Clearing the Financial Record

[Teancum]

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?

Who cares?

Teancum

[wenglund]

Teancum,

You seem to be in a habit (at least on this thread) of claiming one thing, and seemingly doing otherwise.

For example, you have said,

[Outshined]

That would be a start but I would prefer full blown financial statements with accompanying footnotes.

[Moksha]

Those who are against openness will never "get it" unless their leaders tell them that openness is good. Then they will argue that at no time in the past has this openness not been present.

It is all the game of support whatever policy, no matter how deleterious or ill conceived. For them religion is a question of who can obfuscate and dodge issues the best.

Okay, keep those ledgers secret and force the Church to take the moral low ground. The mafia saves on money, has no frivolous law suits and no political contention as to where the money should be spent. And it has its own wise guys to testify that if there every was any money, which they deny, it was spent wisely and for good purpose. They do not claim the moral high ground either, after all, you need to do what your lawyers and accountants tell you.

[Teancum]

You seem to be in a habit (at least on this thread) of claiming one thing, and seemingly doing otherwise.

No I do not.

For example, you have said,

[Teancum]

Who cares?

Teancum

I don't, any more than I care about our Church doing it.

[Calm]

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.

There is too much focus on materialism among the Church membership already to my mind.

While the financial aspect of it is important in order to ensure that the missions of the Church can be carried out to the best of the members' abilities (it will only be desire and personal commitment that stands in our way, not financial hardship), I don't think starting to play the numbers game with the Church's wealth will benefit it anymore than playing it with the Church membership numbers.

If it were only those that were sincerely concerned about fulfilling their stewardship as devoted members who were interested in seeing the financial records (and I believe that some who do wish to see them do so for the right reasons), then I would be all for having them generally accessible.

However, there will be those that will use the numbers the wrong way, devout as well as nonbelievers. I can see it becoming a stumbling block shifting the emphasis from the spiritual and community aspects of the Church toward the financial side.

[Outshined]

Who cares?

Teancum

I don't, any more than I care about our Church doing it.

Fine.

Shred the statement when you get it then.

Teancum

[Del March]

I do not believe there is malfeasance myself.  Disclosure though is the only way anyone can know for sure.

But if you yourself are certain there is no malfeasance, then what is the problem? Do you mean to say that you care what some people out there think? If so, why?

I am not a large organization that requires large amount of income to be baptized and to enter the most sacred place in that religion.

Just a nitpick, but I am not sure that paying tithing is required to be baptised. I have known people who left the church in the weeks following their baptism because they realised they were expected to pay tithing. This seems to indicate that they had not yet paid any tithing.

Del

[Calm]

If you are not suspicious and are trusting of what the leaders have been saying and doing, then how could their limiting the disclosure of Church finances possibly hurt us?

Someone can be aware of the potential (and reality) for suspicion in others without being suspicious themselves. This awareness of human nature (to at times think the worse of the best) is at the core of the teaching of "avoiding the appearance of evil."

It should be obvious that church leadership cares about the public face of the Church. Some members believe this public face could be improved by being open about financial records. Others do not. It seems to me to be more a question of what aspect of human nature you are focusing on rather than a faith or trust issue.

I personally think actual numbers would bring out more wolves than they would calm the sheep, but I have no problem if others make a different judgment call based on their own experience.

[Outshined]

So far I've seen a lot of implication of wrongdoing, from comparisons to the mob to talk of "coverups", yet I haven't seen anyone say they've asked for a financial statement.

If they can just provide statements to the ones worried about misuse of funds and coverups, that would be swell.

[Teancum]

Just a nitpick, but I am not sure that paying tithing is required to be baptised. I have known people who left the church in the weeks following their baptism because they realised they were expected to pay tithing. This seems to indicate that they had not yet paid any tithing.

Del

Tithing is discussed at the interview for baptism. The investigator is asked what they understand about tithing and are they willing to obey the cammand.

Teancum

[Del March]

Tithing is discussed at the interview for baptism. The investigator is asked what they understand about tithing and are they willing  to obey the cammand.

I figured it was something like that. But the actual payment of tithing is not required, right? I mean, people can say whatever they want, but they are not actually required to do something, did I get that right? Which means that technically the payment of tithing is not required to enter in the church, only the intention to pay it

But as I said, that's a nitpick anyway.

Del

[Teancum]

Tithing is discussed at the interview for baptism. The investigator is asked what they understand about tithing and are they willing

[Del March]

The questions onthe commandments essentially say:

You have been taugh that as a member of the Church...

