I don't care what they do with the rest of the money, if there is any rest. What matters to me is that there is always money available when it is necessary.

It seems like you don't know the difference between closed and private. It seems you don't know the difference between not publishing something and not disclosing it to anyone.

The result is the same.

No, there is one major difference: in one case, people who ask can have access to the records. In the other, they can't.

Your argument is just as ridiculous as saying that because a writer doesn't freely post his new novel on the Net for no charge, he is keeping it secret. No he's not. Anyone who buys the book can read it.

Is it really so much to ask that people make the effort to ask, if they want to know something?

Great financial price? What is so great about writing an article for the Ensign once a year? What is so great about making the report available online via lds.org? I'm not seeing a huge financial price. In the interest of complete and open disclosure, I'd think whatever the price was, it would be considered a legitimate expense.

Do you have any idea how much one page, published in several million magazines, can cost? Obviously not.

Personally, I'd be very annoyed if we spent so much money on such an unnecessary report, just to satisfy the suspicious curiosity of a few members, some of whom can't even testify that they support the leaders...

He stays at a hotel, meets with the stake president, and goes back to SLC.

And what exactly do you think he talks about with the SP?

At least if there was complete financial disclosure, they'd be protected from any speculation about profiting from their pedestal position.

Protection from people who suspect them without the beginning of something that looks like a proof? That kind of protection is both impossible to obtain and worthless. I completely support their not caring about obtaining such a protection.

Del

[KevinG]

I can tell you exactly what types of questions the Prophet and other general authorities discuss with the Stake President. Ours shares with us.

How are your families?

Is home teaching getting done in a way that the needs of the individual are met?

Are you caring for new members?

What are the needs of the local congregations?

Are your priesthood quorums, especially your young men exercising their priesthood by using counsels and praying for guidance?

Are your meetings Christ centered, and is the Sacrament being treated as the most important meeting of the week?

The Presiding Bishopric and their representatives on the other hand ask questions like...

Do you do regular audits?

Do your clerks know how to properly write checks or use the financial software?

Are your member records up to date?

Note: these are representative of what I have heard and not to be interpreted verbatim questions asked in every Stake.

[Del March]

I can tell you exactly what types of questions the Prophet and other general authorities discuss with the Stake President.  Ours shares with us.

How are your families?

Is home teaching getting done in a way that the needs of the individual are met?

Are you caring for new members?

What are the needs of the local congregations?

Are your priesthood quorums, especially your young men exercising their priesthood by using counsels and praying for guidance?

Are your meetings Christ centered, and is the Sacrament being treated as the most important meeting of the week?

That's pretty much what I figured. Personally, I consider that being in touch with the lives and needs of rank and file members. Sure, it's not being in touch with the personal life and needs of every single one of us. But this is not the GAs' jobs: that's the local leaders' jobs. To each their job.

Del

[Teancum]

Do you have any idea how much one page, published in several million magazines, can cost? Obviously not.

Personally, I'd be very annoyed if we spent so much money on such an unnecessary report, Do you have any idea how much one page, published in several million magazines, can cost? Obviously not.

You should be very annoyed then. You should see the amount of mail SLC send out weekly to bishops and SPs. Many pieces of paper weekly times 2600 SPs and 22,000 Bishops and BPs. This should thoroughly disturb you. And much of the stuff is rather unimportant-things like posting BYU events, CES firesides, announcements of other satellite broadcasts.

Putting one page in the Ensign summarizing the sources and uses of income would be relatively inexpensive. This is a weak argument against it.

just to satisfy the suspicious curiosity of a few members, some of whom can't even testify that they support the leaders...

This charge is getting boorish. It is spurious and disingenuous. It seems that you continue to fall back on it to discredit those who disagree with you.

Look. I do not think you are stupid or naive to not want to see the financial data. Stop impugning the testimony of others because they do.

Teancum

[Del March]

You should be very annoyed then.  You should see the amount of mail SLC send out weekly to bishops and SPs.  Many pieces of paper weekly times 2600 SPs and 22,000 Bishops and BPs.  This should thoroughly disturb you.  And much of the stuff is rather unimportant-things like posting BYU events, CES firesides, announcements of other satellite broadcasts.

Who says I'm not annoyed at that? Who says I don't wish we found another, more effective way of doing that?

Putting one page in the Ensign summarizing the sources and uses of income would be relatively inexpensive.  This is a weak argument against it. 

