Transparency in Church Finances

[_Mister Scratch]

I am not sure what this means. How does one "supervise tithing for the entire Church"? Also, since there is some division (so far as I know) between the U.S. Church and the Church elsewhere in the world, does this mean that he "supervised" tithing for the whole world? Does "supervise" mean that he merely logged in all the tithing? Or did he see how it was spent? I guess the bottom line is that "supervise" seems a rather vague term.

It was his job to make sure that Salt Lake administered the incoming and outgoing funds properly. When they get up in general conference and say everything has been run according to proper procedure and revelation, that's what he oversaw.

So, in other words, he just did the Brethren's bidding? I.e., they would earmark a certain percentage of funds for, say, "Investments," and he made sure that money went there? This still does not tell me very much... All it says is that he followed orders.

Again, does "oversaw the administration" mean that he knew how it was being spent? Also, does this mean he told you how much the Brethren make?

Yes and yes, in ballpark figures. It's not always the same.

Yes, of course---"ballpark figures." It seems that there are a great many holes in your "personal experience," and in your mentor's, for that matter.

Also, I am assuming that by "It's not always the same" you are referring to the Brethren's compensation.... Could you please elaborate on this a bit? You said elsewhere in this thread that they receive $30,000... Now you are saying that their compensation is "not always the same"...? Please clear this up for me.

This shows that he is well-connected, and on a first-name basis with some of the FP, but beyond that, I don't see what this proves, I'm afraid.

He's close enough with all of them to know the kinds of details you're speculating about.

How, though? And why? And how do *you* know that he knows these things?

Again, what does this mean? What do you mean by the phrase "how things work[...] in the Church"?

It means the traditions, the unwritten rules and the written rules regarding the financial system.

Which are... what? I am sorry to keep peppering you with questions, Mak, but the whole process still seems very fuzzy to me, and I am curious to know the details.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Church really, really hates anyone who tampers with the money. I totally believe you on this. (In fact, this is one of the few things that merits excommunication, according to the CHI).

It has nothing to do with keeping a tight grip on their stash, as many will insist. The church takes incredibly seriously the sacredness of tithing. If anything surprised me about the finances it was how strict they were about spending tithing.

See, this is what seems odd to me. If this were the case, then why the expenditures on such seemingly irrelevant things such as the mall? Why the secrecy? I have heard before the claim that "The Church takes incredibly seriously the sacredness of tithing," but would really appreciate seeing some actual evidence of this, such as a higher percentage of money being put towards charitable causes.

Which is what? Please elaborate.

I don't have the list anymore, but it is pretty consistent with what missionaries are and are not allowed to do with their funds. Being an apostle is actually a lot like being a missionary. Apostles may not be alone with a member of the opposite sex (except their families, of course). They have to have someone around, just like a missionary.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Church finances.

Please explain. I would be very interested in learning about this system.

It's been a long time (so the details are fuzzy), and I also draw the line here. Say what you will, but I'm not going to share information like this with this crowd.

Why, though? You claim that I am "hard wired to criticize," and yet you will not cough up the information. You claim to have "insider knowledge," but you will not share what it is. Why, Maklelan? Does this stuff condemn the Church somehow? If not, then why not share? I don't get it... It seems like you've got some real details and a genuine argument here, and I want very much to be persuaded by you, but you won't tell us what you know...

I would love to know. I do not have this kind of "insider" knowledge that you appear to have. All I am able to rely upon is the sort of information I've posted above. Perhaps you can share some more that will help quell my doubts about the totally ethical way in which Church funds are handled?

For one thing, many GAs live the law of consecration. Paying huge salaries to people who live the law of consecration is kinda stupid. Usually people criticize the church for making their authorities give up their money, but this crowd seems to be criticial for the opposite reason.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It really does not make sense for a TBM to jubilantly exclaim, "Our leaders are rich!" The fact of the matter is that most TBMs like to boast about how little the GA's receive, despite the fact that the evidence indicates that they are very far from being poor. Another problem with your statement: you say, "many GAs live the law of consecration," which implies to me that some do, and some don't. Why is that? (Or did you simply misspeak?)

