Update on Church Finances

[Nofear]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nice straw man and deflection.

By the way I think your LDS leaders are way underpaid. 

Oh, I don't have anything really of substance to add that smac97 hasn't already added several times over. You keep treating it as if it's about the money. "While tithing is paid with money, more importantly it is paid with faith."  --Gordon B. Hinckley

 

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, I really really don't. 

Interesting.  

 

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

It's an obligation to the Lord and worrying about how He chooses to use it and who He puts in charge of it is not a part of the equation for me.

I guess I don't really understand this idea that somehow whatever those in charge do with it is ok.  I have and do view them as stewards.  They are no more special of a human than you or me. But ok. It is your money.

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I choose to fulfill my obligation of tithing by paying it to a church that I believe is God's authorized church lead by His authorized servants, who are good sincere men completely focused on trying to do what they believe God expects them to do with the money.  I've done my 'due diligence' in regards to what storehouse I'm giving my money to, if tithing really is what I believe it is, and if the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is what I believe it is, then there's no reason for me to micromanage what happens to that money after I hand it over.

I am glad this works for you. I think even if I were an active member I would have serious reservations about giving any $ to the church.

What do you think if someone who is an active member tithes but just does not give it to the church. What if they give their 10% to places they know their $$ will go towards human suffering rather than temple building and growing a huge investment portfolio? Is that a valid tithe?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Oh, I don't have anything really of substance to add that smac97 hasn't already added several times over. You keep treating it as if it's about the money. "While tithing is paid with money, more importantly it is paid with faith."  --Gordon B. Hinckley

 

 

SMAC Has failed miserably in his defense of your church hiding its finances from its members.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I care. 

I did not ask you.  I already know your position and you repeat it below.  

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't make payment of tithing contingent on my agreeing with how the Church uses sacred funds.  Fortunately, though, this fails even as a hypothetical because the Church is really quite good at managing finances.

Ok but you really don't know. You make assumptions based on reasonable eye site evidence.  But you don't know.  And given how abjectly you lack knowledge or expertise in the field of finances, accounting and financial reporting you keep making the same stupid arguments.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, we do know "where {} tithing $$ go{es}."  We see the Brethren not living high off the hog. 

So?  You would not know if some of them had blind trust funds that their posterity could tap into for generations.  There is a lot they could be doing with the $ that you just would not know about other than if they were transparent with their finances.  I to don't think they live high off the hog.  I think they should be paid more.  But again, there are things we just cannot know without transparency.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

We see beautiful church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, colleges, missionary programs, family history efforts, youth programs, women's programs, Deseret Industries, Humanitarian Square, Welfare Square, canneries and storehouses, public statements about billions being spent on collaborative humanitarian efforts, and on and on and on. 

Yes you do. But really what good is a self promoting public statement without in independent review.  For all you know the public statements could be lies.  Anyone can print out a promo piece and say whatever they want.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  We also have a notable lack of any evidence of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.

Once again your ignorance of financial matters is showing.  For those who do not know THESE ARE CALLED INTERNAL CONTROLS.  They have nothing to do with outward facing financial transparency.  And your annule report from the internal audit committee is really not an annual report.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the Latter-day Saints were presently operating in the dark about the finances of the Church, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But per the above observations, we aren't, so they don't.

Yea you really are operating in the dark. And the EPA fiasco demonstrates that.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the Church had not previously put in place substantial auditing or other mechanisms for financial controls and oversight, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it has, so they don't.

Yet you have no idea what you call substantial auditing or other mechanisms are now do you.  How do you know they are substantial?  

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Interesting.  

 

I guess I don't really understand this idea that somehow whatever those in charge do with it is ok.  I have and do view them as stewards.  They are no more special of a human than you or me. But ok. It is your money.

I am glad this works for you. I think even if I were an active member I would have serious reservations about giving any $ to the church.

What do you think if someone who is an active member tithes but just does not give it to the church. What if they give their 10% to places they know their $$ will go towards human suffering rather than temple building and growing a huge investment portfolio? Is that a valid tithe?

