Update on Church Finances

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Comparison of 1989 and 2023 report language.

And here I thought I was weird, because I always get excited about the auditing department report.  Are you a bean-counter?  I'm a bean-counter.  Been a finance clerk for a long time, gotta love those 6 month audits!

 

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

"Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2023 have been recorded and administered in accordance with Church-approved budgets, accounting practices, and policies."

I think his following statement is also worthy of note:

Quote

Based upon audits performed, church auditing is of the opinion that in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the church for the year 2023 have been recorded and administered in accordance with church-approved budgets, accounting practices, and policies.  

The church follows the practices taught to it's members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I would trust them more if just once the Church financial report or audit announcers revealed corruption or embezzlement or something.

In all my years of financial clerking, I've experienced one case of fraud.  People abusing the fast offerings system through lying and deceiving about their need.  The bishop wanted so much to believe them, he extended his benefit of the doubt for a period of time longer than my suspicious and skeptical nature wished.  One of the first things the new bishop did, was do a little investigating, call them out on an obvious lie, and cut them off.  They howled about the injustice.  They cried foul on the character assassination from the bishop.  They appealed to the Stake President to overrule the new bishop.  In the end, the dollars dried up from that particular scam, and they stopped spending effort.  The next 6 month audit had extra questions for me, and probably other things too that I never saw.  Like perhaps some increased bishop training on how to detect potential fraud, and how important it is to follow the process and not authorize exceptions based off of hope.

Anyway, the phrase "all material aspects" is certainly important.  One scammer family scammed a ward for a period of time, scamming the fast offerings funds.  The ward's donations far eclipsed the amount scammed.  It was not a material loss.  Immaterial.  

All that said, I get the desire @Nofear.  I've worked for corporations with external auditing departments that released quarterly audit results.  They tended to use language so vague it was almost indecipherable, but if you knew where to look and how to interpret, you could see cases of racketeering and embezzlement being investigated and ruled on.  Juicy stuff!   I'm pretty sure the church does similar things and has similar metrics.  I'm guessing they don't release them to the general membership, for the same reasons I'm guessing why my old workplace used such vague language: They don't want people thinking about the sins humans engage in while ostensibly engaged as a representative of the company/church.

And because churches are different than companies or governments, they don't have to unless they want to for some reason.

Edited April 15, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

Of course you do. You always do. You don't. The fact that you continue to  equate financial internal controls as assurance of financial transparency demonstrates this.  

I don't equate the two.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

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. 

Secular law seems like a low bar for the self proclaimed Church of Jesus Christ.

This seems like a non sequitur.  It's seems like you don't have a substantive response to it.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

If the shoe fits....

By the way now that you know my name does it feel good to use something I wrote almost 20 year ago against me?

I think what you wrote almost 20 years ago is applicable to some of what you are writing today.  

As you say: If the shoe fits...

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

Okay.  Ad hominem.  Got it.

To quote a guy:

Would you like to now the history behind that paper? 

If you like.

Again, you seem to be reduced to retorting with logical fallacies.  Non sequitur.  Ad hominem.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

It was the beginning of the long end for me as far as the church truth claims go. 

I'm sorry to hear that.  

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

See you have just demonstrated why people post anonymously.

Yep.  It's called the Online Disinhibition Effect.

This is a good example of the reasoning for why I don't post anonymously.  

On 4/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Teancum said:

That is really an creepy and underhanded tactic.  

Again, I thought your comment of 20+ years ago was an apt response to your more recent comments.  

I don't want to alienate you further from the Church, but nor do I think your ongoing disparagements, logical fallacies, etc. should be left unresponded to.  In any event, we seem to have reduced the conversation to personal snipes, so I will withdraw and leave the last word to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 15, 2024 by smac97

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And here I thought I was weird, because I always get excited about the auditing department report.  Are you a bean-counter?  I'm a bean-counter.  Been a finance clerk for a long time, gotta love those 6 month audits!

Ward clerk currently. Don't like it. Money stuff, don't like it. There is a reason I chose my profession to stay in the fantasy land of academia.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

(Poor Putin only got 88% of the vote)

The other 12% will be dead soon from "natural causes" after a short imprisonment...so they don't count. 

[Kenngo1969]

Not trying to start a board war or anything, but I do think that this, from the inimitable, estimable Dan Peterson merits mention, and may be germane to this discussion:

Quote

If the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of course! ] were ranked simply as a humanitarian/welfare charity in Forbes Magazine’s list of America’s Top 100 Charities, it would come in as Number 9 in the top ten, behind Habitat for Humanity International ($1.54B) and Goodwill Industries International ($1.51B), but ahead of Americares ($1.35B) and Samaritan’s Purse ($1.26B), which round out the current top ten.   However, neither Habitat for Humanity International nor Goodwill Industries International nor Americares nor Samaritan’s Purse also runs a multicampus group of universities in addition to its humanitarian/welfare efforts, or builds and maintains temples and chapels, or gathers and digitizes genealogical records around the world*, or fields missionaries in more than 150 countries speaking more than sixty languages. 

