The church's billions in perspective.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I feel your pain. I am a finance clerk and a stake auditor at the same time (I don't get to audit my own ward 😒). Sometimes there's things the Bishop or someone else does that is beyond my control and we get dinged for it.
The other ward clerks like it when I audit them because I go a little easier on them than other auditors.

We had one auditor….oh….it was awful. He would take 15 minutes and stare at the screen trying to figure out whether a situation qualified as an exception or not. He did this several times. I didn’t care whether we got the exception or not. Just make a decision and move on.

Last time was good. We had a new guy so I half-trained him as we went. It also let he hide our most dodgy looking event. Nothing evil, but you could argue it gave off the appearance of evil. Emergency welfare thing that was badly documented because it was a genuine emergency and there was no way to recover paperwork after the fact.

[JustAnAustralian]

Don't forget to make sure your bishoprics have watched the finances/sacred funds video together. One of the easiest things to get pinged on, yet pretty much the easiest thing to avoid getting pinged on.

Edited June 20, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Don't forget to make sure your bishoprics have watched the finances/sacred funds video together. One of the easiest things to get pinged on, yet pretty much the easiest thing to avoid getting pinged on.

 

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We had one auditor….oh….it was awful. He would take 15 minutes and stare at the screen trying to figure out whether a situation qualified as an exception or not. He did this several times. I didn’t care whether we got the exception or not. Just make a decision and move on.

Last time was good. We had a new guy so I half-trained him as we went. It also let he hide our most dodgy looking event. Nothing evil, but you could argue it gave off the appearance of evil. Emergency welfare thing that was badly documented because it was a genuine emergency and there was no way to recover paperwork after the fact.

Guys, is the church super worried over minute things especially when it comes to members in need or am I reading wrong? Such as the emergency welfare that you mention. Because if so, then that makes me step way back. Yesterday I spoke to a long time friend of my sons whose wife worked with the African members and how sad she was when Pres Nelson came to speak with them and how the only thing he said to them or the main point in his talk was about them paying their tithing and how they wouldn't get a temple if they didn't. She was so disappointed that he didn't speak more on other things, she eventually went inactive and seeking other faiths. 

I feel like the church spends a lot of money on advertisements, or they did. And not enough on their members whose donations are the reason the church can do what it does.

Bet now I'm going to get a barrage of posters saying otherwise.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Guys, is the church super worried over minute things especially when it comes to members in need or am I reading wrong? Such as the emergency welfare that you mention. Because if so, then that makes me step way back. Yesterday I spoke to a long time friend of my sons whose wife worked with the African members and how sad she was when Pres Nelson came to speak with them and how the only thing he said to them or the main point in his talk was about them paying their tithing and how they wouldn't get a temple if they didn't. She was so disappointed that he didn't speak more on other things, she eventually went active and seeking other faiths. 

I feel like the church spends a lot of money on advertisements, or they did. And not enough on their members whose donations are the reason the church can do what it does.

I think you got the wrong idea. The auditor has no problem with the bishop using fast offering funds and, in fact, is not supposed to make calls as to what the bishop says. The information the auditor wants is to make sure the bishop approved all expenses before they are made and to make sure the money is accounted for. The latter is what the auditor is looking for. They need receipts or some documentation that the money went where it is said it went. This is what sometimes gives clerks headaches. It is administrative recording I am complaining about.

It is not that auditors are trying to make sure the ward spends less money or gives less in welfare. If there is a problem in that area the Stake President talks with the bishop. I only know of this happening once when fast offering expenses spiked due to a series of coincidental setbacks for many members of the ward that just all hit at the same time. It was just talked about in their regular interview and there was nothing more.

Basically auditors are there to prevent any form of fraud. In the church if both the bishop and clerk go bad it can go very bad. They need proof that the money is going where it is said to be going and to make sure it is not being redirected into private pockets. They also need evidence that the Bishop approved all expenses. I make an effort to minimize any reimbursements to myself because those get scrutinized and we avoid even more money going to the Bishop because all those need stake president review. It happens in emergencies but we try to avoid. The digital system has made this a lot easier. Two approvals before money goes out and everything approved by the bishop. The biggest concern left is checks and I really wish we could get rid of paper checks but there are problems with all the alternatives.

