whistleblower on Church finances

[Gillebre]

8 hours ago, lostindc said:

...or just the actions of the Church will cause faithful members to leave, such as myself.

Leaving the Church doesn't seem like a faithful thing to do. I recognize that there are those who feel this may be the last straw for them, but I don't believe anyone suddenly wakes up and decides to separate themselves from the Church. It invariably is something that builds over time as unresolved questions, fears, doubts, among other factors, erode the fundamentals of the Gospel they once held onto in the past.

I firmly believe that a core aspect of being a faithful member in the latter days is to extend the benefit of the doubt towards the Prophet and Apostles. Can anyone sincerely examine the words and teachings, the demeanor and love, of President Nelson or any of the Brethren, and honestly say they feel these men are motivated by selfishness, corruption, or any other unholy motivation or ideology? If you can testify of their calling of God, then the problem must be with the doubting questions and fears that society, and Satan, whisper in our ears. If you can't testify of their calling of God, then that becomes the starting place, in my opinion. I feel I must emphasize that questions and doubts, of themselves, are not bad or wrong, but they are the materials from which great faith can be formed as we quiet ourselves and give place for the Holy Ghost to teach us in prayer and through service.

More than anything else I think this will be one of the great safeguards against Satan. This I think, more than anything else, is what faith is, and those who've lost their faith, in my opinion, have also lost the ability to extend that benefit towards the leaders of the Church. This isn't to say that we shouldn't want or seek answers, but often I find that examining my questions, and my feelings, help me to gain a new perspective in my quest for truth and spiritual belonging.

If you or anyone else feel, truly and genuinely, that the best option available to you is to part ways with the Church, then I wish you the absolute best and hope you find what you seek wherever you go. I hope, however, that those who feel dissatisfied or disaffected will embrace great patience and wrestle with the Lord to find their footing. If one had a firm and true testimony once before then they can have it again as they work to incorporate the challenges and fears into stepping stones and long-term trust in Christ.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Gillebre

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

as in he was lying or he never actually said it?

Upon further reflection, I guess technically President Hinckley could be stating the truth.  He said that “we” think the information belongs to those who made the contributions.  I’m assuming that the “we” refers to he and other church leaders.  They may have thought that church budget info belonged to tithe-payers but they didn’t actually make it available. 

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Upon further reflection, I guess technically President Hinckley could be stating the truth.  He said that “we” think the information belongs to those who made the contributions.  I’m assuming that the “we” refers to he and other church leaders.  They may have thought that church budget info belonged to tithe-payers but they didn’t actually make it available. 

Because if they did make it available it would be all over the internet within milliseconds for all to see. 

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how many members will want to clean the toilets at church now. 

Do you believe that members were only willing to clean bathrooms before because they thought the church couldn’t afford custodians?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Even so, it is a lot more complicated in my view than just placing all the responsibility for the mistrust on the Church's not opening up their financial documents or other info to public view.  There are numerous factors involved going back a long way.  Saying "the mistrust comes from not being open about things" or to imply the only fuel for antimormon activity comes from the actions of the Church  is a massive oversimplification imo...approaching blaming the victim at times.

The Church has imo contributed to an environment where some members are prone to distrust and this includes in more ways than just lack of openness (certain authoritarian practices contribute imo).  Church members themselves have also imo contributed by promoting a culture where many idealize leadership and the Church and therefore the implications of mistakes get blown out of proportion, sometimes way out.  The general surrounding culture going way back of mistrust and dislike of Saints (citing polls for the last half century at least as well as government actions before that) that existed and exists for a variety of reasons is another contributor.  Over the decades antimormons have contributed by lying or omitting needed information (like the antimormon trope 'Jesus is Satan's brother' omits the belief every human is a child of God or the promotion of fear of Saints doing genealogy work because we baptized others' ancestors often omits it is not a forced conversion where the baptism is viewed automatically valid whether or not there is consent) while fanning the flames of mistrust and hate.

