Dan Peterson's Series on Church Finances and "Transparency"

[Amulek]

44 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Using big words and sarcasm doesn't make Peterson correct

What, exactly, do you think he is wrong about? And why do you believe that is the case? 

 

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Using big words and sarcasm doesn't make Peterson correct

Big words? It was written in a pretty easy style. What are you talking about?

[sjdawg]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

What, exactly, do you think he is wrong about? And why do you believe that is the case? 

 

It is impossible to know how responsible the LDS church is with their finances because they don't share the information.  I actually tend to believe they do their best to act properly but keeping finances secret always creates question marks. I also believe the funds spent on humanitarian efforts are lacking.  I agree with Peterson that investing is no the same as spending however I think the mormon church has the means to do much, much more than they do.  Of course, since the finances are secret my belief is just as hard to prove as Peterson's are.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

It is impossible to know how responsible the LDS church is with their finances because they don't share the information. 

With respect, I disagree.  I think we have substantial evidence that the Church is responsible with its finances.

We have annual reports.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Finance and Records Department, the Auditing Department, the Audit Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, the Deseret Management Corporation and its board of directors, the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, "other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves," and on and on.

Moreover, we have a robust missionary program.  And meetinghouses.  And temples.  And educational and humanitarian efforts.  And Fast Offerings.  And so on.

We also have a generalized knowledge that the General Authorities live very moderate lifestyles, particularly given the huge amounts of money to which they have access.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have tens of thousands of bishops and stake presidents and other local leaders who work for free.

We also have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."

We also have secondary, but still credible and persuasive, sources (D. Michael Quinn's “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power" being perhaps the best).  See here (emphases added):

5 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I actually tend to believe they do their best to act properly but keeping finances secret always creates question marks.

"Keeping finances secret," like "transparency," seems like a very elastic term.

5 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I also believe the funds spent on humanitarian efforts are lacking. 

A subjective and conclusory opinion that you are certainly entitled to hold.  But I question its legitimacy.

By way of example, the Church has published a statement on this issue: The Church and Its Financial Independence.  This excerpt is, I think, relevant:

Quote

Tithing funds are used to support five key areas of activity:

• Providing buildings or places of worship for members around the world. We have thousands of such buildings and continue to open more, sometimes several in a week.
• Providing education programs, including support for our universities and our seminary and institute programs.
• Supporting the Church’s worldwide missionary program.
• Building and operating nearly 140 temples around the world and the administration of the world’s largest family history program.
• Supporting the Church’s welfare programs and humanitarian aid, which serve people around the world — both members of the Church as well as those who are not members.

From time to time, some people, including journalists, try to attach a monetary value to the Church in the same way they would assess the assets of a commercial corporation. Such comparisons simply do not hold up. For instance, a corporation’s branch offices or retail outlets have to be financially justified as a source of profit. But every time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints builds a place of worship, the building becomes a consumer of assets and a financial obligation that has to be met through worldwide member donations. The ongoing maintenance and upkeep, utilities and use of the building can only be achieved as long as faithful members continue to support the Church.

On occasion someone will try to estimate the Church’s income and determine how much of that is used to care for the poor and needy. Again, they rarely capture the whole picture. The bedrock principles underlying the Church’s welfare and humanitarian efforts are Christlike service and self-reliance.

Nearly 30,000 bishops who oversee their respective congregations have direct access to Church funds to care for those in need, as they help members achieve self-sufficiency.

At Welfare Square in Salt Lake City, where the Church cans goods for its distribution warehouses, some procedures would be more efficient if automated. Instead, the Church has opted for more labor-intensive production lines that provide opportunities for people to give service and for welfare recipients to work for what they get. This is not the pattern of a commercial business, but it is the pattern for helping people to help themselves. The Church’s aim is to help individuals to overcome temporal barriers as they pursue spiritual values.

Published numbers related to our humanitarian efforts include only dollars spent directly on humanitarian service. The Church absorbs the administrative costs. Furthermore, these numbers do not reflect the Church’s extensive welfare and employment services that serve many thousands worldwide. They also do not represent Deseret Industries thrift stores that provide vouchers to other charities for their use, donations to food pantries, or humanitarian- or welfare-focused missionary service or support given to aid other relief organizations in their missions. Hundreds of thousands of hours of donated service underpin Church programs such as these.