The primary work of this the Final Dispensation is Temple work... so that's a non-starter.

[Teancum]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

The primary work of this the Final Dispensation is Temple work... so that's a non-starter.

So you think that their tithe is not a valid tithe then? What about a member of another church that tithes to their church. Is that a valid tithe.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Teancum said:

So you think that their tithe is not a valid tithe then? What about a member of another church that tithes to their church. Is that a valid tithe.

Yes, it is valid. Tithing is a principle of truth with associated blessing. Truth is independent. Seventh-day Adventists are a prime example of the blessings of tithing outside of the Church.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Oh, I don't have anything really of substance to add that smac97 hasn't already added several times over. You keep treating it as if it's about the money. "While tithing is paid with money, more importantly it is paid with faith."  --Gordon B. Hinckley

 

 

I hate that video.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "level of transparency" the Church requires of its partner organizations.  Nor, I suspect, do you.

Perhaps.  The Church does not require public disclosure of this stuff.

No.  I did not say the Church  never makes mistakes.  I said the Church, in its recent history, has not had "a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc."

The Church is getting better and better at managing its finances, and I am grateful for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dude you better quit now.  This post is utter foolishness in response to @Analyticscomments. You have been schooled but you still double down and are now equivocating. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I guess I don't really understand this idea that somehow whatever those in charge do with it is ok.  I have and do view them as stewards.  They are no more special of a human than you or me. But ok. It is your money.

I completely agree with you.  I'm not saying that whatever they decide to do with the money is ok, what I'm saying is that I'm not the one who holds them accountable.  

Quote

What do you think if someone who is an active member tithes but just does not give it to the church. What if they give their 10% to places they know their $$ will go towards human suffering rather than temple building and growing a huge investment portfolio? Is that a valid tithe?

Other people can do what they want.  I'm not in charge of judging anyone. 

Do I personally think that's paying tithing?  No, I don't.  Tithing is as much (probably more) about faith than money.  There is no exercise of faith in giving 10% of my income according to my own ideas and my own requirements.  Is it money well spent?  Probably.  Is it Christ-like to give to the poor and needy?  Absolutely.  Does it fulfill my requirements to God to tithe to Him?  No, I don't believe so.

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree with you.  I'm not saying that whatever they decide to do with the money is ok, what I'm saying is that I'm not the one who holds them accountable.  

Other people can do what they want.  I'm not in charge of judging anyone. 

Do I personally think that's paying tithing?  No, I don't.  Tithing is as much (probably more) about faith than money.  There is no exercise of faith in giving 10% of my income according to my own ideas and my own requirements.  Is it money well spent?  Probably.  Is it Christ-like to give to the poor and needy?  Absolutely.  Does it fulfill my requirements to God to tithe to Him?  No, I don't believe so.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree with you.  I'm not saying that whatever they decide to do with the money is ok, what I'm saying is that I'm not the one who holds them accountable.  

Other people can do what they want.  I'm not in charge of judging anyone. 

Do I personally think that's paying tithing?  No, I don't.  Tithing is as much (probably more) about faith than money.  There is no exercise of faith in giving 10% of my income according to my own ideas and my own requirements.  Is it money well spent?  Probably.  Is it Christ-like to give to the poor and needy?  Absolutely.  Does it fulfill my requirements to God to tithe to Him?  No, I don't believe so.

But what if their faith and prayers are telling them that is where it should go?

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I don't know what "level of transparency" the Church requires of its partner organizations.  Nor, I suspect, do you.

I'm simply relying on the quote you provided.

The quote from the Presiding Bishopric talking about its humanitarian partners.

The quote is not about the Church as a recipient of tithing funds.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I said the Church, in its recent history, has not had "a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc."

I think the snafu with the SEC reports was a scandal,

It was not "a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc."

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

and that it was driven by a desire to conceal from its membership what it really does with a huge percentage of the funds it receives;

I don't think so.  The "membership" is not paying attention to SEC disclosures, either then or now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

You don't care where your tithing $$ go?

No, I really really don't.  It's an obligation to the Lord and worrying about how He chooses to use it and who He puts in charge of it is not a part of the equation for me.