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Guys, is the church super worried over minute things especially when it comes to members in need or am I reading wrong? Such as the emergency welfare that you mention. Because if so, then that makes me step way back. Yesterday I spoke to a long time friend of my sons whose wife worked with the African members and how sad she was when Pres Nelson came to speak with them and how the only thing he said to them or the main point in his talk was about them paying their tithing and how they wouldn't get a temple if they didn't. She was so disappointed that he didn't speak more on other things, she eventually went active and seeking other faiths. 

I feel like the church spends a lot of money on advertisements, or they did. And not enough on their members whose donations are the reason the church can do what it does.

Bet now I'm going to get a barrage of posters saying otherwise.

OK I will start the barrage 😊

They are not so worried abut giving the welfare, but just making sure it is accounted for correctly. Unfortunately there are a few members who try to take advantage of the system to maintain an expensive lifestyle and checks might be written without sufficient documentation to backup the reason for the amount given.
The paying tithing request for the African members has been used successfully before when President Snow asked the members back then to exercise their faith and pay tithing and pray for rain, and it worked for them.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think you got the wrong idea. The auditor has no problem with the bishop using fast offering funds and, in fact, is not supposed to make calls as to what the bishop says. The information the auditor wants is to make sure the bishop approved all expenses before they are made and to make sure the money is accounted for. The latter is what the auditor is looking for. They need receipts or some documentation that the money went where it is said it went. This is what sometimes gives clerks headaches. It is administrative recording I am complaining about.

It is not that auditors are trying to make sure the ward spends less money or gives less in welfare. If there is a problem in that area the Stake President talks with the bishop. I only know of this happening once when fast offering expenses spiked due to a series of coincidental setbacks for many members of the ward that just all hit at the same time. It was just talked about in their regular interview and there was nothing more.

Basically auditors are there to prevent any form of fraud. In the church if both the bishop and clerk go bad it can go very bad. They need proof that the money is going where it is said to be going and to make sure it is not being redirected into private pockets. They also need evidence that the Bishop approved all expenses. I make an effort to minimize any reimbursements to myself because those get scrutinized and we avoid even more money going to the Bishop because all those need stake president review. It happens in emergencies but we try to avoid. The digital system has made this a lot easier. Two approvals before money goes out and everything approved by the bishop. The biggest concern left is checks and I really wish we could get rid of paper checks but there are problems with all the alternatives.

One question, lucky you right?  Does the left over fast offerings per month, if any, get sent to church headquarters? I think I heard they did. Which to me should stay within the ward. But maybe I can see it being good only, and I mean only, if they go to humanitarian needs out there. 

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

OK I will start the barrage 😊

They are not so worried abut giving the welfare, but just making sure it is accounted for correctly. Unfortunately there are a few members who try to take advantage of the system to maintain an expensive lifestyle and checks might be written without sufficient documentation to backup the reason for the amount given.
The paying tithing request for the African members has been used successfully before when President Snow asked the members back then to exercise their faith and pay tithing and pray for rain, and it worked for them.

Thanks JAHS. 

[Duncan]

This is anecdotal I know but 21 years ago the Presiding Bishop, H. David Burton came here for Stake Conference. He said, in essence, please use the welfare fund, he said that our previous Stake President was a friend of his and he then was a BYU Prof and the church pays his salary and doesn't miss the money but welfare money is there to be used so if need be ya know use it.

[Harry T. Clark]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah a great idea

Did you know that if BIG investors reveal what they are buying the price instantly doubles??

Again- stick to subjects you understand.

I pay my tithing- I don't want the outfit I am contributing that kind of money to have stupid investment babies working for them.  Nearly all the RE investors I work with have assignable contracts in negotiations and use some sort of LLC to hide who the real buyer is.  I don't know if the church does that, but I wish they would if they are not doing it already.

I don't want them paying double because they feel compelled to be "transparent" to members criticism.   That's just stupid.   "Church buys half of Idaho!"   What would you think that would to Idaho real estate prices?

