Update on Church Finances

[T-Shirt]

1 hour 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?

When my son served his mission, $400.00 per month was significantly cheaper than paying all of his expenses with him at home. We got a great deal!

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Also, I understand in countries when families may thrive or die on the income kids bring in or not, in some places the Church will help out the family with a stipend while the kid is on a mission, but I don’t have a source for that.  Can’t remember if I read it somewhere in church news or was told by senior missionaries that were working in these less affluent areas. 

Edited April 17, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

Now we know what the Ensign Peak investment is leading to.  
 

Oh my gosh, Vatican City is 109 acres!  How tiny. 
 

Temple Square is 10 acres, so buy 9 more of those….if around Temple Square, that would be expensive land.

While an acre of land is on average $4000 in Utah according to Alexa, somehow I doubt that comes close to downtown SL prices. 
 

Added:  google says the Church already owns 150 acres of SLC, so they beat Vatican City already.

Now they just need to fill in the gaps and put a border wall around it (the Vatican has a 2 mile border wall according to Alexa).

Edited April 17, 2024 by Calm

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Now we know what the Ensign Peak investment is leading to.  
 

Oh my gosh, Vatican City is 109 acres!  How tiny. 
 

Temple Square is 10 acres, so buy 9 more of those….if around Temple Square, that would be expensive land.

While an acre of land is on average $4000 in Utah according to Alexa, somehow I doubt that comes close to downtown SL prices. 

We just need to find out who makes those Swiss Guard uniforms.

[smac97]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:27 PM, ttribe said:

Lack of financial transparency

A few thoughts:

First, "financial transparency" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  So I don't think it works to speak of "financial transparency" being present or absent.  That's too facile.  Rather, the question is much more nebulous: Is there enough or sufficient "financial transparency."  And therein lies the problem for our critics, because 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.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Some will find these insufficient, and that's okay.  But their dissatisfaction is not authoritative or definitive.

Second, we have substantial additional indicia that the Church is handling its finances well:

• We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  
• We also 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.  
• We also 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 also have a notable lack of evidence of any pattern of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.  Last year's SEC issue is the exception that proves this rule.

Third, we also have a substantial lack of evidence of financial misconduct.  There are plenty of erstwhile antagonists who would be thrilled to spill the beans on some substantial financial scandal.  News items in Canada and Australia, for example.  The execrable Ryan McKnight's abortive "MormonLeaks" effort.  He made all sorts of effort to publicize his encouragement of Church employees to steal the Church's financial and other data and surreptitiously send it to him.  And the result was, essentially, bupkis.  David Nielsen, having worked at EPA, was perhaps one of the best-situated person ever to uncover financial misconduct, and the best he could do was, well, not much.  His chances of collecting that sweet sweet "whistleblower" money are not looking too good.

Fourth, our resident crop of self-appointed armchair quarterbacks, lacking any factual basis to dispute the Church's substantial success in managing its finances, must therefore pivot to secondary, and much squishier, complaints, the two biggies being A) the Church is, in their view, not sufficiently "transparent," and B) the Church does not, in their view, spend enough on humanitarian efforts.  Again, these are always going to be judgment calls.  Always.

On 4/17/2024 at 3:27 PM, ttribe said:

Lack of financial transparency in financial matters when organizations are trusted with donations not only breeds suspicion,

It also helps to have a good healthy crop of antagonists to foment and encourage this "suspicion," regardless of whether it is warranted.

On 4/17/2024 at 3:27 PM, ttribe said:

but it affords insiders an additional opportunity for misuse.

Which is why we so often see General Authorities living large.  Massive mansions, fancy cars, yachts, jets, etc.

Or . . . not.  

The Church has some pretty good safeguards in place to mitigate or eliminate "opportunity for misuse."  Your abstract concerns about what might happen don't stack up well with what actually happens in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Brethren ain't in it for the money.  They are not getting rich.  

On 4/17/2024 at 3:27 PM, ttribe said:

Please don't take that as an accusation of misuse on the part of the LDS Church; it is not.