I choose to fulfill my obligation of tithing by paying it to a church that I believe is God's authorized church lead by His authorized servants, who are good sincere men completely focused on trying to do what they believe God expects them to do with the money.  I've done my 'due diligence' in regards to what storehouse I'm giving my money to, if tithing really is what I believe it is, and if the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is what I believe it is, then there's no reason for me to micromanage what happens to that money after I hand it over.

I guess I don't really understand this idea that somehow whatever those in charge do with it is ok. 

We are not saying that the Brethren have no obligation to be good stewards of sacred funds.  Bluebell is saying that she believes the Lord's "authorized servants ... are good sincere men completely focused on trying to do what they believe God expects them to do with the money," and that it is not within our province or stewardship to "micromanage what happens" with tithing after it is donated.  

I think most observant Latter-day Saints feel this way.  And as it happens, their trust is overwhelmingly well-placed because the Brethren are presently doing a really good job.  How much the Church (which, again, is "not primarily a humanitarian organization") spends on humanitarian efforts will always be a judgment call.  Always.  And our critics and gainsayers and armchair quarterbacks will always dispute, disparage and diminish the Church's efforts.  Always.  Our Stormin' Mormon previously made a solid point:

Quote

This is why critics of the Church's charitable giving earn the reputation of never being satisfied.  The Church IS making great progress in relieving human suffering.  It's charitable donations went from $900 million in 2021 to $1 billion in 2022 to $1.3 billion in 2023. We know that deploying large resources is doable because the CHURCH ACTUALLY HAS BEEN DEPLOYING LARGE RESOURCES AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE.  

And even after this increase, you are still disparaging the Church, calling it "immoral" and lacking in (or even devoid of) "Christian values" for not spending as much as you think it ought to spend, and only hinting that the Church "maybe" improving its humanitarian efforts.  These are the noxious fruits of faultfinding: The individual will always succeed at it.  Always.

For my part, apart from the requirements of secular law (which the Church inarguably strives to follow), the level of "transparency" the Church provides is, like humanitarian expenditures, going to be a judgment call.  I sustain the leaders of the Church in their well-exercised discretionary decisions, whatever those decisions are.  This is so even though I am not apprised of all such decisions, even though I do not necessarily agree with all such decisions, even though reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  And if there comes a day where I encounter substantial doubts or concerns about the Church's financial expenditures, I will attempt to counsel with the Powers-that-Be by utilizing the methods espoused by then-Elder Oaks in his 1987 article, Criticism.

As it is, however, I am pretty happy with the Brethren and their efforts.  Like Bluebell, I believe they are "good sincere men completely focused on trying to do what they believe God expects them to do with the money."  I am also persuaded that, in overwhelming measures, they are successful in these efforts.  In years past, I think the Brethren were substantially less adept and consistent in their efforts.  The contrast between yesteryear and now, then, is pretty significant to me, particularly when I survey the unending grousing from bystanders.  The Brethren are getting better and better at managing their responsibilities, and I am grateful for that.  So I feel that sustaining them and their reasonable practices/efforts is more important to me than any arbitrary, ad hoc, let's-calibrate-our-demands-to-any-way-that-makes-the-LDS-Church-look-bad standards of "transparency" spouted by do-what-I-want-because-I-say-so faultfinders.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have and do view them as stewards.  They are no more special of a human than you or me. But ok. It is your money.

I think they are, broadly speaking, very good and decent men.  Not perfect, though.  And they are "special" mostly because they have been imbued with a status that is qualitatively different "than you or me":

Quote

Members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are modern-day prophets, seers, and revelators who stand as “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world” (D&C 107:23). As such, they have the responsibility to testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ and of His mission as the Savior and Redeemer of the world.

So I believe they are "special" in that regard.  Otherwise, though, they are good, but not particularly "special."