*It should be noted, also, that while this particular effort is not, strictly speaking, "charitable" as that word usually is defined in the sense that it refers to something that contributes to alleviating human suffering or improving the human condition in some way, the genealogical efforts of the Church of Jesus Christ benefit those who are members of the Church and those who are not alike.

Edited April 16, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

ahead of Americares ($1.35B) and Samaritan’s Purse ($1.26B)

Amazingly cool. 

Also, I've incorporated a new step into paying tithing.  Every month after I click 'submit' on the church online tithing payment deal, I come here.  I look for whatever current thread is full of critics and their critical criticisms about how the church does money wrong.  I make sure I read the most recent page or two of griping (if I haven't already), to see if there's anything now there, or if it's just more of the same about how the church needs to be more transparent, or needs to do things more or differently, or how folks feel lied to because a guestimate says the church saves and invests a lot of it's income.  If there's anything new, I see if it's anything that might impact my testimony, or my practice of paying tithing.  If it ever does, I'll admit it.  If it doesn't, I'll get my snark on and then mention I paid tithing.

Here's LM's April Tithing report:

Criticism evaluation: It's not new, but it's new to this board: @GoCeltics's complaint: "Constructing an extravagant temple within an impoverished community sends a negative message."

LM's snarky response: Yeah.  I detest the poors also.   They should not get used to having access to nice things.  Next thing you know they'll think they are as good as I am.  Let 'em save up for 20 years for that muddy trip to the temple like those stories I was raised with.

Anyway, I paid my tithing yesterday.  In addition to helping forward the work of the Kingdom of the Lord, I also get to stay hydrated by drinking your critic tears.  

 

Edited April 16, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Smiley McGee]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:11 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

All that said, I get the desire @Nofear.  I've worked for corporations with external auditing departments that released quarterly audit results.  They tended to use language so vague it was almost indecipherable, but if you knew where to look and how to interpret, you could see cases of racketeering and embezzlement being investigated and ruled on.

You can't really compare the church's audit opinion to that of a US Corp, since, as is noted in its opinion, the Church opines on compliance with "Church approved" policies and practices. Without knowing what these policies and practices are, the opinion is useless. Contrast this with US Corps, whose audit opinion relates to compliance with GAAP, which is "generally accepted", widely known, and easily researched. "Material, materially, and materiality" have very precise definitions and uses in auditing. These terms are rendered useless in the Church's audit opinion since, again, we have no idea what the "Church approved" policies and practices are. Your typical audit opinion is not opaque or indecipherable to any of the millions of financial professionals who understand the use and significance of critical terms. Such a description does apply to an organization that fails to define it's policies and procedures. 

Also note that an audit opinion provides useful context for the financial statements and footnote disclosures presented, and to which the opinion applies. Again, not the case with the church's opinion, since it doesn't trust the audience hearing the "opinion" with the related financial reporting. 

Edited April 16, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[The Nehor]

On 4/15/2024 at 1:42 PM, pogi said:

The other 12% will be dead soon from "natural causes" after a short imprisonment...so they don't count. 

Accidental self-defenestration is a chronic problem in Russia. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 ... Anyway, I paid my tithing yesterday.  In addition to helping forward the work of the Kingdom of the Lord, I also get to stay hydrated by drinking your critic tears.  

 

   

[Stargazer]

On 4/15/2024 at 5:04 PM, The Nehor said:

I know, I’m a clerk. I get to do the audits.

There are cases of embezzlement and fraud but they are pretty rare. If you are smart about it you can sometimes get away with it.

The most common method is to siphon Fast Offering funds to entities that somehow benefit the Bishop or whomever or someone in their family. To pull off fraud you usually need both the Bishop and the clerk to be ‘in on it’.

Up until 2 years ago I was our stake clerk.  I made sure to watch the financials of every ward, especially their fast offerings. The rules say that there has to be a permission document from the stake president if a bishop or his family get FO support. In fact, we did have one bishop who regularly did get such. He had been in a good deal of financial stress for quite some time, and I made sure the stake president was monitoring this. 

[Stargazer]

On 4/15/2024 at 6:38 PM, Nofear said:

Ward clerk currently. Don't like it. Money stuff, don't like it. There is a reason I chose my profession to stay in the fantasy land of academia.