Noted.

But then . . . what is it?  If it's not an accusation, it's just an abstraction, a hypothetical that is not borne out by any evidence.  

On 4/17/2024 at 3:27 PM, ttribe said:

However, the SEC matter is a legitimate basis for additional concern

"{A}dditional concern"?  What is the primary "concern" you have in mind?

I think the vast majority of Latter-day Saints are not even aware of "the SEC matter."  Of those that are, I think very few have examined the particulars. 

Of those who have examined the particulars, fewer still find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern." 

Of those who do find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern," I think most of them have not examined the particulars, and are instead being stampeded by unfair and inaccurate characterizations by people who dislike the Church. 

Of those who have examined the particulars and find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern," sizable numbers of these folks were already predisposed to think ill of the Church.

Of those who have examined the particulars and find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern" and are faithful/observant members, I don't think many of them are construing it as an indicator of some vast and systemic level of corruption, fraud, etc. in the Church.  Instead, most folks see that the Church's efforts ran afoul of the SEC in terms of reporting requirements.  It made a mistake, expressed regret for its errors, paid a fine, changed its reporting practices, and has moved on.  So while it may have been a "basis for ... concern," it's not an ongoing one.

On 4/17/2024 at 3:27 PM, ttribe said:

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.

"{W}e simply do not know..."

"{O}paque policies..."

This sort of absolutist stuff just doesn't work.  We have extensive evidence and indicators that the Church's finances are in very good shape.  I am grateful for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2024 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

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.

Heh.  From where I'm standing, all your criticisms are simply bouncing off quite well.  Call it a "poor deflection device" all you want, but my answers are basically "I don't buy your criticisms, they doesn't matter to me, they doesn't persuade me".  Ever watch a bad boxing match between tragically unequal boxers?  The smaller guy throws a series of his best and most powerful punches, and the other guy barely notices he's being hit, and you start complaining about deflection devices like the guy is doing something wrong by not getting as hurt as the little guy would like.

(Although I also really like @MiserereNobis' "neener neener", and may adopt it in the future.  Feel free to call that a deflection device too, if you like.  )

 

Quote

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.

As my uncle in real estate used to say, wanting is free.  Suggest all you want.  I have no issue with your suggestions, and I accept that you're applying them evenly.  Just that the church, the vast majority of it's tithe paying members, including me, aren't going to take your suggestions.  I get you're feeling betrayed because you donated thousands and now you learn stuff that if you had learned at the time, might have caused you to withhold those donations.  I liken it to a breakup.  Serious things that impact us in serious ways.  But you can't get your tithing back, any more than someone can get years of effort back they put into an ended relationship.  And you can't get the church to change their practice, any more than someone can get an ex to change their life.  

 

Quote

Secrecy breeds suspicion.

Go be suspicious then.  We're mormoning over here.  It's what we do.  We're gonna do it our way, regardless of how it's interpreted, or how that interpretation is reacted to.  Again, as I pay my monthly tithing, I think about the fact that I have no visibility into where it goes and what the church does with it.  I'm fine with that state of affairs.  I don't have suspicion, I have trust.  Nothing I've learned from leaks and SEC deal has even put the slightest dent in that trust.  

 

Quote

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.

Meh.  And yet, here I stand, with no suspicion bred in me.  Call it a deflection all you like, but as I sit here and give you and your opinion every ounce of respect and serious consideration I can, words fail me at how underwhelmingly unimpressive I find your opinions and suggestions.  Go be suspicious over there.  We're mormoning over here. 

 

Quote

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.

Go have additional concern somewhere else.  I know that I don't know what's happening behind the opaque policies.  I know there's no third-party analysis.  I'm glad that's the state of affairs.  I don't care what any third party might say about how my church manages its finances.  They can take a flying leap when they speculate.  It's none of their damn business.  Leave us alone, we're mormoning.