And while the apostolic calling requires some measure of stewardship over the Lord's funds, the primary responsibility for that lies with the Presiding Bishopric:

Quote

The Presiding Bishopric consists of three men, the Presiding Bishop and his two counselors, who comprise one of the presiding councils of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These General Authorities, who each hold the office of bishop, serve in their positions under the direct supervision of the First Presidency. Since its formation, the Presiding Bishopric has been responsible for many of the temporal affairs of the Church. These have included involvement in receiving, distributing, and accounting for member tithes, offerings, and contributions; administration of programs to assist the poor and needy; design, construction, and maintenance of places of worship; and auditing and transferring records of membership (see Bishop, History of the Office; Financial Contributions; Record Keeping; Welfare). Men chosen to be Presiding Bishops have been recognized for their business and management skills as well as their religious commitment. Historically, the Presiding Bishopric has presided over the Aaronic Priesthood. As General Authorities, members of the Presiding Bishopric regularly speak at general conferences, often specifically addressing the young men of the Church.
...
In 1977 a major organizational restructuring took place within the Church under the direction of the First Presidency. With the significant growth in Church membership the Presiding Bishopric was assigned much broader responsibilities for temporal administration throughout the world. Under the direction of the Presiding Bishopric, directors for temporal affairs were sent to a number of international locations to supervise the administration of the construction of meetinghouses and temples, the maintenance of membership records, and the preparation and distribution of scriptures and other curriculum materials. Departments at Church headquarters responsible for temporal operations were also assigned to the Presiding Bishopric for their direction. Since that time, the Presiding Bishopric has appointed managing directors for the various departments that support activities of the directors of temporal affairs, which include finance and records, LDS foundation, printing services, distribution of curriculum materials, purchasing, scripture and curriculum translation, temple clothing production, transportation, information systems and communications, security, investments, temples and special project construction and remodeling, real estate acquisitions and sales, meetinghouse construction, Welfare production and processing, LDS Social Services, and property management.

Because the Presiding Bishopric are "recognized for their business and management skills as well as their religious commitment," and because they function under the direction of the First Presidency, I think their competency at managing the Church's finances and related matters is going to be more adept than what the average Latter-day Saint ("you or me") would or could do.

I also think that this allocation of responsibilities largely vitiates you and Roger's frequent complaint that the Q12 do not have sufficient access to the Church's financial information.  The members of the Quorum of the Twelve "stand as 'special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world' (D&C 107:23)" and "have the responsibility to testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ and of His mission as the Savior and Redeemer of the world."  They do not have the primary responsibility for managing the Church's temporal affairs, which responsibility lies with the Presiding Bishopric.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

What do you think if someone who is an active member tithes but just does not give it to the church.

That's not a tithe. 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

What if they give their 10% to places they know their $$ will go towards human suffering

They know this, do they?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

rather than temple building and growing a huge investment portfolio? Is that a valid tithe?

No.  That's an exercise in equivocation and rationalization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 12, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Dude you better quit now. 

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This post is utter foolishness in response to @Analyticscomments. You have been schooled but you still double down and are now equivocating. 

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

SMAC Has failed miserably in his defense of your church hiding its finances from its members.

I don't have much hope in persuading you.  I hope other readers, when considering my arguments, will do so without being as steeped in cynicism and hostility as we see in our resident crop of self-appointed faultfinders.

My objective here is, in many ways, much easier than yours.  I only have to allow the Brethren to be generally decent and upright, and mostly successful in their efforts.  I don't need them to be perfect, which is why Analytics' pearl-clutching routine ("the snafu with the SEC reports was a scandal...") just doesn't do much for me.  

How much the Church (which, again, is "not primarily a humanitarian organization") spends on humanitarian efforts will always be a judgment call.  Always.  

As for "hiding its finances," I disagree with the sentiment.  Again, apart from the requirements of secular law (which the Church inarguably strives to follow), the level of "transparency" the Church provides is also going to be a judgment call.  Always.

The Brethren are good and decent men.  Their overall track record in the last many decades vis-à-vis financial expenditures is also quite good.  But financial management is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively minor province of an apostle's responsibilities.  It is their advocacy of the truth claims of the Restored Gospel that I find most persuasive and useful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 12, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

But what if their faith and prayers are telling them that is where it should go?