Awww. That's my favorite kind of calling. I spent 8 years as a ward clerk, and then another six as a finance clerk for our stake's singles branch.  I was thrilled to be called as a stake clerk a number of years ago, and loved it. Even the financial parts. I was extremely disappointed to be released and I'm still annoyed over it. The current stake clerk does a fine job, of course, but...  I did talk the stake president into letting me be an assistant stake clerk for history, but he eventually cut me off from that, too. Grumble grumble.

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

You can't really compare the church's audit opinion to that of a US Corp

True.  Reason: Comparing churches to US corporations is a problematic thing in itself. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

On 4/15/2024 at 10:04 AM, The Nehor said:

The most common method is to siphon Fast Offering funds to entities that somehow benefit the Bishop or whomever or someone in their family. To pull off fraud you usually need both the Bishop and the clerk to be ‘in on it’.

Up until 2 years ago I was our stake clerk.  I made sure to watch the financials of every ward, especially their fast offerings. The rules say that there has to be a permission document from the stake president if a bishop or his family get FO support.

I second Stargazer's experience.  Every 6 months I'm audited by the stake, and special attention is always paid, without exception, to any sort of dollars moving from the church to the Bishop or his family.  A few bishops ago, his wife was in Young Women, and submitted reimbursement receipts for YW activities.  It turned my routine 6 month audit, into a routine 6 month audit, but with 2-5 minutes of attention paid to every single YW reimbursement request submitted by the bishop's wife. Each line item of each receipt.

I don't know if bishops siphoning FO funds are the most common method as The Nehor claims, but it's really hard to do.  If a bishop wants to embezzle church funds, he needs the clerk to engage with fraud with him, but he'd also need one of his counselors.  It's also church policy that you don't approve your own reimbursements.  A bishop can't sign his own check to the roofing company that fixed his roof, etc.   I suppose bishop and clerk could both lie about who was the recipient of the funds, but that would probably be caught in the 6 month audit.  "Why did the YM president submit an expense to put a hot tub into the bishop's house?"  To survive the extra scrutiny of the stake, the fraudulent expenses need to be basically buying crap at Costco that look like they could be used for a church activity.  I've yet to meet the bishop willing to lose his salvation over a bunch of disposable tablecloths and 5 rotisserie chickens.  

 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

True.  Reason: Comparing churches to US corporations is a problematic thing in itself. 

Well sure, especially when members make posts on message boards proving they are too uneducated to recognize the boondoggle that is the church’s financial reporting. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I second Stargazer's experience.  Every 6 months I'm audited by the stake, and special attention is always paid, without exception, to any sort of dollars moving from the church to the Bishop or his family.  A few bishops ago, his wife was in Young Women, and submitted reimbursement receipts for YW activities.  It turned my routine 6 month audit, into a routine 6 month audit, but with 2-5 minutes of attention paid to every single YW reimbursement request submitted by the bishop's wife. Each line item of each receipt.

I don't know if bishops siphoning FO funds are the most common method as The Nehor claims, but it's really hard to do.  If a bishop wants to embezzle church funds, he needs the clerk to engage with fraud with him, but he'd also need one of his counselors.  It's also church policy that you don't approve your own reimbursements.  A bishop can't sign his own check to the roofing company that fixed his roof, etc.   I suppose bishop and clerk could both lie about who was the recipient of the funds, but that would probably be caught in the 6 month audit.  "Why did the YM president submit an expense to put a hot tub into the bishop's house?"  To survive the extra scrutiny of the stake, the fraudulent expenses need to be basically buying crap at Costco that look like they could be used for a church activity.  I've yet to meet the bishop willing to lose his salvation over a bunch of disposable tablecloths and 5 rotisserie chickens.  

 

I would not be opposed to Bishopric's receiving some kind of stipend for their time (if needed). Maybe food resources from the storehouse or something...

"71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church." (Doctrine and Covenants 42)

[LoudmouthMormon]

50 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would not be opposed to Bishopric's receiving some kind of stipend for their time (if needed). Maybe food resources from the storehouse or something...
"71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church." (Doctrine and Covenants 42)

Ah yes, the good old Law of Consecration days.  Also I think at the time, Bishop was pretty much a full time job.  I wouldn't expect to see us paying our bishops under our current model, which (in theory at least), the bishop is only engaged in calling-related activities two days a week, under 10 hours total.  But yeah, if verse 30-39 stuff ever comes back, I wouldn't be surprised if 71-73 came back as well.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

True.  Reason: Comparing churches to US corporations is a problematic thing in itself. 