You would call such a page "opening the books"? What exactly would it tell that could insure anyone that the leaders are not tampering with the money? Anyone wanting to know exactly what is going on with the money would still have to ask for a full disclosure. So I fail to see what would be the improvement with such a page?

just to satisfy the suspicious curiosity of a few members, some of whom can't even testify that they support the leaders...

This charge is getting boorish. It is spurious and disingenuous. It seems that you continue to fall back on it to discredit those who disagree with you.

You have clearly stated that you support the leaders, so obviously you aren't among the type of people I was alluding to in the second half of that sentence.

Del

[John Russell]

Del asked:

You would call such a page "opening the books"? What exactly would it tell that could insure anyone that the leaders are not tampering with the money? Anyone wanting to know exactly what is going on with the money would still have to ask for a full disclosure. So I fail to see what would be the improvement with such a page?

I would agree with this. I have seen the web pages of various organizations providing a loose breakdown of their expenditures, but it is impossible to know how the money is really being used without seeing more detail (and understanding how categories are defined). It is not much effort to post numbers on a website (which, I believe is the point that Blink has made), but I don't put much faith in what is there without a clear definition of the terms.

As an aside, how do the families of the GA's live? Are they awash in opulence, ala Bennie Hinn? Those I know are not. What are the possible inappropriate uses of the funds, if the leadership is not reaping rich benefits?

As an additional aside, Blink's description of a visiting authority does not mesh with any of my experiences, but maybe Elders Maxwell, Perry, Packer, and Eyring are not affiliated with MIB.

[Blink]

You would call such a page "opening the books"? What exactly would it tell that could insure anyone that the leaders are not tampering with the money? Anyone wanting to know exactly what is going on with the money would still have to ask for a full disclosure. So I fail to see what would be the improvement with such a page?

You're finally beginning to get it, Del. It's not about tampering with the books (something that someone would surely see at some point in an audit, as has been pointed out previously). It's about open disclosure. It's about showing how much income there is, in which funds, and at least a general overview of where it goes. It's not a detailed transaction list; it's a one- or two-page overview of the financials of the church. It's not difficult, it's not costly, and it's been done before, prior to 1959. This is a policy which can and should be changed.

And assuming that anyone who doesn't claim full support for our leaders doesn't support them at all is erronous (one of those human failings we all have.) You'd be wrong, were you to assume that.

[Del March]

You're finally beginning to get it, Del. It's not about tampering with the books (something that someone would surely see at some point in an audit, as has been pointed out previously). It's about open disclosure. It's about showing how much income there is, in which funds, and at least a general overview of where it goes. It's not a detailed transaction list; it's a one- or two-page overview of the financials of the church. It's not difficult, it's not costly, and it's been done before, prior to 1959. This is a policy which can and should be changed.

No I still don't get it, because I just don't see the POINT of such a partial disclosure. This would be even worse than no disclosure at all IMO. "Hey guys, see how much money we make, and how much our members pay in tithing and fast offerings, and how much we spend on humanitarian aid and other charitable projects, and so on". And then everyone starts comparing the percentages and the numbers with other churches, and gloating or deriling. I would simply hate that. There would be absolutely no point. Numbers have absolutely no value as far as I am concerned. They are not what this church is about. And I completely fail to see how it would protect the church or our leaders against anything!

The more I think about it, the more I am glad that we do NOT have those numbers.

Del

[Teancum]

You would call such a page "opening the books"? What exactly would it tell that could insure anyone that the leaders are not tampering with the money? Anyone wanting to know exactly what is going on with the money would still have to ask for a full disclosure. So I fail to see what would be the improvement with such a page?

That would be a start but I would prefer full blown financial statements with accompanying footnotes. Something like A Large Corp. issues.

Teancum

[Outshined]

That would be a start but I would prefer full blown financial statements with accompanying footnotes. Something like A Large Corp. issues.

Teancum

How many churches do this?

[KevinG]

Some of my reasons for not publishing have been debunked pretty well here, but I still think ultimately, given the lack of any scandal or evidence that money is not handled appropriately, the minimal amount of public relations issues (i.e. newsweek article once every ten years), the fact that we sustain these brethren as servants of the Lord, and the possible politicization of the budget process, the possible benefits of publishing do not outweigh the possible negatives.

I doubt Teancum or I will leave the Church over the issue either way.

It is a shame however that critics pounce on minor disagreements and issues like this and try to use them as a wedge issue or blow them up into a grand conspiracy.