The Church exists to improve the lives of people across the world by bringing them closer to Jesus Christ. The assets of the Church are used in ways to support that mission. Buildings are built for members to come together to worship God and to be taught the gospel of Jesus Christ. Missionaries are sent to invite people to come to Christ. Resources are used to provide food and clothing for the needy and to provide ways for people to lift themselves up and be self-reliant. What is important is not the cost but the outcome. As former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The only true wealth of the Church is in the faith of its people.”

I encourage you to read the entire article.

5 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I agree with Peterson that investing is no the same as spending however I think the mormon church has the means to do much, much more than they do. 

I encourage you to give this some further thought and study.  Consider what the Church is doing with its money.  It's not just letting the money sit in bank accounts, and is instead growing it through safe and sensible investments.  It's not hoarding every penny, and instead expends huge amounts on facilities, programs, education, missionary work, temple work, humanitarian efforts, and so on.  

Also consider what the Church is not doing with its money.  Those who have access to and control of it are no enriching themselves.  They are not living profligate lifestyles.  The vast majority of leaders in the Church donate their time and efforts.  Those few who are remunerated live comfortable, but still moderate, lifestyles.  Many General Authorities take a pretty substantial financial hit when they agree to serve.

I encourage you to read Quinn's assessment, including this bit:

Quote

Yet LDS general authorities — from the most senior apostle to the lowest-ranking Seventy — all receive the same yearly “living allowance”: $120,000. Though the church has enormous wealth, he {Quinn} says, none of the leaders is getting rich off it.
...
{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is “an enormously faith-promoting story.”

If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would “breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.”

The leaders of the Church aren't in it for the money.  Nor are its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sjdawg]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

The leaders of the Church aren't in it for the money.  Nor are its members.

 

I don't believe that I suggested they were.  If I did I certainly take that back.  I think I simply said that when finances are not shared it is impossible to know conclusively if the funds are being treated responsibly.  I am certain the internal audits find that the money is being spent in accordance with internal protocols but that is not the same as knowing if funds are being spent responsibly and in the best manner possible.

Edited December 13, 2019 by sjdawg

[rockpond]

I finished reading Parts Eight through Eleven of Peterson's series.  I had really hoped that he was going to get into more depth than the usual Church finance discussions, but he didn't.

Part Eight makes the case that we shouldn't publish Church finances because critics would pick them apart, complain, and protest.

My response to this:  They already do.  His series his is a response to those criticisms.  But what is really surprising is the turn he takes in Part Ten.

Quote

Dr. Quinn believes that the Church should renew its longtime practice of publishing basic information about its annual finances.  Not, though, because he believes that there are dirty secrets to be revealed.  Quite the contrary, he says — and I’m inclined to agree with him — that doing so would be “faith-promoting.”

I agree as well.  So if Peterson agrees that publishing church finances would be faith promoting why would he suggest that we shouldn't publish them because of criticism?  Criticism isn't going away regardless of what we do.  If publishing some basic financial statements for the church would be faith promoting, I think we should return to that practice.  Aside from being faith promoting, I think it would be helpful and encouraging to members to know things like:  how much the Church is subsidizing missionaries, how much it costs to keep one of our chapels operating year to year, etc.  Just as we ought to understand how every dollar is used in our household budgets, we ought to have some degree of knowledge about how each sacred dollar is used within the Church budget.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I finished reading Parts Eight through Eleven of Peterson's series.  I had really hoped that he was going to get into more depth than the usual Church finance discussions, but he didn't.

Part Eight makes the case that we shouldn't publish Church finances because critics would pick them apart, complain, and protest.

My response to this:  They already do.  His series his is a response to those criticisms.  But what is really surprising is the turn he takes in Part Ten.

I agree as well.  So if Peterson agrees that publishing church finances would be faith promoting why would he suggest that we shouldn't publish them because of criticism?  Criticism isn't going away regardless of what we do.  If publishing some basic financial statements for the church would be faith promoting, I think we should return to that practice.  Aside from being faith promoting, I think it would be helpful and encouraging to members to know things like:  how much the Church is subsidizing missionaries, how much it costs to keep one of our chapels operating year to year, etc.  Just as we ought to understand how every dollar is used in our household budgets, we ought to have some degree of knowledge about how each sacred dollar is used within the Church budget.