All that cannot be fairly laid at the door of 'if only the Church had been more open'.  Maybe less would have happened, but all of the hate and doubt...no way.

yeah I agree with you.  But a wise person once told me, "you can't control other peoples behavior, you can only control your own."  Since the Church leadership is contributing to a lot of the basis for these seemingly regular firestorms and mistrust, if they want things to change, it can only start with them.  Authoritative control and dishing out only what they want the members to know rather than being more open is not going to lead to a different result.  It is only a matter of time before the next trust crisis hits. Each time this happens, there is collateral damage both among the membership and how others outside view the Church.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

I don't know any members who think that. Most members think that the church tries to use the funds in a workable balance between operating costs, humanitarian aid, and saving for the future. 
It's called "Provident living" which is defined as being "wise, frugal, prudent, making provision for the future while attending to immediate needs." 
Members are taught to live this way as well as the church organization.

Well if that is the case, then why are some members having an issue with this.  Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but I think you know what I mean.  This took a lot of people by surprise.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think they should think that either.

 

 

Yeah of course.  I also have heard that my whole life.  But I think many people both in the Church and outside, see 100 billion a bit more than just prudent saving for a rainy day.  

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that members were only willing to clean bathrooms before because they thought the church couldn’t afford custodians?

We can see the efforts paying off now apparently.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well if that is the case, then why are some members having an issue with this.  Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but I think you know what I mean.  This took a lot of people by surprise.  

The difference is that I don't care what the amount is. People who do care are not paying tithing for the right reason. I have done what I have promised God I would do by paying it. What happens to it after it leaves my hands is up to the church leaders who I trust, and who will be held accountable to God if they misuse it. 

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Because if they did make it available it would be all over the internet within milliseconds for all to see. 

Well, I would assume that if the Church ever decided to publish financial reports they would publish them on the church website, as they do with nearly everything else. 
 

But that doesn’t change President Hinckley’s statement that he thinks they should share budget info with tithepayers. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how many members will want to clean the toilets at church now. 

I wondered the same. However the purported 32 billion in stock estimation had people posting they would not assist with cleaning because janitors could be paid. I don't think the EPA fund will change someones willingness to clean a building. 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, I would assume that if the Church ever decided to publish financial reports they would publish them on the church website, as they do with nearly everything else. 
 

But that doesn’t change President Hinckley’s statement that he thinks they should share budget info with tithepayers. 

I wouldn't really call it a "statement"; it was a quick answer to a reporter who was asking him questions and wanting quick short answers. Maybe he really thinks that information should only be shared with the members but there's no feasible way to do it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how many members will want to clean the toilets at church now. 

<enthusiastically puts hand in air>

I love cleaning the chapel. For me, it's an act of reverence, worship even, that brings me closer to the Lord. The house bears His name on the outside and shelters His Saints and others seeking protection and peace on the inside. It is a place of joyful communion and sacred covenant-making. Making it sparkle is a gift I give to Him.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

But I think many people both in the Church and outside, see 100 billion a bit more than just prudent saving for a rainy day.  

I can't speak for people outside the Church, but for this person inside the Church, my reaction was a bit like this: 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The difference is that I don't care what the amount is. People who do care are not paying tithing for the right reason. I have done what I have promised God I would do by paying it. What happens to it after it leaves my hands is up to the church leaders who I trust, and who will be held accountable to God if they misuse it. 

Paying tithes and being concerned with how the Church handles sacred funds are two entirely separate matters. 

I happily pay my tithes and offerings. 

I would also like more insight into church finances (but that doesn’t change my desire to pay tithes).

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wouldn't really call it a "statement"; it was a quick answer to a reporter who was asking him questions and wanting quick short answers.

By definition, it was a statement.  If you want to load that word with extra meaning, that’s on you. 

48 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Maybe he really thinks that information should only be shared with the members but there's no feasible way to do it. 