That's a fair question.  If I feel there is a conflict between what I perceive as "personal revelation" and prophetic counsel, I review the "four-legged stool" analogy from Michal Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

Ultimately, each individual must do what he thinks is right.  How he reaches the conclusion of what is "right" should ideally use all four legs of the stool, but in the end, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is the final and decisive factor.  The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four legs is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Not on this one. You continue to be schooled and demonstrate you know little to nothing about financial reporting and transparancy.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yea really. You look like a fool.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Not on this one. You continue to be schooled and demonstrate you know little to nothing about financial reporting and transparancy.

I think I have a sufficient grasp of things.

For my part, apart from the requirements of secular law (which the Church inarguably strives to follow), the level of "transparency" the Church provides is going to be a judgment call. 

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Not really.

Yea really. You look like a fool.

Okay.  Ad hominem.  Got it.

To quote a guy:

Quote

Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ often use fallacy, or fallacious arguments, in their criticism of the Church in such a way as to destroy any attempt at reasonable dialogue. This may be intentional at times, other times it is not; all the same, it is present. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 12, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

But what if their faith and prayers are telling them that is where it should go?

Then they should do what they believe God is telling them to do.  Their feelings don't change what I believe God has told me, and mine shouldn't change what they believe God is telling them.  If either of us are wrong, it will all get worked out.

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then they should do what they believe God is telling them to do.  Their feelings don't change what I believe God has told me, and mine shouldn't change what they believe God is telling them.  If either of us are wrong, it will all get worked out.

I agree, 100%

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Not on this one. You continue to be schooled and demonstrate you know little to nothing about financial reporting and transparancy.

Yea really. You look like a fool.

Teancum and Analytics have declared it so, so let it be so!

[LoudmouthMormon]

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, where do your tithing dollars go? I would guess it is something like this:5% to missionary work
5% to humanitarian things
25% to building and maintaining churches and temples
10% to BYU, seminary, and other educational things
55% to purchase stocks, bonds, farms, commercial real estate, etc. to fund a long-term, ambitious, immensely expensive, fiscally responsible, and inspired plan to have temples dot the earth, which will bless the lives of the saints and the nations in which they live in perpetuity, or at least until the current global economic system fails.

Fixed it for you.

I'm looking forward to spending the next few decades watching this unfold.  I saw it inch forward a week ago, with the announcement of 15 temples.  8 of which to be built in nations poorer than the US.  4 of them in the soul-crushingly poor nations of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela. 

I know the details will be different than @Analytics' back-of-a-napkin quick analysis, but I think you're on the right track.  It's a thing of beauty:

Quote

Here are the assumptions I’m making:

1. The maintenance of all of the temples that currently exist will continue to be funded by tithing revenue.
2. The Church will discontinue President Hinckley’s “fixed principle” of saving money for a rainy day and will instead spend 100% of tithing revenue every year.  
3. EPA will set aside a cool $100 billion for a fund to finance the construction and maintenance of all new temples. This will leave something like $50B for a “rainy day"
4. The $100B temple fund is invested conservatively and earns 5% per year.
5. The total number of temples grows at an exponential rate of 5.6% per year (this is the rate of growth of temples from 1980 to 2023).
6. On average, new temples cost $60,000,000 each.
7. 4% of that total ($2,400,000) will be spent on each temple each year in order to maintain it in pristine condition.
8. Each temple will have 30 full-time employees making an average salary of $50,000 per year, so that there is $1,500,000 in salary per temple.
9. So, operating the new temples will cost $3,900,000 per temple per year.

 

Edited April 12, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Rain]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Then they should do what they believe God is telling them to do.  Their feelings don't change what I believe God has told me, and mine shouldn't change what they believe God is telling them.  If either of us are wrong, it will all get worked out.

Thank you. I thought that's how you would feel, but with the wording I want sure. If you felt differently I still would be ok with it, because I know you look on the heart.

[GoCeltics]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

8 of which to be built in nations poorer than the US.  4 of them in the soul-crushingly poor nations of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela.

Constructing an extravagant temple within an impoverished community sends a negative message.