Here is an example of where your tithing is spent...

[_Buffalo]

No, you really haven't. You've speculated on GBH's motivation and frame of mind, but not his statement's relevance to the question. Does it have any? If so, what SPECIFICALLY?

This is specious reasoning. My conclusion is quite relevant to the question, it's just not the way you interpret the question. Yes, my interpretation of the event is speculation, but so is yours, and my speculation is quite a bit more informed than your speculation. Your speculation does not simply win by default.

It's a simple question. Why so slippery?

[_Obiwan]

I again repeat, that all these so-called "Corporations" of the Church ARE IN FACT "Corporations". That means their books are in fact open, per law in their respective areas, shareholders, etc. by the way.... I'm an expert in Corporations and LLC's, so I know what I'm talking about, it's what I do every day and have for years now. I set up companies nationwide.

The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not publish accounts.

When asked about this in an interview with a German reporter before the Salt Lake Olympics, the then President of the Church replied as follows:

Reporter: "In my country, the…we say the people's churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.
Hinckley: [agrees]
Reporter: "Why is it impossible for your church?
Hinckley: "Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That's the only thing. Yes."

Here is a video of the whole interview online. The bit transcribed above is at 13:40 minutes in.

Of course it is impossible that President Hinckley was trying to mislead the viewers into thinking that members of the CoJCoLDS do have access to their church's accounts (they do not). But it is not easy to see what else he was intending to convey by these words.

Any suggestions? Unlike the 'god was once a man' business in the Larry King interview, the 'avoiding casting pearls before swine" defense does not seem to be worth attempting in this case.

You have mixed two different things......
Hinckley's comments are specifically in reference to "contributions"..... Not the corporate for-profit side of the Church.

[_Aristotle Smith]

You have mixed two different things......
Hinckley's comments are specifically in reference to "contributions"..... Not the corporate for-profit side of the Church.

I get it, he pulled a Millet. Don't answer the question asked (about budgets), answer the question you wanted to have been asked (Why don't you publish information on contributions?). Remember kids, Millets are great for providing technically truthful answers with plausible deniability built right in!

[_jon]

Obiwan, considering your corporate expertise and the openness of the financial books of the Church owned corporations, you seem to be a tad lethargic in providing specific references to them.

I'll ask again, please can you point me in the direction to look at the official accounting for the City Creek Mall. Thanks (still) in anticipation...

[_Chap]

Of course it is impossible that President Hinckley was trying to mislead the viewers into thinking that members of the CoJCoLDS do have access to their church's accounts (they do not). But it is not easy to see what else he was intending to convey by these words.

Any suggestions? Unlike the 'god was once a man' business in the Larry King interview, the 'avoiding casting pearls before swine" defense does not seem to be worth attempting in this case.

Colour me very unimpressed by the efforts so far to explain what on earth President Hinckley intended his viewers to understand by what he said - especially by any attempt to draw hair-splitting distinctions between what is meant by 'budget' and 'accounts' (it was a non-native English speaking interviewer, for goodness sake), and attempts to distinguish between the accounts of church-owned businesses and the church itself. No viewer could have been in any doubt that Hinckley was being asked about the central financial records of the CoJCoLDS, and if anyone professes to think differently - well, I don't think many people will join them in that interpretation except for reasons of religious loyalty.

Frankly, while I understand why a member of the CoJCoLDS might not like it, the most charitable explanation is that Hinckley was completely surprised to be asked such a probing question about something he had more or less always taken for granted. Unfortunately the matter of financial secrecy was just not dealt with on any of his mental cue-cards, and he was a bit too old to think on his feet and come up with something that would seem reasonable as a response without saying anything misleading.

As a result he fluffed it, and gave an answer that would make a reasonable viewer think he was saying that the church's accounts were not public, but were open to those of its members who contributed to its funds. And of course that simply isn't true.

[_stemelbow]

I hate to say it, but this thread poses and excellent demonstration showing that some critics will complain about anything regarding the church, if you ask me. So often I get the impression that it doesn't matter what the Church says, or what any particular LDS person says, there is still something that will be fine pickings for critics. That must say something to someone out there, I'd think.