Do you ever watch church news videos they show after conferences?  Those are primarily about how many people the church has helped in humanitarian aid.

I do, that's why I proposed to disclose only once a year.  It is really just a deflection you are doing anyway.  Wall Street has quarterly disclosures and seem to still make investment decisions without being front run.  Front running is what the big wall street investors do but that is another story.

How about once every two years? 5 years?  Would you agree to any disclosure?  If they disclose what they did 1 year ago, how would there be any front running?

ETA:  you know if Warren Buffett discloses trades he has made after they are made, a lot of investors will pile into those investments, pumping up the stock.  Timing is everything and disclosure could allow investment gains if done after the trading positions are made.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Harry T. Clark

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

One question, lucky you right?  Does the left over fast offerings per month, if any, get sent to church headquarters? I think I heard they did. Which to me should stay within the ward. But maybe I can see it being good only, and I mean only, if they go to humanitarian needs out there. 

Actually it all goes to church headquarters. What we do in the ward is to try and keep a positive balance for what comes in and out of the fast offerings for the ward. No one is denied fast offering assistance if the ward has a negative balance. The Stake president will work with the Bishop to see how that can be resolved if possible. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

One question, lucky you right?  Does the left over fast offerings per month, if any, get sent to church headquarters? I think I heard they did. Which to me should stay within the ward. But maybe I can see it being good only, and I mean only, if they go to humanitarian needs out there. 

In the United States there is no separate fund on the ward or stake level for Fast Offerings. There is one national (at least) fund that we pull from. All donations also go straight there. Checks pull their money from there and electronic fund transfer reimbursements for Fast Offering expenses (pretty rare for Fast Offerings) are covered from it. I can account for how much comes in versus how much goes out but this is not a hindrance. I have been clerk in a ward that paid out four times what came in in terms of Fast Offerings and nothing changed other than the Stake President reviewing the situation with the Bishop.

Food orders per ward are also tracked by dollar value and recorded. I don’t work with that system much anymore. My ward has largely turned it over to the Elder’s Quorum and Relief Society Presidencies. The Relief Society Presidency developed a standard “package” for families in need and both Presidencies use it most of the time. They enter it and often arrange transport. The Bishop just digitally signs off on it.

In the old days the ward was limited to what came in and could request more from the Stake and the Stake could request more from Salt Lake. Excess funds were usually scooped up and moved up the food chain to be redistributed to wards and stakes with more need. That might be how the Church still runs the program in nations without the infrastructure to maintain a central account for all. I honestly don’t know.

The ward is limited in terms of budget allocations and the Ward Missionary Fund. You can actually overdraw on them like you can with Fast Offerings since that also comes from one big account but the Stake Clerk will see it and the Stake President will almost certainly ask what is going on there. They tend to be much more strict about that compared to Fast Offerings but I do know there are wards that have done it.

This joint account approach is also one reason donation slips have that proviso about trying to use funds for what they are intended but no promises. There are other legal reasons for the proviso of course. If there was a huge increase in Fast Offering distributions that emptied the general Fast Offering fund the Church would have to cover it from Tithing donations or some other source.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the United States there is no separate fund on the ward or stake level for Fast Offerings. There is one national (at least) fund that we pull from. All donations also go straight there. Checks pull their money from there and electronic fund transfer reimbursements for Fast Offering expenses (pretty rare for Fast Offerings) are covered from it. I can account for how much comes in versus how much goes out but this is not a hindrance. I have been clerk in a ward that paid out four times what came in in terms of Fast Offerings and nothing changed other than the Stake President reviewing the situation with the Bishop.

Food orders per ward are also tracked by dollar value and recorded. I don’t work with that system much anymore. My ward has largely turned it over to the Elder’s Quorum and Relief Society Presidencies. The Relief Society Presidency developed a standard “package” for families in need and both Presidencies use it most of the time. They enter it and often arrange transport. The Bishop just digitally signs off on it.

In the old days the ward was limited to what came in and could request more from the Stake and the Stake could request more from Salt Lake. Excess funds were usually scooped up and moved up the food chain to be redistributed to wards and stakes with more need. That might be how the Church still runs the program in nations without the infrastructure to maintain a central account for all. I honestly don’t know.