Keep Law of Chastity.  What is your undesrtanding of this.  Are you willing to live it.

WOW.....

Tithing....

Sabbath....

If the investgator says know they won'r do any of these then I assume that baptism could be denied.

The problem is not so much when they say no, than when they say yes. What do they mean when they say yes?

I've known people who understood theoretically what those different principles were, but who thought that an agreement to live them wasn't really binding.

Yes they would pay tithing... But nobody was really expecting them to pay it when they couldn't afford it, right?

Yes they would obey the law of chastity... But everyone who is in love does it, right?

Yes they would obey the WoW... But a glass of champagne on social occasions is not the same as drinking alcohol, right?

Yes they would keep the Sabbath day holy... But they'd always gone on week-ends with their friends, nobody was really expecting them to stop now, right?

Basically, when they said yes, they meant "yes I'll do it as often as I feel like it, promise!" They didn't realise that they were promising to do those things 24/7 for the rest of their lives, and that they would truly be expected to keep that promise.

Del

[Teancum]

The questions onthe commandments essentially say:

You have been taugh that as a member of the Church...

Keep Law of Chastity.

[wenglund]

Hi Teancum,

That was the best I could muster.

So, with as easy as it was for you to dismiss everything that I said, I obviously am not bright enough to effectively convey my message--at least in this instance.

I wasn

[Teancum]

I obviously am not bright enough to effectively convey my message--at least in this instance.

Actually I do understand your points and they were well thought out.

I wasn

[Moksha]

Some would say that openness, honesty, and disclosure are good ethical business practices. That is why corporations should do it. That is why all the other Churches do it.

Business Ethics are desirable.

[Golden Tapir]

(teancum)

Same with direct contributions to humectation aid.

There you have it, ladies and germs; the pure & simple reason that there should be disclosure and 'truly' "Independent" audits (not done by employees of the audit target)... Human Mistakes.

I believe teancum meant to say "humanitarian"....

while disclosure ITSELF prob won't end human errors..it will give us rank-and-file a chance to see how the books, records, reports, etc. are done. A performance audit may assure us that there is not too much nepotism in church employment practices (on and on)...

case closed?

[Del March]

while disclosure ITSELF prob won't end human errors..it will give us rank-and-file a chance to see how the books, records, reports, etc. are done.  A performance audit may assure us that there is not too much nepotism in church employment practices (on and on)...

And?

What additional good would that do to all those of us who are already pretty sure that things are done reasonably well?

As for the others, if they need such an assurance, they can ASK.

Personally, there are already way too many motives of accusation I have had to defend the church against. I really don't need to add "your church is so rich" and all the varied implications and wrong conclusions people would draw from that fact on top of it. I'm quite glad most people don't realise how much money the church really collects. That's one less arrow in their quiver.

Del

[Golden Tapir]

(Del March)

"Personally, there are already way too many motives of accusation I have had to defend the church against. I really don't need to add "your church is so rich" and all the varied implications and wrong conclusions people would draw from that fact on top of it. I'm quite glad most people don't realise how much money the church really collects. That's one less arrow in their quiver."

Sorry, Del, but that's lame.

We don't let the prisoners run the prison, don't let the animals run the zoo.

Same logic: We shouldn't let others run the church, determine it's policies/procedures.

If you want/choose to defend the church, that's your private decision.

"What others eat doesn't make me poop"

[Refuge]

Not sure about what's in the church financial records, but if there's a blemish, it's no more than what's been out there in other churches. And to make the records public would sure get the monkeys off our backs, if you know what I mean.

[Refuge]

"What you eat doesn't make me poop"

I LOVE THAT!!! I'm gonna get a t-shirt saying that.

[Del March]

We don't let the prisoners run the prison, don't let the animals run the zoo.

Same logic: We shouldn't let others run the church, determine it's policies/procedures.

Then why do so many people on this thread insist that the church should do this or that because that's what others do, because that's the right way to do things in the world, and so on? Why do people argue that disclosing the books would protect the church and its leaders, if we don't care about what others say?

Personally I do NOT care what others say. That's why I see no reason to disclose the books if the leaders don't want to. All I was saying is that it also makes my life easier as a defender of the church. But this personal reason is not the main reason I support the leaders. The main reason I support the leaders in their not disclosing the books is that I don't care what anybody else thinks, so I don't care about alleviating their curiosity or suspicions.

Del