Transparency in Church Finances

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

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.


Yes a very high paid missionary with lots of nice things and plenty of money to leave to offspring, no paying for it yourself here. A missionary with the finest cars, jets, none of this bike stuff, a missionary who sets his own schedule and doesn't really account to anyone if he chooses to take a nap one afternoon, visit family, or do whatever, a missionary who lives in one fine apartment, none of this dirt floor, commode without a toilet seat, no roof, cold shower etc.

A missionary who enjoys fine dining, not chicken claws and giblets, a mountain of rice, and not enough juice to even wet your mouth. A missioary who doesn't tract or even talk with nonbelievers very often but stays well protected behind church headquarters in an air conditioned lounge where he mainly deals with people who have already been put under his power merely because of what position they hold, and what other people had to do to get these people to that point. A missionary who has the liberty to change the doctrine on the fly if he thinks it will help his sales pitch and PR. A missionary who doesn't even have to learn the language. A missionary who is accountable to nobody but God, and doesn't have to worry about threats of damnation or loss of his monthly stipend if he doesn't baptize enough people.

It seems like a very different mission to me completely.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

The church keeps its cards close to its chest for different reasons, and to hide improper administration of funds or exorbitant salaries is not one of them.


Well that is one of the reasons they stopped and Pres Clark said as much and said it was a bad idea to stop.


Most of you (if not all) probably make more from your jobs than they are given in their stipend. The church owns several businesses (like the largest cattle ranch in the country--in Florida, by the way) from which they earn plenty of money to pay for malls and what not. If you really want to believe that a dime of tithing is going into that project then nothing I can ever show you will change your mind.


Money is fungible. All the church has initially came from what the members gave. It does not matter that it does not come from current tithes. If the Church can buy malls why not give the members a jubilee year from tithing or not have to pay for missions or give it to the hungry?


I could care less if they release numbers or not. If you don't trust the church then leave.


Now I know this it the celestial forum but I get so tired of this friggin attitude. If you don't like it leave nah, nah nah! Well Mak, s**** you! Okay!!! This is my church as much as it is yours and based on age and time I bet I have put a h*** of a lot more time and money into it then you have. Just because I think they should account for it better does not make me evil. So s*** off man and get the h*** off your unrighteous indignation horse!

If you don't want them to have your money then don't pay your tithing
.


Ditto to my comments above.

I gladly pay my tithing because I have been richly blessed because of it. What they do with the money is between them and the Lord, and I don't worry about making sure I approve.


Why can't they do this and publish the financials? Why do you get upset when some thing it might be good? Other churches do. Almost all the major ones do.




I'm bowing out of this thread because I've said all I'm going to say.


Good bye.

I feel bad already because I cringe at the thought of my mission president asking me why I'm going around telling a bunch of anti-Mormons things that he shared with me in confidence. If that's not enough for you then I suggest you hold your speculative sources to the same requirements, unless of course you're more concerned with perpetuating your opinion than with finding out the truth.


I am not sure you have provided much.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Who Knows wrote:
harmony wrote:I've always heard the GA's were paid out of the for-profit business profits. Now you imply they're paid with tithing funds. That alone would be cleared up, if we had a transparent financial statement.


Mak is referring to this 'stipend' that the GA's receive - that it's out of tithing funds.

However, Mak is conveniently leaving out all the other sources of income they receive. You know all those for-profit businesses the church owns? Guess who sits on the boards of directors? Guess how much they get paid for sitting on those boards?


GAs are no longer allowed to sit on any boards. Pres Kimball started this though it was not mandatory for all of them. Pres, Hinckley made it mandatory.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Jason Bourne wrote:GAs are no longer allowed to sit on any boards. Pres Kimball started this though it was not mandatory for all of them. Pres, Hinckley made it mandatory.


I stand corrected then.

What about the women GAs?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_Mephitus
_Emeritus
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:44 pm

Post by _Mephitus »

I think i should repost this question.

For those that are in defense of the churches hiding of their finantial status and spending; What is your view on the churches and institutions that are completely open on their finances? Even the roman catholic church to my understanding is willing to share their finances and they have quite a bit of legal issues due to their priests.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Sono_hito wrote:For those that are in defense of the churches hiding of their finantial status and spending; What is your view on the churches and institutions that are completely open on their finances?


That is their right to do so just as I may choose whether to disclose to you what kind of car I own. However they are not obligated to do so and I find no fault in religious institutions who are compliant with the law in this regard. As nobody is really investing or purchasing a product from churches--at least not one whose effectiveness can be objectively measured--I see no moral obligation for churches to disclose their finances so long as they remain compliant with the law.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

asbestosman wrote:I see no moral obligation for churches to disclose their finances so long as they remain compliant with the law.

Isn't there a scripture that says we should only do the bare minimum and not go the full measure? More proof that we are true!
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

moksha wrote:
asbestosman wrote:I see no moral obligation for churches to disclose their finances so long as they remain compliant with the law.

Isn't there a scripture that says we should only do the bare minimum and not go the full measure? More proof that we are true!

If there were such a scripture, it wouldn't be applicable to this case. Perhaps the church doesn't release the things publicly because the world would whine about how much is spent on things they consider useless--for example temples. Some people seem to think that churches should only have money for helping the poor and maybe some incidental costs for meetinghouses and possibly for ministers too.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

asbestosman wrote:Some people seem to think that churches should only have money for helping the poor and maybe some incidental costs for meetinghouses and possibly for ministers too.


Yeah, I can't believe some people think that. Where would they ever get such a preposterous idea!?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Who Knows wrote:
asbestosman wrote:Some people seem to think that churches should only have money for helping the poor and maybe some incidental costs for meetinghouses and possibly for ministers too.


Yeah, I can't believe some people think that. Where would they ever get such a preposterous idea!?

Seccular Humanism perhaps? The Bible indicates that quite a bit is spent on things such as temples.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply