The church's billions in perspective.

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/17/2021 at 6:00 PM, jkwilliams said:

The funny thing is that the church used to be happy to publish their finances every year. Now you’re some kind of evil ark-steadier if you suggest such a thing. 

I think the problem is what are the benefits and negatives about publishing such things?  If the Church publishes the finances and what they spend on, there is going to be a vocal group of people out there who are just going to complain and complain about something.  The majority that will not complain are the same people who are not complaining now.  I see little upside to being transparent but more downside.  I believe the people who really want to know the details the most are the ones who are most likely to complain the most.  They never will be completely happy with the decisions made by the church. They will complain regardless so might as well not bother.  It makes sense to me.  When I was growing up, sometimes my mom would complain if I did not do something.  If I did it, she would complain if I did not do it right.  She had very high standards so odds are it would not be done right.  So I had a choice but either way she would complain.  So the easiest choice was not doing it.  At least I was spared of that.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think the problem is what are the benefits and negatives about publishing such things?  If the Church publishes the finances and what they spend on, there is going to be a vocal group of people out there who are just going to complain and complain about something.  The majority that will not complain are the same people who are not complaining now.  I see little upside to being transparent but more downside.  I believe the people who really want to know the details the most are the ones who are most likely to complain the most.  They never will be completely happy with the decisions made by the church. They will complain regardless so might as well not bother.  It makes sense to me.  When I was growing up, sometimes my mom would complain if I did not do something.  If I did it, she would complain if I did not do it right.  She had very high standards so odds are it would not be done right.  So I had a choice but either way she would complain.  So the easiest choice was not doing it.  At least I was spared of that.

 

 

There is also the reality that some of the church’s spending will make no sense as it is driven by preparations that will appear nonsensical.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Perhaps so, but there are experienced accountants and auditors that would understand the disclosures and would then be able to explain it to the regular members. 

Maybe this is one of the places where there needs to be a change?  I have a friend who doesn't do so that much any more as I think he moved on, but, a few years ago he would periodically ask me to tell him where the fallible prophets were making mistakes and showing their fallibility.  He wanted to show how we tend to only give lip-service to how our leaders are fallible.  They are and perhaps disclosure is a wrong path taken that needs to be corrected.

I see this as an example of the issue with control: once funds are donated in the name of the Lord, you lose control of how they are used. It doesn't matter that He delegated the process for fallible people, who were called from among us no less, to manage them. Transparency is a control measure for Caesar's purposes, which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that would be the extent of the Church's obligation to report.

The Lord's version of transparency is revelation, and He reveals what we need to know individually (on a personal level)  and collectively (through the prophets).

[Harry T. Clark]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I see this as an example of the issue with control: once funds are donated in the name of the Lord, you lose control of how they are used. It doesn't matter that He delegated the process for fallible people, who were called from among us no less, to manage them. Transparency is a control measure for Caesar's purposes, which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that would be the extent of the Church's obligation to report.

The Lord's version of transparency is revelation, and He reveals what we need to know individually (on a personal level)  and collectively (through the prophets).

What? So, when do you think Caesar will force the Lord to disclose the Lord's investment income?  Perhaps the Lord isn't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar?  How does Caesar know if the Lord won't reveal it to him?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

What? So, when do you think Caesar will force the Lord to disclose the Lord's investment income?  Perhaps the Lord isn't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar?  How does Caesar know if the Lord won't reveal it to him?

I suggest you consult IRS proceedures in auditing non-profit organizations.  THAT would be "Caesar" if you understand the analogy.  Trust me, the Feds can and will come after the church if their investments are not in line with quite restrictive laws

I know a fair amount about taxation and charitable foundation proceedures, but not in that much detail.

Trust me- it happens every year just like it does for we humans.

And there is absolutely NO problem in foundations investing their funds properly.  Why do you think that all these celebrities have charitable foundations??

If you are going to criticize what you don't understand, I suggest you study up on how these proceedures work before you decide to criticize it.   And having some idea of how many lawyers the church has, I would suggest you have nothing to worry about.

Celebrities start charitable foundations- not because they care about humanity- though in deed they might, but because if they did not, a lot of their money would go for income taxes.

Instead they put into family foundations or other charitable entities which have different tax laws, which benefit them for what they "give".

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

What? So, when do you think Caesar will force the Lord to disclose the Lord's investment income?  Perhaps the Lord isn't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar?  How does Caesar know if the Lord won't reveal it to him?

Governments and the Lord have been operating in relation to each other from the get-go. There is nothing new here.

I don't think governments confuse their regulations concerning churches with regulating God.

The Church abides by governmental disclosure requirements to the satisfaction of the jurisdictions within which she operates, and so "renders unto Caesar"  properly.