Churches that have the features of US corporations (such as maintaining several for-profit businesses and a large investment fund) would do well to follow the same procedures that US corporations do to ensure the use of proper controls and adherence to reporting standards. Comparing the LDS Church to the First Baptist Church on the corner of the only intersection in small-town Kentucky (which is what you do when you lump all "Churches" together) is a problematic thing in itself.

[LoudmouthMormon]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Churches that have the features of US corporations (such as maintaining several for-profit businesses and a large investment fund) would do well to follow the same procedures that US corporations do to ensure the use of proper controls and adherence to reporting standards. Comparing the LDS Church to the First Baptist Church on the corner of the only intersection in small-town Kentucky (which is what you do when you lump all "Churches" together) is a problematic thing in itself.

Meh.  Go shake your fist at the various flavors of Catholic church if you're truly mad about such things.  Several of them still appear bigger than us.  At least, for now.  If SLC pulled a Vatican City and became it's own country, would you be of the same mind?

Edited April 17, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would not be opposed to Bishopric's receiving some kind of stipend for their time (if needed). Maybe food resources from the storehouse or something...

"71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church." (Doctrine and Covenants 42)

There was a time when a bishop received a monthly travel allowance. Last time I heard of it was back in 1980ish.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Meh.  Go shake your fist at the various flavors of Catholic church if you're truly mad about such things.  Several of them still appear bigger than us. 

Neener neener (and we have a better art portfolio, too)

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

At least, for now.  If SLC pulled a Vatican City and became it's own country, would you be of the same mind?

I'm all in favor, though I think the civil war nixed the idea of secession .

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:58 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

or fields missionaries in more than 150 countries speaking more than sixty languages. 

Note: this is Ken quoting someone else.

My understanding is that missionaries pay for their own mission? So that shouldn't be included in the list of things the LDS church does, unless something is changed or I'm missing some nuance, right?

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Note: this is Ken quoting someone else.

My understanding is that missionaries pay for their own mission? So that shouldn't be included in the list of things the LDS church does, unless something is changed or I'm missing some nuance, right?

They definitely help if they can. If a missionary wants to serve and can’t pay the monthly due, then the church (or other members donations) covers it.

Right now every missionary is expected to pay $400 a month. That obviously doesn’t cover everything that it cost for them to live and travel somewhere else for two years or 18 months, but it does cover some.

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Note: this is Ken quoting someone else.

My understanding is that missionaries pay for their own mission? So that shouldn't be included in the list of things the LDS church does, unless something is changed or I'm missing some nuance, right?

Missionaries pay a predefined amount each month and the rest is subsidized by the church. And while it is expected that the missionary (or his family) will contribute to the cost of the missionary effort during his service, prospective missionaries are not denied the opportunity to serve as missionaries because their families do not or cannot contribute to the missionary effort.

Now, if you want to get legalistic, these contributions are actually all made to the church which are then considered to be church property, so it's technically the case that the church is paying for the missionary effort. But I understand the point you are making.

Still, if members of a religious denomination were to contribute to the building of a chapel, meetinghouse, cathedral, etc., we would still probably consider that as being something that church had done - even though it was technically financed through the donations of its individual members. Right?

 

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Meh.  Go shake your fist at the various flavors of Catholic church if you're truly mad about such things.  Several of them still appear bigger than us.  At least, for now.  If SLC pulled a Vatican City and became it's own country, would you be of the same mind?

What an utterly bizarre response that was. Nothing in my comment implied anger; it was an observation based on my professional experience and the facts. You attempted to deflect away from another discussion with a blanket statement about the alleged folly of comparing churches to US companies and I pointed out the problem with that deflection device. Pointing towards the Catholic Church is another deflection device and it's a poor one, at that. Clearly, given my historical participation here, I have more interest in the LDS Church (to which I donated many thousands of dollars over the years) and its practices than I do the Catholic Church. If you're trying to somehow (baselessly) suggest that I don't think my suggestions should be applied to other churches, let me go on record that my critique holds for them, as well. Secrecy breeds suspicion.

Lack of financial transparency in financial matters when organizations are trusted with donations not only breeds suspicion, but it affords insiders an additional opportunity for misuse. Please don't take that as an accusation of misuse on the part of the LDS Church; it is not. However, the SEC matter is a legitimate basis for additional concern and we simply do not know what's happening behind the opaque policies of the LDS Church because there is no third-party analysis of the books.

[ksfisher]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm all in favor, though I think the civil war nixed the idea of secession .

Perhaps a purchase then.  The US government could do all kinds of things with the money they could get for selling part of SLC.  Prop up social security for another couple months, use it to make a payment on the national  debt, redecorate the White House bathrooms. etc etc etc.