If, when he answered the question, he was really thinking that there was no way they were going to share that info with members, than his answer was deceptive. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I wondered the same. However the purported 32 billion in stock estimation had people posting they would not assist with cleaning because janitors could be paid. I don't think the EPA fund will change someones willingness to clean a building. 

First, I understand the huge sacrifice most of the upper echelon leaders give and the hours they're kept away from family. But OTOH, I have thought about how those on the low end of the proverbial totem pole feel, like the ward auxillaries who have to stay within a fairly strict budget that usually isn't enough.

And the many hours that the stake presidency, bishopric, relief society, elder's quorum, primary and ym/yw presidencies put in. Not to exclude other callings, these just stood out.  And the tithes that come in and then most of it leave the ward buildings and go straight to headquarters.

The humongous sacrifice those that serve missions give as well, especially senior missionaries. But only half of the equation receive payment for their efforts. Why is that? For instance, the $120,000 stipend per year, and the leaders' children attending college tuition free, and many other perks. So it looks like all leaders above the stake presidencies receive payment, or I could be wrong, please correct me if so.

But those on the lower end do not get these perks and ward members don't get much for their sacrifice through payment of tithing and their time and talents, besides their entrance to the temple, which to most of you is all you need. And the ward budgets seem to be getting smaller, that's my experience anyway and a few others that I've spoken to that happen to mention things like how little a budget is for things such as a ward Christmas party or RS meetings and youth activities. Many pay for things out of their own pockets. I know I did, my husband did, and others that I'm aware of have, because of not wanting to use too much of the ward's allocated budget. 

My point is, I hope the church will start treating the ward members a lot better. And even fix some of the older ward buildings that are falling apart, mine is terrible, and hire the janitors back, and let the members not have to clean the toilets/restrooms, which is pretty unsanitary, been there, cleaned many a toilet/urinal etc.

I believe some members who know that the church has that kind of money might just start to wonder about the things I've mentioned here. ETA: I like what Don Bradley posted below!

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

By definition, it was a statement.  If you want to load that word with extra meaning, that’s on you. 

If, when he answered the question, he was really thinking that there was no way they were going to share that info with members, than his answer was deceptive. 

I think it was a quick answer to satisfy the reporter. If he had time to think about it more he might have said something different. I cut him a lot of slack in such a situation.

[DonBradley]

Everything I have ever seen and heard about the church's leadership leads me to trust that church leaders are sincere, committed, non-materialistic, and exercise careful stewardship of church resources.

When I was an ex-Mormon regularly spending time at ex-Mormon social events, I routinely heard other ex-Mormons say church leaders were insincere in their faith and motivated by money. Having studied the church's history for decades prior to that, including having read private journals and letters of many of those leaders, this was impossible for me to believe even then. It is, in a word, preposterous. And that is not a matter of faith for me, but of simple fact.

When I learned a couple years ago, from leaked information, what the General Authority stipend was--and that it was the same for every General Authority from the newest member of the Seventy to the President of the Church this only deepened my respect for the absolutely principled nature of the church's leaders when it comes to finances. Where else in the world is their any institution of comparable income, for-profit or non-profit, in which 1) the top leader is paid so little of that income and 2) the top leader is paid on an equality with hundreds of other leaders? The CEO of a major non-profit usually gets millions. The president of this church gets a small fraction of that.

There is thus every reason to trust that the church's leaders have integrity to the bone.

If the church has, indeed, invested some $22 billion dollars over some 22 years and grown that into $100 billion, this only confirms my sense that the church leaders are exercising remarkably good stewardship over those funds. There is probably not any comparable production of such investment wealth over such a period by anyone at anytime, ever.

The question, of course, then becomes what to do with such remarkable funds. The good that could be done is immeasurable. Enduring strides could be made toward ending world hunger, curing various killing and crippling diseases, and so on. I am sure that church leaders necessarily expect to hold onto some of this money no matter what, to give the church a cushion against the worst of disasters and to put the church in a position to intervene in even the worst of crises. This is, after all, just another version of what the church has always encouraged its members to do--to keep an emergency fund and stockpile food and necessities in case of disaster.