Deflection.   Heh.  Church is experiencing an extended period of advantageous financial position.  You jelly bro?  Envious?  A little green-eyed monster going on somewhere in the back of your mind?  Or, like after any breakup, you just can't let it go?  I see your "observation based on my professional experience and the facts", and I raise with "Don't make her get a restraining order on ya.  It's over, let it go.  Time to unfollow her on Insta, friend."  You don't get to dictate church policy.  And I'm just one of the vast, vast, vast majority of LDS tithe payers who are utterly unimpressed with your criticisms and suggestions.

I mean, you don't have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and the reality of the restored church being led by Christ, do you?  

Edited April 17, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, "financial transparency" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  So I don't think it works to speak of "financial transparency" being present or absent.  That's too facile.  Rather, the question is much more nebulous: Is there enough or sufficient "financial transparency."  And therein lies the problem for our critics, because 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.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Some will find these insufficient, and that's okay.  But their dissatisfaction is not authoritative or definitive.

Second, we have substantial additional indicia that the Church is handling its finances well:

• We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  
• We also 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.  
• We also 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 also have a notable lack of evidence of any pattern of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.  Last year's SEC issue is the exception that proves this rule.

Third, we also have a substantial lack of evidence that of financial misconduct.  There are plenty of erstwhile antagonists who would be thrilled to spill the beans on some substantial financial scandal.  News items in Canada and Australia, for example.  The execrable Ryan McKnight's abortive "MormonLeaks" effort.  He made all sorts of effort to publicize his encouragement of Church employees to steal the Church's financial and other data and surreptitiously send it to him.  And the result was, essentially, bupkis.  David Nielsen, having worked at EPA, was perhaps one of the best-situated person's ever to uncover financial misconduct, and the best he could do was, well, not much.  His chances of collecting that sweet sweet "whistleblower" money are not looking too good.

Fourth, our resident crop of self-appointed armchair quarterbacks, lacking any factual basis to dispute the Church's substantial success in managing its finances, must therefore pivot to secondary, and much squishier, complaints, the two biggies being A) the Church is, in their view, not sufficiently "transparent," and B) the Church does not, in their view, spend enough on humanitarian efforts.  Again, these are always going to be judgment calls.  Always.

It also helps to have a good healthy crop of antagonists to foment and encourage this "suspicion," regardless of whether it is warranted.

Which is why we so often see General Authorities living large.  Massive mansions, fancy cars, yachts, jets, etc.

Or . . . not.  

The Church has some pretty good safeguards in place to mitigate or eliminate "opportunity for misuse."  Your abstract concerns about what might happen don't stack up well with what actually happens in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Brethren ain't in it for the money.  They are not getting rich.  

Noted.

But then . . . what is it?  If it's not an accusation, it's just an abstraction, a hypothetical that is not borne out by any evidence.  

"{A}dditional concern"?  What is the primary "concern" you have in mind?

I think the vast majority of Latter-day Saints are not even aware of "the SEC matter."  Of those that are, I think very few have examined the particulars. 

Of those who have examined the particulars, fewer still find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern." 

Of those who do find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern," I think most of them have not examined the particulars, and are instead being stampeded by unfair and inaccurate characterizations by people who dislike the Church. 

Of those who have examined the particulars and find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern," sizable numbers of these folks were already predisposed to think ill of the Church.

Of those who have examined the particulars and find it to be "a legitimate basis for additional concern" and are faithful/observant members, I don't think many of them are construing it as an indicator of some vast and systemic level of corruption, fraud, etc. in the Church.  Instead, most folks see that the Church's efforts ran afoul of the SEC in terms of reporting requirements.  It made a mistake, expressed regret for its errors, paid a fine, changed its reporting practices, and has moved on.  So while it may have been a "basis for ... concern," it's not an ongoing one.

"{W}e simply do not know..."

"{O}paque policies..."