The ward is limited in terms of budget allocations and the Ward Missionary Fund. You can actually overdraw on them like you can with Fast Offerings since that also comes from one big account but the Stake Clerk will see it and the Stake President will almost certainly ask what is going on there. They tend to be much more strict about that compared to Fast Offerings but I do know there are wards that have done it.

This joint account approach is also one reason donation slips have that proviso about trying to use funds for what they are intended but no promises. There are other legal reasons for the proviso of course. If there was a huge increase in Fast Offering distributions that emptied the general Fast Offering fund the Church would have to cover it from Tithing donations or some other source.

Very knowledgeable, thanks Nehor!!

[Harry T. Clark]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If the church spends its money wisely and the public are morons when the church shows the morons their books will the morons see said wisdom?

I doubt it.

Great deflecting response.  I think the public would understand just fine.  I also think you know this and this is why you are having a little heartburn over the issue.  Fallible leaders make mistakes and perhaps we are seeing one right now.

Disclosure would certainly stop the critics as I am guessing that there isn't much other than perhaps an outsized devotion to investments.  Good for them.  They are supposedly wise with their money.  Let's see it.  Once the disclosures start, there might be some initial explaining to do and then the story would subside as most do.

[CA Steve]

What is the difference between being criticized for how the church spends money and failing to disclose how it spends it?

And why should the church (if that is what they are doing - I have my doubts) make disclosure decisions based on what critics might say?

Seems like anyway we look at it there will be criticism.

Edited June 20, 2021 by CA Steve

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Great deflecting response.  I think the public would understand just fine.  I also think you know this and this is why you are having a little heartburn over the issue.  Fallible leaders make mistakes and perhaps we are seeing one right now.

Disclosure would certainly stop the critics as I am guessing that there isn't much other than perhaps an outsized devotion to investments.  Good for them.  They are supposedly wise with their money.  Let's see it.  Once the disclosures start, there might be some initial explaining to do and then the story would subside as most do.

It is not a deflecting response. Our critics thought the ‘letter to the IRS’ was well-written and had some good points despite it being drivel no one at the IRS would care about. Am I meant to assume that when it comes to an actual financial document they will turn into erudite accountants with a deep knowledge of finance? I am not upset. I am mocking them. It is what I do.

Disclosure would stop no one and you are naive to think otherwise. We are living in a world where people will insist things did not happen when we have video evidence of them happening. Putting facts out there will not change the views of idiots and there are a lot of idiots out there. I really don’t think we need a church essay that goes over the church’s financials and explains what line 33b means and why it does not mean the Church is selling kids into slavery in Loompaland no matter what KolobDestroyer666 posted online.

Edited June 20, 2021 by The Nehor

[Harry T. Clark]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not a deflecting response. Our critics thought the ‘letter to the IRS’ was well-written and had some good points despite it being drivel no one at the IRS would care about. Am I meant to assume that when it comes to an actual financial document they will turn into erudite accountants with a deep knowledge of finance? I am not upset. I am mocking them. It is what I do.

Disclosure would stop no one and you are naive to think otherwise. We are living in a world where people will insist things did not happen when we have video evidence of them happening. Putting facts out there will not change the views of idiots and there are a lot of idiots out there. I really don’t think we need a church essay that goes over the church’s financials and explains what line 33b means and why it does not mean the Church is selling kids into slavery in Loompaland no matter what KolobDestroyer666 posted online.

Why the appeal to the silly case?  Obviously, that isn't an issue.  Crackpots will always exist, but, does that mean that most are?  I don't think so.  This is simply an issue of should a church be accountable to explain what it does with the funds the members trust to it.  I think it should be.

On another note, do you think tithing receipts would go down if the church disclosed the true amount of its wealth?  There was that insider for Ensign Peak that said so to the Wall Street Journal.  Do you think this is why there is resistance?

If the church disclosed its finances every year, I am sure most would still faithfully pay.  Establishing a kingdom of God on earth would be pretty expensive and I think the brethren could sell that as a reason to keep paying as well as the commandment aspect to tithing.

