Transparency in Church Finances

[_harmony]

Well, I have to tell what my salary is. If I tell them I'm a full tithe payer and I paid $7000, they know I made 70k that year. The church doesn't tell us how much they made OR what they did with the money.

The church is not subordinate to you.

If the church was following the gospel of Jesus Christ, it would be.

"...whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." The church exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the church.

If someone is having financial difficulty, instead of doing the charitable thing which would be just to help someone out, from what I understand, they get all up in a person's business.

Nope. When I was branch president the only reason I asked about their finances was to get their bills so I could pay them. As much as so many of the people around here are rabid about the economic dishonesty that goes on behind closed doors, they're wrong. They don't know any more about the way we are trained to approach those situations as a fish knows about the stock market. That they keep dismissing my experiences in favor of their a priori assumptions is a riot. "It's been strongly speculated!" as if that means anything other than they guessed.

It would help if you had credibility, but alas, you squander what you have with statements like "the church is not subordinate to you." And then, you have none.

Show us the paper trail, Mak. Oh wait... you can't. The books are closed.

[_harmony]

You're conflating things again, Mak. Ajax isn't talking about MP's. Read his last sentence again: "It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was a big financial promotion." He's talking about the Brethren. The Twelve. And he's right; for some of them (like Packer, who was a CES employee, If I recall correctly), it was a promotion, and one heckuva jump in salary.

And yes, some MP's get living stipends. Just because yours didn't doesn't mean none of them do. Try to remember that not everything happens as you've seen it happen.

It's not a promotion for any of them. you're conflating things by assuming I was only referring to mission presidents.

It's not my fault you can't communicate clearly, Maklelan. (Another example of BYU's elite education?)

Here's what you wrote: "Mission presidents don't get a stipend at all. They pay their rent and their expenses. Whatever is spent on official church business they get reimbursed. I handled my mission presidents reimbursements, and often I had to tell him he couldn't get reimbursed for things. It's not a promotion for any single one of them."

Please note you start the paragraph with "mission presidents", then progress to "they", "their", "their", "they," (all dependent pronouns on the aforementioned "mission presidents") and then you mention your own mission president, and then refer to him again as "him". At no point do you mention the Brethren. You're talking about Mission presidents for 4 sentences. You don't change paragraphs. You don't introduce the Brethren anywhere in your paragraph, yet now you claim you weren't referring to only MPs? Clarity, Mak... CLARITY!

BY the way, please provide Packer's salary before and after his calling. I'm exited to be informed about exactly what you think he was making.

Exited? oh wait... another typo. I assume you mean "excited"? Maybe you were so excited, you forgot the 'c'?

In any case, no can do, Mak. The books are closed. (and that means you can't prove I'm wrong, either).

[_maklelan]

If the church was following the gospel of Jesus Christ, it would be.

Because it says in there that the head of the church is anyone who wants? Someone must have pulled that page out of my bibles.

"...whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." The church exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the church.

But people do serve God, and he's in control of the church. When God decides to change the name to the Church of (your name here) then let me know. Until then I'll allow God to run the church as he sees fit. I don't require he account for his stewardship to me.

It would help if you had credibility, but alas, you squander what you have with statements like "the church is not subordinate to you." And then, you have none.

Show us the paper trail, Mak. Oh wait... you can't. The books are closed.

I may not have receipts but I don't lie to your face and then deny it for a few weeks before finally admitting that I was lying. That doesn't do you any favors in the credibility department. Apparently the only strike against me is that I don't think your temple worthy. I guess I can't serve jury duty anymore.

[_maklelan]

Exited? oh wait... another typo. I assume you mean "excited"? Maybe you were so excited, you forgot the 'c'?

If only truth were decided by typographical accuracy.

In any case, no can do, Mak. The books are closed. (and that means you can't prove I'm wrong, either).

That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Oh, yeah, harmony? Well, the church gave fifty billion dollars to struggling nations in Africa. The books are closed so you can't prove I'm wrong. Do you have a decent argumetn to make or are you just spinning your wheels to make yourself feel good?