Where I hope the reporting in the Washington Post article is wrong is where it says that the leader of this fund expects to hold onto this wealth until the Second Coming. The Second Coming does not seem like a time when there will need to be massive expenditures. Rather, it's the problems that will happen before the Second Coming, and that are happening, in fact, right now that require such means to resolve. I hope--and expect--that it will not be long before the church's leaders will begin putting some of those talents that have been multiplied by careful stewardship toward ending various kinds of suffering and creating a more millennial world.

Don

Edited December 19, 2019 by DonBradley

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, DonBradley said:

Everything I have ever seen and heard about the church's leadership leads me to trust that church leaders are sincere, committed, non-materialistic, and exercise careful stewardship of church resources.

When I was an ex-Mormon regularly spending time at ex-Mormon social events, I routinely heard other ex-Mormons say church leaders were insincere in their faith and motivated by money. Having studied the church's history for decades prior to that, including having read private journals and letters of many of those leaders, this was impossible for me to believe even then. It is, in a word, preposterous. And that is not a matter of faith for me, but of simple fact.

When I learned a couple years ago, from leaked information, what the General Authority stipend was--and that it was the same for every General Authority from the newest member of the Seventy to the President of the Church this only deepened my respect for the absolutely principled nature of the church's leaders when it comes to finances. Where else in the world is their any institution of comparable income, for-profit or non-profit, in which 1) the top leader is paid so little of that income and 2) the top leader is paid on an equality with hundreds of other leaders? The CEO of a major non-profit usually gets millions. The president of this church gets a small fraction of that.

There is thus every reason to trust that the church's leaders have integrity to the bone.

If the church has, indeed, invested some $22 billion dollars over some 22 years and grown that into $100 billion, this only confirms my sense that the church leaders are exercising remarkably good stewardship over those funds. There is probably not any comparable production of such investment wealth over such a period by anyone at anytime, ever.

The question, of course, then becomes what to do with such remarkable funds. The good that could be done is immeasurable. Enduring strides could be made toward ending world hunger, curing various killing and crippling diseases, and so on. I am sure that church leaders necessarily expect to hold onto some of this money no matter what, to give the church a cushion against the worst of disasters and to put the church in a position to intervene in even the worst of crises. This is, after all, just another version of what the church has always encouraged its members to do--to keep an emergency fund and stockpile food and necessities in case of disaster.

Where I hope the reporting in the Washington Post article is wrong is where it says that the leader of this fund expects to hold onto this wealth until the Second Coming. The Second Coming does not seem like a time when there will need to be massive expenditures. Rather, it's the problems that will happen before the Second Coming, and that are happening, in fact, right now that require such means to resolve. I hope--and expect--that it will not be long before the church's leaders will begin putting some of those talents that have been multiplied by careful stewardship toward ending various kinds of suffering and creating a more millennial world.

Don

I share in your hope.  And, I think that having more members and leaders aware of this fund will lead the Brethren toward finding some uses for it, aside from just building wealth until the second coming. 

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think it was a quick answer to satisfy the reporter. If he had time to think about it more he might have said something different. I cut him a lot of slack in such a situation.

Why would he need more time to answer?  The question was simple, why don’t you publish your church budget info. 

Seems like the answer is:  we want to keep it private from anyone outside the upper echelons is church leadership.

I’m curious why you think he needed more time to come up with an accurate answer?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

I wondered the same. However the purported 32 billion in stock estimation had people posting they would not assist with cleaning because janitors could be paid. I don't think the EPA fund will change someones willingness to clean a building. 