Governments don't rely on the Lord for revelation, just the churches reporting systems for disclosure.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

So your references are cherry-picked from cherry-=picked memes? What do you have to say from the 1987 talk and the 1991 book? Did you read them? What kind of criticism is he talking about (I spotted it in 2 seconds after seeing the link to the May 1986 talk)?

I did a quick search and found you the quotes.  Feel free to spin it anyway you wish. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

What? So, when do you think Caesar will force the Lord to disclose the Lord's investment income?  Perhaps the Lord isn't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar?  How does Caesar know if the Lord won't reveal it to him?

This is stupid. We've gone from 'I don't personally like what the Church is doing' with its money to 'I do not like it therefore it is likely to be fraud'. 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha when memes like these are the first things that come up quickly in someone's search, that says a lot about the searcher's bias.

Can you tell us what the article says about the kind of criticism is being discussed?

I don't claim to be free from bias. Nobody is. I don't need to provide some documented research for the position. It is clear that now President Oaks had frequently said to criticize church leaders is wrong. 

 

So tell me, is it ok then to criticize them for not publishing financial information?  It seems to stir up a lot of anger by the true believers here. When and what is ok as far as criticism goes?  Natasha Helfer criticized then for their position on masturbation, same sex marriage, gender issues and such and she got the boot.  And her SP said it was for her vocal public criticism.  I did read the article and know what is discussed.  Helfer's criticism does not seem to fall into that description yet she was excommunicated.  Public criticism of church leaders is one sure way to get kicked out the LDS Church.

[Harry T. Clark]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is stupid. We've gone from 'I don't personally like what the Church is doing' with its money to 'I do not like it therefore it is likely to be fraud'. 

I'm sure the church is spending its money wisely.  So, why hide it from public view?  Why not let their light shine instead of hiding it under a bushel?  Why not just get rid of the issue and let everyone know what the church is doing and it wouldn't have to be immediate daily disclosure either.  How about yearly to start?  How about making the yearly audit public?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I'm sure the church is spending its money wisely.  So, why hide it from public view?  Why not let their light shine instead of hiding it under a bushel?  Why not just get rid of the issue and let everyone know what the church is doing and it wouldn't have to be immediate daily disclosure either.  How about yearly to start?  How about making the yearly audit public?

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.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is stupid. We've gone from 'I don't personally like what the Church is doing' with its money to 'I do not like it therefore it is likely to be fraud'. 

Yeah like Mr Caesar, IRS,  is gonna let them get away with that.  If I worked with the IRS I would be doing forensic accounting on everything the church submitted,  just HOPING to get my hands on some of the billions.

It's just naive and unrealistic. 

[Tacenda]

53 minutes 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.

I read an article today about some churches needing to show their finances after incidences of theft by clergy etc. One article mentioned several nuns in the Catholic church that took millions, and several stories of other churches that did the same. But nothing about the LDS church. I think it's run pretty tightly and has things in place to avoid that. And they have audits always. I feel confident about that. The only problem I see is that the church could do better at not being wasteful, I know a guy that works for the church as far as setting up things for the Christmas shows etc. at the Conference Center and he sees a lot of things thrown away besides these shows that are put on, such as pianos etc. 

But still think we do a good job with the audits etc. 

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I'm sure the church is spending its money wisely.  So, why hide it from public view?  Why not let their light shine instead of hiding it under a bushel?  Why not just get rid of the issue and let everyone know what the church is doing and it wouldn't have to be immediate daily disclosure either.  How about yearly to start?  How about making the yearly audit public?

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.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah like Mr Caesar, IRS,  is gonna let them get away with that.  If I worked with the IRS I would be doing forensic accounting on everything the church submitted,  just HOPING to get my hands on some of the billions.

It's just naive and unrealistic. 

Unlikely. There was a big public relations campaign against the IRS that reduced its budget. Since then it has been slowly strangled. It was left without the resources to pursue tax cheats except for easy pickings such as (cough) the not rich (cough) since they can’t afford to go to court and pursue high level tax cheats. This was very deliberate and was done with malice and forethought. It got so bad that the IRS couldn’t even man the phones during tax season and Congress gave them money just to get their constituents to stop complaining about wait times though they mandated it could only go to man the phones. Can’t have donors getting audited after all.

The irony is that the IRS is the revenue producing mechanism of the US federal government. It has been shown again and again that ever dollar put into it yields much more than a dollar in revenue. It should be the most uncontroversial thing in the world to fund it so that it can make sure things are above board. For some reason though there is a large donor class that acts as if they are tax cheats and want the IRS weak to be as weak as a baby kitten. A suspicious person would suspect they are all cheats.

Thankfully there have been recent moves that include hopefully beefing up the IRS budget again so this many change. Hopefully it is in time so we don’t become the next Greece where tax grifts are just an accepted and unpunished way of life.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And they have audits always.