[_harmony]

If the church was following the gospel of Jesus Christ, it would be.

Because it says in there that the head of the church is anyone who wants? Someone must have pulled that page out of my bibles.

"...whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." The church exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the church.

But people do serve God, and he's in control of the church.

The people serve God, the church serves the people. That's the way God set it up. The leaders of the church are to minister to and serve the people. I don't see anywhere in the scriptures where it says the people are to serve the leaders. Could you quote that verse please?

When God decides to change the name to the Church of (your name here) then let me know. Until then I'll allow God to run the church as he sees fit. I don't require he account for his stewardship to me.

Exactly. And God says the church is to serve the people, the leaders are to minister to and serve the people. Not the other way around.

It would help if you had credibility, but alas, you squander what you have with statements like "the church is not subordinate to you." And then, you have none.

Show us the paper trail, Mak. Oh wait... you can't. The books are closed.

I may not have receipts but I don't lie to your face and then deny it for a few weeks before finally admitting that I was lying. That doesn't do you any favors in the credibility department. Apparently the only strike against me is that I don't think your temple worthy. I guess I can't serve jury duty anymore.

[/quote]

That's okay, Mak. You've been wrong before. So have I. Guess we'll both have to work on our salvation a bit longer.

[_harmony]

Exited? oh wait... another typo. I assume you mean "excited"? Maybe you were so excited, you forgot the 'c'?

If only truth were decided by typographical accuracy.

In any case, no can do, Mak. The books are closed. (and that means you can't prove I'm wrong, either).

That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Oh, yeah, harmony? Well, the church gave fifty billion dollars to struggling nations in Africa. The books are closed so you can't prove I'm wrong. Do you have a decent argumetn to make or are you just spinning your wheels to make yourself feel good?

GREAT! I'm so glad! Hurray! The church actually did some good with God's money. instead of spending it to glorify ourselves!

Oh wait. The books are closed and the only thing we can verify that the church did lately with the money is buy up more of downtown Salt Lake City. Dang. And I was so hoping for something good to be able to brag about at work tomorrow. Instead, it's the same ol' same ol'.

[_maklelan]

The people serve God, the church serves the people.

In what ways?

[_moksha]

Oh, yeah, harmony? Well, the church gave fifty billion dollars to struggling nations in Africa. The books are closed so you can't prove I'm wrong.

This reminds me of another forum where one of the posters was relating how one of sons of a General Authority had his families south seas vaction paid for by a Church credit card. This sounded like such an abuse, yet there really was no way to check on this report and prove it wrong. It is like Makelen said, when things are concealed you can only speculate. That is why financial disclosure could benefit the Church. Otherwise, it is like sipping your quart of milk from a brown paper bag. It looks suspicious and you could be profiled by LAs finest.

[_maklelan]

Oh, yeah, harmony? Well, the church gave fifty billion dollars to struggling nations in Africa. The books are closed so you can't prove I'm wrong.

This reminds me of another forum where one of the posters was relating how one of sons of a General Authority had his families south seas vaction paid for by a Church credit card. This sounded like such an abuse, yet there really was no way to check on this report and prove it wrong. It is like Makelen said, when things are concealed you can only speculate. That is why financial disclosure could benefit the Church. Otherwise, it is like sipping your quart of milk from a brown paper bag. It looks suspicious and you could be profiled by LAs finest.

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

[_Jason Bourne]

So can we agree Boyd and Gordon don't sit around clipping coupons for Orange Juice and SpaghettiOs?

Can we agree they're getting a nice chunk of change thrown their way?

Sure. And I am ok with them getting paid well, but not with it not being open to the members.

I was always ok with them receiving a living expenses stipend as with mission president etc. But I always thought it was for necessities. $200k/year. is a lot of money. How is this fair when the average tithe payer makes only a fraction of that? I'm not so sure all of them could make that kind of money elsewhere. It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was big financial promotion.

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.