I think he's acknowledging that publication is faith promoting for some and a lightning rod for others, and is satisfied that authentic faith is more independent of so-called faith-promoting gestures about non-essential matters than adversarial bias is of data on the same. He seems willing to give up the "cherry on the top of the sundae" for the sake of promoting authentic faith in the Church's central message and function. As touched upon in the other thread about Handbook 17, not saying something is simply less distracting from what is important than saying something about what isn't.

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

I finished reading Parts Eight through Eleven of Peterson's series.  I had really hoped that he was going to get into more depth than the usual Church finance discussions, but he didn't.

Part Eight makes the case that we shouldn't publish Church finances because critics would pick them apart, complain, and protest.

My response to this:  They already do.  His series his is a response to those criticisms.  But what is really surprising is the turn he takes in Part Ten.

I agree as well.  So if Peterson agrees that publishing church finances would be faith promoting why would he suggest that we shouldn't publish them because of criticism?  Criticism isn't going away regardless of what we do.  If publishing some basic financial statements for the church would be faith promoting, I think we should return to that practice.  Aside from being faith promoting, I think it would be helpful and encouraging to members to know things like:  how much the Church is subsidizing missionaries, how much it costs to keep one of our chapels operating year to year, etc.  Just as we ought to understand how every dollar is used in our household budgets, we ought to have some degree of knowledge about how each sacred dollar is used within the Church budget.

This almost sounds like the excuse our president makes when not releasing his taxes. I know that the current prophet's teachings are the route we go but can you imagine if we had kept the United Order or law of consecration!?! Wow, we'd all be doing pretty well, or did that not include the church's bank accounts and the leaders? 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This almost sounds like the excuse our president makes when not releasing his taxes. I know that the current prophet's teachings are the route we go but can you imagine if we had kept the United Order or law of consecration!?! Wow, we'd all be doing pretty well, or did that not include the church's bank accounts and the leaders? 

Assuming it did, do you think spreading the wealth among the how many millions of members plus still providing chapels and temples and missionary work would leave that much?  Given the majority of Saints live outside the US, there is a good chance imo that the quality of lifestyle you and your family currently have would be substantially less if we lived so that worldwide all were close to the same standard of needs met and comfort provided.  Luxuries, which are a much larger part of our every day life for middle class America, might not be seen as so essential. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Assuming it did, do you think spreading the wealth among the how many millions of members plus still providing chapels and temples and missionary work would leave that much?  Given the majority of Saints live outside the US, there is a good chance imo that the quality of lifestyle you and your family currently have would be substantially less if we lived so that worldwide all were close to the same standard of needs met and comfort provided.  Luxuries, which are a much larger part of our every day life for middle class America, might not be seen as so essential. 

Yes, depending on what the amount really is, I've heard it's more like in the billions, our church's wealth. But I was just speaking jokingly, not serious at all. And not to be critical, even though coming from me, it's always going to sound that way perhaps.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, depending on what the amount really is, I've heard it's more like in the billions, our church's wealth. But I was just speaking jokingly, not serious at all. 

I think it sounds better until you calculate. Say it is 15 billion. Divide that among 15 million members (not there yet, but getting there).  That gives $1000 per member.  Double or triple that and it’s $3000. That won’t even pay for one month’s meds for my family. 

Now take all the wealth of the members and spread it out relatively equally (since this is how most imagine how the United Order works unless they study it).  Do you think there are more or less members living at your standard of living.  If less, equalizing would mean a drop in your wealth.

Not meaning to browbeat here, more about appreciating what we have. 

Of course if we were really living the United Order, it is impossible to predict what state we would be in. We might be much wealthier due to pooling efforts or we might be less due to those with wealth having less incentive to investigate with lower income individuals being interested and investigating more because of the appeal of the financial situation.  

Then there would be the government impact. How would it work with so many different governments?

It is interesting trying to figure out the angles. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it sounds better until you calculate. Say it is 15 billion. Divide that among 15 million members (not there yet, but getting there).  That gives $1000 per member.  Double or triple that and it’s $3000. That won’t even pay for one month’s meds for my family. 

Now take all the wealth of the members and spread it out relatively equally (since this is how most imagine how the United Order works unless they study it).  Do you think there are more or less members living at your standard of living.

Not meaning to browbeat here, more about appreciating what we have. 

I'm thinking it's going to be much, much more than15 billion. But yes, sorry to come into the discussion with my weirdness. Or maybe it'd be nice to know the full amount, to stop speculations.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm thinking it's going to be much, much more than15 billion. But yes, sorry to come into the discussion with my weirdness. Or maybe it'd be nice to know the full amount, to stop speculations.