Because I have never been given an adequate explanation from the TBMs. Your is the best I have ever heard, and so far all it amounts to is an, "I have insider knowledge, so just trust me" sort of assertion. Regardless, I would appreciate hearing more of the details.

It is a "trust me" assertion, and I know most people think I'm just making it up, but it is my experience in the church.

Well, so far I *do* trust you! I am very curious about your experiences, and think that they can shed a lot of light on this rather secretive aspect of the Church.

I have never seen any information that lends any credence to the arguments about huge salaries, so I'm gonna stick with what I have been told by someone that I believe knows what they are talking about.

Just to clarify, what were you told, exactly? Did your MP say, "The GAs only get $30,000"? Was it that specific? Or was it more of a vague, "The GAs don't make that much."? "Huge" is a relative term, after all.

[_Who Knows]

Here's basically what I'd like to see. For every dollar in tithing, where is it going? i.e.:

.10 BYU
.20 Salaries & Admin
.15 Charitable causes
.30 Church facilities
.25 Advertising

I just made those up, but that's the sort of think i'd like to see, or at least be able to determine with a set of financial statements.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's basically what I'd like to see. For every dollar in tithing, where is it going? i.e.:

.10 BYU
.20 Salaries & Admin
.15 Charitable causes
.30 Church facilities
.25 Advertising

I just made those up, but that's the sort of think i'd like to see, or at least be able to determine with a set of financial statements.

I agree. There is something suspect in the fact that they are unwilling to give us even that. Of course, we have these sorts of numbers for the UK and Canada, and sadly, they are not pretty.

[_Who Knows]

Mak - can you answer my question about whether you've viewed the church's financial statements?

Of course I haven't. I've been told about them from someone who managed them, though. If you really require that then you have no reason at all to believe anything being "speculated" from your end of the argument.

What? I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not speculating anything. You're the one speculating that everything's a-ok. My only complaint is that we have no way of knowing that - without financials (externally audited ideally).

And you can't 'be told' about financial statements. Here, try this - go look at Microsoft's financials, and tell me about them.

[_Jason Bourne]

I personally don't think the church is being hurt by it right now.

Relatively speaking, I'm sure you're right. They probably have more to lose by disclosing everything.

I don't agree with the common theory in this board that the church is dangling by a thin thread of deception. If only the church were as fragile as you all imagine it to be.

I never said anything about deception. Could there be some shenanigans going on? Maybe, maybe not - but we don't know. We have no idea. I actually doubt it.

I just think that most people would be shocked to see how wealthy the church is, and where/when/how their tithing money is being spent, how much 'administrative' costs there are, how much the GA's are making, etc. while Joe Schmoe is out cleaning the toilets in the chapel for free.

Excellent points. It's true that our remarks on Church finances are speculative, but it's not as if they are wildly speculative. We know certain things. E.g.
---The Church has spent billions on the mall in downtown SLC
---Elder Henry Moyle seriously bungled his handling of Church finances during (I believe) the 1950s, and was rebuked by Elder Clark.
---The Church has been "penny pinching" in arenas such as janitorial services.
---The Brethren are given a sort of "expense account credit card" of some kind.
---Many millions of dollars appear to be going towards PR campaigns (especially under the leadership of GBH, ever since roughly the mid 1980s).
---In the UK and Canada, a very, very small percentage of funds is spend on charitable work (which sort of undermines Mak's "millions to Africa" analogy).
---There has been a huge campaign to building temples (again, this is under the leadership of GBH).
---One can spend a fair amount of time trekking through the labyrinth of Church investments in cattle ranches, land in Hawai'i, businesses, banks, etc., etc., to get a clearer picture of how the money is being spent/invested.

So: it's not as if it is a *complete* secret. It's true that we are forced to speculate, but we can make good and educated guesses about what the Brethren are doing with the Church's money.

There is nothing inacccurate about what you say above.