Anyway, at a certain point, does the church have too much for its needs?  What if the church investment wizards had $3 Trillion under management in 100 years or so, is that too much?  What about $150 Billion?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Are you forgetting that she called them patriarchal pricks?

I think one time she did that. Is that worthy of excommunication?  Do you think that was the only reason.  Or was it the other criticism.  And what about Sam Young?

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

Apostates can be virtuous and non-critical and still be excommunicated. Or they can be publicly critical of doctrine, the system and/or the leaders, and still be excommunicated. It all depends on the situation.

Have you been excommunicated for publicly criticizing the Church leaders for the Church's financial practices or any other Church doctrine or practice? Do you think you should be, or would you like to be?

I have not publicly criticized the LDS church leaders out in the open.  I am just an anonymous apostate on an insignificant message board.  No at this point I would not welcome excommunication. Tus I don't go out in the wide public work with issues I see that I think are worth the criticism. So again I ask you is it fine for members to criticize LDS church leaders in a public way and if so to what point.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have not publicly criticized the LDS church leaders out in the open.  I am just an anonymous apostate on an insignificant message board.  No at this point I would not welcome excommunication. Tus I don't go out in the wide public work with issues I see that I think are worth the criticism. So again I ask you is it fine for members to criticize LDS church leaders in a public way and if so to what point.

To answer your question, it depends on many factors (See Handbook 32.7). The process of determining whether a particular public criticism of Church leaders constitutes apostasy to the level of a membership council can be found in the Handbook, 32.6.3.2 (also see 32.11.5).

Do you really identify as an apostate in your heart-of-hearts? I always took posters' self-labeling as apostates as self-deprecating or sardonic humor, sometimes apparently passive-aggressive.

[Stargazer]

On 6/17/2021 at 4:43 PM, jkwilliams said:

Reminds me of a scripture.

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I don't begrudge the church making sure it's solvent, but yeah, that's a heck of a lot of money just sitting there.

In a financial catastrophe, all that cash will be pretty well worthless. And that is what a hyperinflation will do to cash. Probably why the church owns actual real wealth: land.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Disclosure would certainly stop the critics ...

4 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Anyway, at a certain point, does the church have too much for its needs?  What if the church investment wizards had $3 Trillion under management in 100 years or so, is that too much? 

Nope. In fact, that sounds awesome, and I sincerely hope it doesn't take 100 years!

People who ask these questions clearly see the Church as some finite entity with finite 'needs'. Devout members see it as the literal Kingdom of God, with needs that are global and that will only end when the mortal earth itself does.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think one time she did that.

That's one time we know of. It makes it pretty clear though that she wasn't just making criticism of policies.

[Calm]

Quote

Disclosure would certainly stop the critics ...

 

While the world had less access and likely interest in the past, do we have evidence there was little to no criticism by critics of the Church of the way the Church used funds when they were publishing more financial info?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

To answer your question, it depends on many factors (See Handbook 32.7). The process of determining whether a particular public criticism of Church leaders constitutes apostasy to the level of a membership council can be found in the Handbook, 32.6.3.2 (also see 32.11.5).

Do you really identify as an apostate in your heart-of-hearts? I always took posters' self-labeling as apostates as self-deprecating or sardonic humor, sometimes apparently passive-aggressive.

Ok.  But I am interested in what you think is valid criticism.  Not what the handbook says.  

No I am not an apostate in my heart of hearts.  It is self deprecating and is likely a bit of a passive aggressive remark at times. I actually still care of the LDS Church quite a bit and still have many Latter-day Saints in my social circles. I do think bout going back to church at times and there is much I really do miss.  But there is also much I don't miss as well.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That's one time we know of. It makes it pretty clear though that she wasn't just making criticism of policies.

Hardly.  An off the cuff remark is all it really was. Helfer was clearly ex'd due to her criticism of Church leaders and Church policy.  If you can demonstrate her vulgar remark was common feel free. Otherwise it seems pretty clear.  She vocally criticized Church leaders and Church policy and that is why she was ex'd.