1 Trillion gets us to 67,000 apiece.  For middle class Americans that wouldn’t be that much once passed out (given once given out, it’s gone).  It could be fantastic for many who live elsewhere, but only 3 years worth of upper limit of poverty level living in the US. 

If you stuck it in a bank and collected interest each year, that might get you around $2-2500 a year extra income....assuming you hadn’t  turned over at least that much to the church to be shared with others less fortunate.

But United Order probably doesn’t work that way given one of the things that brought it down was some members wanting higher status clothing than others. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

1 Trillion gets us to 67,000 apiece.  For middle class Americans that wouldn’t be that much once passed out (given once given out, it’s gone).  It could be fantastic for many who live elsewhere, but only 3 years worth of upper limit of poverty level living in the US. 

If you stuck it in a bank and collected interest each year, that might get you around $2-2500 a year extra income....assuming you hadn’t  turned over at least that much to the church to be shared with others less fortunate.

But United Order probably doesn’t work that way given one of the things that brought it down was some members wanting higher status clothing than others. 

Wow, I thought it would come out to be more. Boy, was I wrong. 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, I thought it would come out to be more. Boy, was I wrong. 

I think if we were actually able to live the United Order it would be absolutely glorious, but not because of the financial benefit. Instead it would be the Zion community it created. No more ites of any kind among us, no more have nots. 

At the moment I am too addicted to late night wandering the Internet looking for fun presents for my grandkids to want to give that up. (Though I would immediately if directed to give the money to less fortunate Saints....I probably should anyway, but the excitement of anticipation and seeing their faces light up, it brings me joy).  Not saying no more fun in our possessions when we fully consecrate our resources, I think frivolousness will be present in the eternities...just less of it, much less of it in mortality. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 12/12/2019 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  Seems like you and Scott are both good guys.  I'll let you two hash things out.

I continue to be unclear about what "transparency" means.  It seems like an almost infinitely elastic term.

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is a general definition of financial transparency:

https://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/financial-transparency/

Also here is a link to a group that talks about financial transparency for church's:

 

https://churchtransparency.org/what-is-transparency/

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Here is a general definition of financial transparency:

https://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/financial-transparency/

Also here is a link to a group that talks about financial transparency for church's:

 

https://churchtransparency.org/what-is-transparency/

 

Yep, sure enough.  That's one definition of the term.  How do you propose that we persuade all parties involved in the discussion that it's the best definition of the term, or at least that is the one best suited to this discussion?  One person's absolute transparency is another person's opacity, and a definition which one person finds perfectly adequate or perfectly well-suited to the discussion another person might believe is inadequate or ill-suited.  (And depending on how each person evaluates those criteria, both of them might be right.)

As I've said before, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints complies with disclosure laws of each of the respective countries in which it operates, including the United States.  If you don't think that the disclosure mandated under the laws of the United States is adequate, feel free to call your Congressional Representative.  I'm Ken Gourdin, and I approved this message.  

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yep, sure enough.  That's one definition of the term.  How do you propose that we persuade all parties involved in the discussion that it's the best definition of the term, or at least that is the one best suited to this discussion?  One person's absolute transparency is another person's opacity, and a definition which one person finds perfectly adequate or perfectly well-suited to the discussion another person might believe is inadequate or ill-suited.  (And depending on how each person evaluates those criteria, both of them might be right.)

As I've said before, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints complies with disclosure laws of each of the respective countries in which it operates, including the United States.  If you don't think that the disclosure mandated under the laws of the United States is adequate, feel free to call your Congressional Representative.  I'm Ken Gourdin, and I approved this message.  

I never said it was the best. I just was providing a definition.  How about this. Any not for profit, including churches, in the USA should be subject to an audited financial statement by an independent CPA Firm. Such statement should be audited based on the rules set up by the AICPA.  Additionally all NFPs should file a Form 990.  Both the audited financial statement and the Form 990 should be available for public review. This is what all NFPs in the USA must do if they receive donations over a certain amount-I think $250k but would have to check. That is all NFPs except churches. I think that law should be modified.

[Gervin]

On 12/14/2019 at 12:28 PM, Tacenda said:

I'm thinking it's going to be much, much more than15 billion. But yes, sorry to come into the discussion with my weirdness. Or maybe it'd be nice to know the full amount, to stop speculations.

Were you thinking over 100 billion?