[_Jason Bourne]

I just think that most people would be shocked to see how wealthy the church is, and where/when/how their tithing money is being spent, how much 'administrative' costs there are, how much the GA's are making, etc. while Joe Schmoe is out cleaning the toilets in the chapel for free.

I wasn't shocked when I found out. It's not that big a surprise. None of you know, and most of you don't believe me. It's not that big a deal, but most of you enjoy imagining that it is, and you don't want anyone with actual experience to ruin that daydream for you.

What did you find out? How much do the GAs get paid?

[_Jason Bourne]

Do ministers in other church's not tell their congregation what they are paid? Yes they do.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason said:

We still are only speculating. But I am equating what they do to a similar position in the working world and in my opinion from 100k to 200k a year is not out of line. But I understand your viewpoint as well.

"Speculating" yes, and philosophising... How much is too much? How about going by the "7-formulae"? Top pay to be no more than 7 X the lowest pay, and working down from there... Set that aside... Jesus said " the greatest should be the servants..." Servants generally live by service-income standards. Minimum wages and tips...

"...the working world..." 100K$$ - 200K$$? Might you mean the Corporate world? OK, I know Corp Salaries, run to the astronomical. So there is little ryhmn or reason when it comes to fiscal fishing...

THE BOOKS SHOULD BE OPEN! THAT IS THE HONOURABLE, AND RESPECTFUL THING TO DO in a republic where rights of citizens trump rites of autocracy!

Several of the churches i've attended in the past months show a weekly tally of attendance, AND offerings: last week's & to date. Doesn't seem to negatively effect them! I attended one service where they announced there would, "be no collection today! Spend it on your family!" They were far enough in the 'black' to forego it! "WOW!"

I put that one along side a UU Minister saying, a few years ago, "...I hope there is not something better you could be doing today!" "WOW!"

But LDSism IS evolving. As they claim in AoF # 9: "...He will yet reveal many great and important things..."

Now, there's something to "speculate" upon... Warm regards, Roger

Hi Roger,

The 100k to 200k is the business world for comparison which is really much of that GAs do, especially the 70's. They are upper level mamagement. VP level. I work in the business world so maybe I am jaded. I like the no more the 7 times the lowest paid and in fact my company that I am part owner in is at about that. The highest paid person is about 5-6 times the lowest paid.

I pretty much agree with you.

[_moksha]

Mak - can you answer my question about whether you've viewed the church's financial statements?

Of course I haven't. I've been told about them from someone who managed them, though. If you really require that then you have no reason at all to believe anything being "speculated" from your end of the argument.

We have all heard rumors of things speculated about Church finance. It does the Church a disservice to allow these speculations to exist when an transparent financial report could put these speculations to rest.

Have we not all heard repeatedly about the appearance of propriety in Church? Financial transparency could help assure that appearance of propriety for the Church.

[_ajax18]

I'm sorry, but my mission president didn't give me any receipts or photocopies of bank statements. Why do you require that for my evidence but "strong speculation" is all you need to feel secure with the opinion of the critics?

Because you haven't given us any details. Explain to me why Bro. Sanchez in South America has to pay 10% of his $200/month hard fought income to get to the Celestial kingdom, but BKP gets around $200k a year (probably more, and probably due to several thousand people like Bro. Sanchez) and according to LDS theology Boyd seems to be a shoe in. Who's really doing the suffering and who's getting the reward? I've always been skeptical of religions that exalt their leaders, as LDS do financially and in every other possible way. They can't be wrong, and if they are you can't say it. You can't say anything negative about them. They get to know about your life, but you don't get to know about their life etc.

Christianity was one of the first religions in which, Jesus, a God, came down and suffered with the least of us. It just doesn't seem very Christ like to me at all. I've met some very Christ like people at the local level, but it's sad to think that their hard work and sacrifice are going to these kings out in SLC who won't even dare speak the truth anymore if it doesn't fit the PR campaign. The PR campaign and the secrecy is driving away the few faithful people at the bottom that really make the church go, all to chase a few lost sheep who really don't want anything to do with Christianity anyway.