With that said, I've tried to get off my kick regarding how critics complain about anything it seems, but in my weakness I just had to point it out again. If we are to please the critics we are doing nothing but spinning our wheels in the sands with only the steep slope up a hill in front of us. But for some reason I eerily enjoy it all. Go figure.

[_Joseph]

Every stake, ward and branch is audited regularly and must account for every penny that has been written down as a donation of any kind. They must account for every penny that has passed through their hands no matter what it is for. SLC and the fatcats get very upset if a dime or a dollar is not in its assigned category or designated place and lets the clerks, bishops and prezzies know about it in no uncertain terms.

Why can't the members know how SLC and gods annointed spend the funds that are sent to them?

A statement that all is well is not an accounting and is not enough, especially when Billions are being spent on a shopping center in the name of Jesus.

[_Hoops]

Protestant churches don't really have a central hierarchy, so this is apples to oranges, and they do have problems all the time with embezzlement and a lack of financial accountability as a result. I've spoken on numerous occasions with friends who were trained (or are training) to be pastors and had/have to take classes specifically about how to organize their leadership to mitigate that kind of dishonesty. It's a big problem for them.

What a steaming pile. But do go on.

[_harmony]

You are making an assumption that the LDS church doesn't have problems with embezzlement or dishonesty.

I absolutely am not. I've seen the problems first-hand. It's not near as big a problem for us as for others, though.

I'd like to know how you know this about "others". And what others? And I'd really like to know how you know this about "us". And I'd like to see the documentation (and the publication of the adjudication that was published in the newspapers).

The only way you can assert this is to look at the LDS church's books and follow the money trail. But you can't do that, so any assertion that the LDS church is squeaky clean is based solely on the assumption that it must be so because Mormons are more honest than other Christians.

I never said they were squeaky clean, but they'd have a much bigger problem than they currently do if each stake was in charge of its own finances.

They had better be squeaky clean, or you just gave ammunition to those of us who want to see the books open! What the hell are you talking about? And what do you have to back up what you just said?

In any case there is anecdotal evidence that the church does have related problems. Nepotism, non-competitive bidding, money lost in stock market funds, propping up failing businesses, etc. loses money for the church in the same way as does embezzlement. All have some anecdotal evidence that they are happening. But again, I must emphasize that any argument that you make that the church is honest, or that I make that the church loses money needlessly, is nothing but supposition because the books are not open.

I never said those problems didn't exist, but they would be compounded quite a bit without the centralization the church has now.

You realize you just said the local authorities are more dishonest than the Brethren, right? You just slammed hundreds if not thousands of VOLUNTEERS in favor of the people who are PAID?

No, but imagine how much a financial burden it would be for all the lawsuits currently pending to be focused on the local stakes. Perhaps it would reduce those lawsuits because we'd have less people looking for a financial windfall, but considering all the other concomitant complications, I don't see that as enough of an incentive.

This is the biggest crock of all. My agency, like virtually every other accredited non-profit in the country, publishes an annual report that accounts for millions and millions of dollars a year. It's available to the public at no charge. We encourage people to look at it, and see what we do with their money. No lawsuits result because we publish an annual report. That is just stupid reasoning.

Just how many lawsuits ARE pending????

Somehow I expected better from you.

Good grief.

[_Aristotle Smith]

This is the biggest crock of all. My agency, like virtually every other accredited non-profit in the country, publishes an annual report that accounts for millions and millions of dollars a year. It's available to the public at no charge. We encourage people to look at it, and see what we do with their money. No lawsuits result because we publish an annual report. That is just stupid reasoning.

harmony,

A quick question to clarify. How much money does your agency have on hand at any given time? I ask because if money is spent about as quickly as it comes in, your agency may not be a big target for lawyers. I think the problem for the church (and I am just guessing here) is that they have far more just sitting in banks and relatively liquid investment accounts than they are willing to admit. If so, that makes them an extremely fat and juicy target for lawyers.