This sort of absolutist stuff just doesn't work.  We have extensive evidence and indicators that the Church's finances are in very good shape.  I am grateful for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, stop, Spencer. Quit looking for bad faith argument on my part when there is none. I made general statements regarding financial reporting and controls and applied those general statements to this situation; no absolutist "stuff." I have agreed with you, more than once, that we don't have evidence of leaders "living high off the hog." I also have orders of magnitude more experience and knowledge than you on financial reporting, internal controls, and fraud prevention. My point, once again, is that as long as the LDS Church chooses to remain relatively opaque with its financial disclosures, these questions will persist. The SEC situation brings to light that, at least sometimes, the Church's internal controls do fail and do fail in a significant manner (internal controls are supposed to catch both unintentional mistakes as well as intentional efforts to misuse funds). Since we have no additional information on how often Internal Audit is finding similar failures, and there is no third-party audit reporting internal control failures, it leaves an open question.

I have said before, and I will say again - The LDS Church can do whatever it wants in terms of financial reporting transparency. As a practical and professional matter, I favor more disclosure over less, within reason (I'm not suggesting the entire General Ledger detail be released to the public). That's my rule of thumb which, by definition, is not absolutist.

Edited April 17, 2024 by ttribe

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh.  From where I'm standing, all your criticisms are simply bouncing off quite well.  Call it a "poor deflection device" all you want, but my answers are basically "I don't buy your criticisms, they doesn't matter to me, they doesn't persuade me".  Ever watch a bad boxing match between tragically unequal boxers?  The smaller guy throws a series of his best and most powerful punches, and the other guy barely notices he's being hit, and you start complaining about deflection devices like the guy is doing something wrong by not getting as hurt as the little guy would like.

(Although I also really like @MiserereNobis' "neener neener", and may adopt it in the future.  Feel free to call that a deflection device too, if you like.  )

 

As my uncle in real estate used to say, wanting is free.  Suggest all you want.  I have no issue with your suggestions, and I accept that you're applying them evenly.  Just that the church, the vast majority of it's tithe paying members, including me, aren't going to take your suggestions.  I get you're feeling betrayed because you donated thousands and now you learn stuff that if you had learned at the time, might have caused you to withhold those donations.  I liken it to a breakup.  Serious things that impact us in serious ways.  But you can't get your tithing back, any more than someone can get years of effort back they put into an ended relationship.  And you can't get the church to change their practice, any more than someone can get an ex to change their life.  

 

Go be suspicious then.  We're mormoning over here.  It's what we do.  We're gonna do it our way, regardless of how it's interpreted, or how that interpretation is reacted to.  Again, as I pay my monthly tithing, I think about the fact that I have no visibility into where it goes and what the church does with it.  I'm fine with that state of affairs.  I don't have suspicion, I have trust.  Nothing I've learned from leaks and SEC deal has even put the slightest dent in that trust.  

 

Meh.  And yet, here I stand, with no suspicion bred in me.  Call it a deflection all you like, but as I sit here and give you and your opinion every ounce of respect and serious consideration I can, words fail me at how underwhelmingly unimpressive I find your opinions and suggestions.  Go be suspicious over there.  We're mormoning over here. 

 

Go have additional concern somewhere else.  I know that I don't know what's happening behind the opaque policies.  I know there's no third-party analysis.  I'm glad that's the state of affairs.  I don't care what any third party might say about how my church manages its finances.  They can take a flying leap when they speculate.  It's none of their damn business.  Leave us alone, we're mormoning.

Deflection.   Heh.  Church is experiencing an extended period of advantageous financial position.  You jelly bro?  Envious?  A little green-eyed monster going on somewhere in the back of your mind?  Or, like after any breakup, you just can't let it go?  I see your "observation based on my professional experience and the facts", and I raise with "Don't make her get a restraining order on ya.  It's over, let it go.  Time to unfollow her on Insta, friend."  You don't get to dictate church policy.  And I'm just one of the vast, vast, vast majority of LDS tithe payers who are utterly unimpressed with your criticisms and suggestions.

I mean, you don't have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and the reality of the restored church being led by Christ, do you?  

Wow.

Well mods, is this a violation of the "Don't invite people to leave," rule?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Oh my gosh, Vatican City is 109 acres!  How tiny. 
 