I have been a Stake Auditor as a calling before, and trust me!   It is our job to find anything that looks fishy at all!!   Going over those rent checks has to be documented from the landord in many cases, that yes, this IS the member's rent and then often the ownership is checked from public records to make sure you are talking to the right person.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been a Stake Auditor as a calling before, and trust me!   It is our job to find anything that looks fishy at all!!   Going over those rent checks has to be documented from the landord in many cases, that yes, this IS the member's rent and then often the ownership is checked from public records to make sure you are talking to the right person.

Oh, somehow I had forgotten that ward audits will be in the next month or two.

Ugh.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Unlikely. There was a big public relations campaign against the IRS that reduced its budget. Since then it has been slowly strangled. It was left without the resources to pursue tax cheats except for easy pickings such as (cough) the not rich (cough) since they can’t afford to go to court and pursue high level tax cheats. This was very deliberate and was done with malice and forethought. It got so bad that the IRS couldn’t even man the phones during tax season and Congress gave them money just to get their constituents to stop complaining about wait times though they mandated it could only go to man the phones. Can’t have donors getting audited after all.

The irony is that the IRS is the revenue producing mechanism of the US federal government. It has been shown again and again that ever dollar put into it yields much more than a dollar in revenue. It should be the most uncontroversial thing in the world to fund it so that it can make sure things are above board. For some reason though there is a large donor class that acts as if they are tax cheats and want the IRS weak to be as weak as a baby kitten. A suspicious person would suspect they are all cheats.

Thankfully there have been recent moves that include hopefully beefing up the IRS budget again so this many change. Hopefully it is in time so we don’t become the next Greece where tax grifts are just an accepted and unpunished way of life.

OK thanks for the reply.

They have softened to individuals who have not paid for years, but as far as I know that softening doesn't apply to fraudulent charitable 501 c-3's.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

OK thanks for the reply.

They have softened to individuals who have not paid for years, but as far as I know that softening doesn't apply to fraudulent charitable 501 c-3's.

Probably depends on how much it would take in resources to investigate.

A while back we had that letter to the IRS which was laughably bad in every way. Some people still thought the IRS would act on it. I expect it was passed around the IRS office at lunch so everyone could have a good laugh.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, somehow I had forgotten that ward audits will be in the next month or two.

Ugh.

Oh happy Day!  

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Helfer's criticism does not seem to fall into that description yet she was excommunicated. 

Are you forgetting that she called them patriarchal pricks?

Edited June 19, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I did a quick search and found you the quotes.  Feel free to spin it anyway you wish. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't claim to be free from bias. Nobody is. I don't need to provide some documented research for the position. It is clear that now President Oaks had frequently said to criticize church leaders is wrong. 

So tell me, is it ok then to criticize them for not publishing financial information?  It seems to stir up a lot of anger by the true believers here. When and what is ok as far as criticism goes?  Natasha Helfer criticized then for their position on masturbation, same sex marriage, gender issues and such and she got the boot.  And her SP said it was for her vocal public criticism.  I did read the article and know what is discussed.  Helfer's criticism does not seem to fall into that description yet she was excommunicated.  Public criticism of church leaders is one sure way to get kicked out the LDS Church.

Quick searches that produce memes from unreliable, nth-hand sources are a function of the search engine user's bias and search habits. We had some fun over that.

But you tell me, from the first few lines of the reliable, first-hand source you were prodded to subsequently provide, what it says of the kind of criticism Oaks is talking about. And then tell me, from the Handbook, what constitutes apostasy.

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?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh happy Day!  

My audits are either perfect with no exceptions noted or they are hellfests and preparations and doing my job well seem to have no correlation with the results. I got a no exceptions audit after six months where I was barely keeping track of anything and one riddled with exceptions after I went to the chapel the day before and spent six hours organizing everything perfectly.

As a man sows he knows not what he shall reap.

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My audits are either perfect with no exceptions noted or they are hellfests and preparations and doing my job well seem to have no correlation with the results. I got a no exceptions audit after six months where I was barely keeping track of anything and one riddled with exceptions after I went to the chapel the day before and spent six hours organizing everything perfectly.

As a man sows he knows not what he shall reap.

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.

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Celebrities start charitable foundations- not because they care about humanity- though in deed they might, but because if they did not, a lot of their money would go for income taxes.

Instead they put into family foundations or other charitable entities which have different tax laws, which benefit them for what they "give".

Yes, private charities allow them to maintain control over how those dollars are spent rather having them go straight to the feds. And, in addition to the various tax / estate planning benefits, they also provide a way to funnel money to family members without gifting it to them directly (which also has tax / estate planning consequences).

I mean, somebody has to run these foundations, right? Might as well be my kids, spouse, parents, in-laws, etc. Who are all then allowed to be paid a salary from the foundation.

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Amulek