I think of it along the lines of making an effort to be physically fit...one sees evidence it is working, even meets one’s goals. Some will see it as wisdom to continue in the same vein or work even harder, others see themselves as deserving a reward for the hard work or see the goal as accomplished and revert back to previous behaviors because it was about reaching the goal, not changing one’s life. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ward members don't get much for their sacrifice through payment of tithing and their time and talents ...

Your statement does not match my lived experience at all.

Quote

My point is, I hope the church will start treating the ward members a lot better.

Some people think it's a burden to care for their elderly family members. I got to help care for my mum before she passed away. For weeks, I slept next to her as she held my hand tightly. Several times each night, I would help her from bed to the toilet and help her take care of everything there. In the morning, I would wash her body, clean and arrange her hair, and dress her in the clothing she selected. Then I would help her to the table, make her breakfast, and feed her. And so on throughout the day. Every single act, for me, was an act of quiet reverence. I know we worship only God, but serving my mum in these ways bordered on worship in how it felt. Here was the good woman who previously had washed my body, changed my nappies, cleaned up my spew, fed me with her own body, rocked me to sleep when I was sick, held my hand when I was scared. And she did all of this with a heart that, owing to a genetic disorder, never pumped the necessary quantity of blood. What an honour to be able to return some of that love and devotion!

The first member of the Church in our city -- baptised in 1958! -- passed away on Saturday. I visited him in his home off and on, but he spent the last four weeks in hospital and hated it! So I visited him more there, sometimes stopping in every evening on my way home. On one visit, he asked me if I would clothe him for burial. I told him I would be glad to. So yesterday afternoon, I left work early and travelled to the funeral parlour to dress this dear friend in white clothing and then in his temple robes. There was no need for me to do this; the funeral director is a Church member too and could have. But this brother asked me, and I felt deeply honoured yesterday to help prepare his mortal remains for burial. Some people would think that what he asked of me was too much. It's no easy feat to dress a lifeless body! Why couldn't he just let the paid funeral director take care of that task? But then I would have missed out on another act of quiet reverence and devotion, and as a consequence there would be less of me.

Some of the most sacred things I've ever experienced have come from things some people consider 'burdens' ... including vacuuming up the sultanas lurking beneath the cushions on the pews of our chapel. 

The key, I have found, is love. It is easy —joyful even! — to serve someone I genuinely love. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, DonBradley said:

Where I hope the reporting in the Washington Post article is wrong is where it says that the leader of this fund expects to hold onto this wealth until the Second Coming. The Second Coming does not seem like a time when there will need to be massive expenditures. Rather, it's the problems that will happen before the Second Coming, and that are happening, in fact, right now that require such means to resolve. I hope--and expect--that it will not be long before the church's leaders will begin putting some of those talents that have been multiplied by careful stewardship toward ending various kinds of suffering and creating a more millennial world.

Don

Clearly the Church does not need to stock up for after the Second Coming, once the Lord comes, all of the wealth of the world will be Christ and the Church.  The whole world will be different.  Health care expenses will be a thing of the past.  There will be no need for prisons or nations to have military expenses.  We have many problems in the world right now but compared to what is coming, the world is doing pretty good.  Considering the wars, disasters, and other things that will be occurring, we better hope the church goes into it as strong as possible as times will get hard for many members and the church.  I don't even know if the the church has 200 or 300 billion going into it that it will be enough.  Especially given that assets prices will fall like a rock and thus the church accounts will likewise go down fast too.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 I don't think members should think that the Church uses all of it's money for operating expenses and the surplus given to humanitarian causes when that is not the case.

Any person with two brain cells should know the church does stock pile funds for future use.  To give all the surplus funds to the poor sounds good in theory but that would put the church in a position that it lives day by day and year to year and at risk of any downturn.  We would not encourage any family to use their income for expenses and any excess give to the poor rather than put it in savings.  Financial ruin would be almost certain down the road for any family that does not prepare for the future and stock up.  Sure give some of it to the poor but the greater part you put into savings.  The Church would be wise to do the same. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by carbon dioxide