Smallest country in the world with the largest per capita crime rate!

(because there are so few citizens, ~800, and so many tourists, ~5 million.  Think of the number of pickpocketing incidents alone and then divide by 800)

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

We just need to find out who makes those Swiss Guard uniforms.

They are so dang cool!

[MiserereNobis]

42 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

(Although I also really like @MiserereNobis' "neener neener", and may adopt it in the future.  Feel free to call that a deflection device too, if you like.  )

I think @mfbukowski and @Kenngo1969 are the first ones I've seen use it on the board.

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, stop, Spencer. Quit looking for bad faith argument on my part when there is none.

I was not suggesting bad faith on your part.  To the contrary, I am acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of the topics at hand:

• "{A}part 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..."
• "Some will find these insufficient, and that's okay.  But their dissatisfaction is not authoritative or definitive."
• "{O}ur resident crop of self-appointed armchair quarterbacks, lacking any factual basis to dispute the Church's substantial success in managing its finances, must therefore pivot to secondary, and much squishier, complaints..."

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I made general statements regarding financial reporting and controls and applied those general statements to this situation; no absolutist "stuff." I have agreed with you, more than once, that we don't have evidence of leaders "living high off the hog."

Thank you.  Others, however, have disputed the probative value of this point.

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I also have orders of magnitude more experience and knowledge than you on financial reporting, internal controls, and fraud prevention.

I'll take your word for it.

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

My point, once again, is that as long as the LDS Church chooses to remain relatively opaque with its financial disclosures, these questions will persist.

"{R}elatively opaque."  I can go along with that.

I think "these questions will persist" no matter what the Church does.  

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The SEC situation brings to light that, at least sometimes, the Church's internal controls do fail and do fail in a significant manner (internal controls are supposed to catch both unintentional mistakes as well as intentional efforts to misuse uinds).

Sure.  The human factor will always require us to leave that possibility open.  In fact, I think the SEC matter was the exception that proves the rule.  I also think the SEC issue was way overblown by some of our critics. 

In any event, that the Church made some mistakes in its SEC regulatory compliance efforts is just not that big a deal to me.  The mistakes were identified, corrective measures implemented, a fine paid, and life goes on.  None of this has any impact on my assessment of the truth claims espoused by the Church.  Errors in 13F forms do not, for me, retroactively negate the reality of the First Vision and other theophanies, the Gold Plates and the translation of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Priesthood, etc.  If these things happened, then I'm sticking with the Church, even if and when it makes mistakes.

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Since we have no additional information on how often Internal Audit is finding similar failures,

Would auditors be in the practice of reviewing 13F filings to ensure compliance with SEC regulatory requirements?  That seems . . . pretty iffy to me.  I find it far more likely that the Church's attorneys were, and are, in charge of compliance efforts.  And I'm not sure the Church has much of an "in-house" legal team, and instead farms out most of its legal needs (this would seem particularly so for matters of regulatory compliance).

In other words, I don't think you can tie the "{t}he SEC situation" to criticisms of the Church's "transparency" as to its finances.  

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

and there is no third-party audit reporting internal control failures, it leaves an open question.

I'm not sure third-party auditors are setting the gold standard these days for detecting "internal control failures":

• High Risk of Fraud in Auditing and Accounting Firms
• 22 years after the $63 billion Enron collapse, a key audit review board finds the industry in a ‘completely unacceptable’ state
• Accounting firms accused of ‘operating with impunity’ as regulator flags growing number of flawed audits
• PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and EY all fail to meet audit quality targets after string of high-profile failures
• Big Four’s Stormy Spring Resurrects Fear About Audit Quality
• Deficiencies In Audit Quality
• SEC Fines Deloitte China for Audit Failures
• A decline in the big four's auditing quality stokes fears of an Enron-style corporate collapse
• US banking failures: the role of big auditors in another financial crisis
• Audit scandals rendering profession ‘unattractive’ to newcomers
• Big firm audit failures rack up £46.5m in fines
• KPMG hit with record fine for 'textbook failure' in Carillion audits
• Accounting firms hit with record US fines over audit failures
• How to fix the global audit industry? Get rid of it altogether.
• Audit keeps failing – here’s why a fundamental change is needed
• From Enron to Wirecard – Big 4 Accounting Firms Still Face Systemic Problems

I wonder how the Church's Auditing Department stacks up against the Big Four.  Seems like they are doing pretty well.  

I also wonder if the people in the Auditing Department, who work for the Church and are therefore likely to be mostly or entirely faithful and observant Latter-day Saints, have more than a professional interest in making sure they are doing a good job at monitoring the Church's finances. 

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I have said before, and I will say again - The LDS Church can do whatever it wants in terms of financial reporting transparency. As a practical and professional matter, I favor more disclosure over less, within reason (I'm not suggesting the entire General Ledger detail be released to the public). That's my rule of thumb which, by definition, is not absolutist.

Okay.  I retract the characterization and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 17, 2024 by smac97

[teddyaware]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Wow.

Well mods, is this a violation of the "Don't invite people to leave," rule?

It appears all he’s suggesting is if you choose to continue with your endless complaining on this board your accusations will have zero impact on those of us who’ve received a sure witness that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is true. This being the case, rather than continuing to experience one frustrating encounter after another perhaps you may want to consider other venues where your endless train complaints might be better received? After all, listening to the soothing strains of validation has got to be a lot more pleasant and conducive to mental equilibrium than continuing to endlessly kick against the pricks. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

fact, I think the SEC matter was the exception that proves the rule.

How?  A failure that proves success?

Quote

 

Seems like they are doing pretty well.  

How would you know?  Serious question. 
 

Quote

I also wonder if the people in the Auditing Department, who work for the Church and are therefore likely to be mostly or entirely faithful and observant Latter-day Saints, have more than a professional interest in making sure they are doing a good job at monitoring the Church's finances. 

I would hope so and think it likely, but I also wonder if the lack of competition for the job (as far as I can tell, other companies can’t go in and say “look where your guy made a mistake, we would never make that kind of mistake if you hire us”) and possible job security (how likely are the Church’s professional auditors to be fired, I wonder; might there be concern of info leaking, especially about mistakes being made, that make it less likely).

Edited April 18, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It appears all he’s suggesting is if you choose to continue with your endless complaining on this board your accusations will have zero impact on those of us who’ve received a sure witness that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is true. This being the case, rather than continuing to experience one frustrating encounter after another perhaps you may want to consider other venues where your endless train complaints might be better received? After all, listening to the soothing strains of validation has got to be a lot more pleasant and conducive to mental equilibrium than continuing to endlessly kick against the pricks. 

Both are sounding more like invitations to leave to me as in “you will be happier elsewhere”, but coming to that conclusion based on assumptions of what you (ttribe) prefer. 
 

Is this a violation?  My memory is bad today (was so spacing on some singers’ names for example) and it is not in the guidelines, but many aren’t. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

It appears all he’s suggesting is if you choose to continue with your endless complaining on this board your accusations will have zero impact on those of us who’ve received a sure witness that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is true. This being the case, rather than continuing to experience one frustrating encounter after another perhaps you may want to consider other venues where your endless train complaints might be better received? After all, listening to the soothing strains of validation has got to be a lot more pleasant and conducive to mental equilibrium than continuing to endlessly kick against the pricks. 

Sure, Teddy, sure.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Wow.

Well mods, is this a violation of the "Don't invite people to leave," rule?

You'll probably need to report it since the mods don't usually read the threads.

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well mods, is this a violation of the "Don't invite people to leave," rule?

The what now?  I don't see it.

 

But I don't want to run afoul of any board guidelines.  So let me make it clear - please don't take any of my "go complain somewhere else" stuff as anything other than an expression of how little I'm impressed by your arguments.  I don't want anyone to leave, I don't want to silence conversation.  Just not impressed.  Others' mileage may differ.

Anything else you found objectionable in my post?  

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The what now?  I don't see it.

 

But I don't want to run afoul of any board guidelines.  So let me make it clear - please don't take any of my "go complain somewhere else" stuff as anything other than an expression of how little I'm impressed by your arguments.  I don't want anyone to leave, I don't want to silence conversation.  Just not impressed.  Others' mileage may differ.

Anything else you found objectionable in my post?  

Well, either my memory is faulty, or that rule no longer exists.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

After all, listening to the soothing strains of validation has got to be a lot more pleasant and conducive to mental equilibrium than continuing to endlessly kick against the pricks. 

If it is an echo chamber you pursue, perhaps you are the ones in the wrong place?   Because this place isn’t just about “Mormoning” around.  Perhaps you guys are confused with another forum.

I for one would prefer to kick against a few pricks (I won’t name names) every now and then and enjoy the diversity of perspectives and ideas and, even strong challenges sometimes, then to be lulled away into soothing strains of confirmation bias or breathing in the pleasant perfumes of a reaffirming filter bubble.

[GoCeltics]

On 4/12/2024 at 8:47 PM, InCognitus said:

This is a good description of one of them:

"And the house, that is, the temple before it, was forty cubits long.  And the cedar of the house within was carved with knops and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen.  And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord.  And the oracle in the forepart was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold; and so covered the altar which was of cedar.  So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold.  And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold."  (1 Kings 6:17–22)

Do you think that temple sent a negative message to the impoverished people of that community?

If I recall correctly, it was God who provided Moses with the design for the tabernacle
but the design of the temple came from David. In turn, God allowed Solomon to build it. 
But I feel the temple was extravagant to say the least.

Regarding the question you posed, which impoverished people are you referring to?

[GoCeltics]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:01 PM, Stargazer said:

Why would that be? 

Your idea is that a plain and simple temple in an impoverished community will make the poor people feel better about themselves? Meanwhile they can see beautiful, lavishly decorated temples in more affluent communities, and this is a solution you want to get behind? 

It is kind of like a government building barely adequate schools in poor areas, and really pumping up the academies in rich areas. This is supposed to send a positive message?

Where do you get this kind of woke logic?  🤪

Sufficiently adequate schools for all students.

[The Nehor]

On 4/16/2024 at 4:58 PM, Stargazer said:

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. 

Yeah, this is true but if you are trying to game the system you don’t make the check out to the Bishop or one of his family. You use it to buy something from a business that the BIshop owns or has a stake in that most people don’t know about. Basically embezzlement and money laundering rolled into one.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was not suggesting bad faith on your part.  To the contrary, I am acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of the topics at hand:

Same as it ever was.

https://www.google.com/search?q=as+it+ever+is&rlz=1CATATK_enUS825US825&oq=as+it+ever+is&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l3j33i671l6.8535j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4fe4b168,vid:5IsSpAOD6K8,st:0

Edited April 18, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Nemesis]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

Wow.

Well mods, is this a violation of the "Don't invite people to leave," rule?

Yea

[Tacenda]

This puts a thorn in my side about the finances of the church. No need to say where I saw this c/p'd post, we all know. I saw needs like this all the time in the church. Specifically in my old ward as the RS secretary and was in charge of a monthly newsletter for some reason, plus getting a ward phone/address list to every member. This was probably 10 or more years ago. So things are different now with now having the LDS tools app.

I had to rely on a very slow copier in the library. The faster or better copier was in the Stake Presidency's office area. And as a Primary teacher another time, when teachers needed copies for lessons etc. it was always such a pain. The librarians asked over and over for it to be fixed or a new one. But the answer was basically, deal with it. 

So in my frustrations I would take it to the local copy center and so would a lot of others. This is what puts the thorn in, that the church has the billions it does, but makes it hard on the little guy, the ward member. 

Hopefully things will change, but I don't think it will. If people on this board, or members, have these experiences currently, I'd like to know. If you care to share. But usually it's just excuses for the church.