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

[_Buffalo]

So you mean to say a budget does not refer to moneys that are available?

A document providing ONLY that information would not be a budget.

[_maklelan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget

A budget (from old French bougette, purse) is a list of all planned expenses and revenues. It is a plan for saving and spending.[1] A budget is an important concept in microeconomics, which uses a budget line to illustrate the trade-offs between two or more goods. In other terms, a budget is an organizational plan stated in monetary terms.

In summary, the purpose of budgeting is to:

1. Provide a forecast of revenues and expenditures, that is, construct a model of how our business might perform financially if certain strategies, events and plans are carried out.
2. Enable the actual financial operation of the business to be measured against the forecast.

You've got to be kidding me. You are honestly trying to argue that a budget unilaterally refers to expenditures? And you're using Wikipedia to do it? Well, here's one of the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "budget":

the money available for domestic spending

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition. I would highlight a couple portions of it:

a quantity (as of energy or water) involved in, available for, or assignable to a particular situation

the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose

As I stated before, "What's our budget for this" does not mean "what are our itemized expenditures?" Do you disagree?

[_maklelan]

A document providing ONLY that information would not be a budget.

As I show above, this is untrue.

[_Buffalo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget

A budget (from old French bougette, purse) is a list of all planned expenses and revenues. It is a plan for saving and spending.[1] A budget is an important concept in microeconomics, which uses a budget line to illustrate the trade-offs between two or more goods. In other terms, a budget is an organizational plan stated in monetary terms.

In summary, the purpose of budgeting is to:

1. Provide a forecast of revenues and expenditures, that is, construct a model of how our business might perform financially if certain strategies, events and plans are carried out.
2. Enable the actual financial operation of the business to be measured against the forecast.

You've got to be kidding me. You are honestly trying to argue that a budget unilaterally refers to expenditures? And you're using Wikipedia to do it? Well, here's one of the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "budget":

the money available for domestic spending

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition. I would highlight a couple portions of it:

a quantity (as of energy or water) involved in, available for, or assignable to a particular situation

the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose

As I stated before, "What's our budget for this" does not mean "what are our itemized expenditures?" Do you disagree?

Budgets must show expenses as well as assets. Do you think Hinckley didn't know what the journalist was asking? Why do so many apologetic responses come down to a Clintonesque parsing on the definition of words?

[_maklelan]

Budgets must show expenses as well as assets.

Not always, as I've shown. The above doesn't really engage the definitions I've provided.

Do you think Hinckley didn't know what the journalist was asking?

No, I think he knew what he was asking, but instead of thinking about it for a while and then providing a 30-minute explanation, he went with a simple answer that was closest to his heart. He thought of the church's budget in terms of sacred funds entrusted to the church be its membership. There's nothing sinister about that just because it's not how you think of the church's budget. Hinckley's exposure and relationship to it is far different from yours.

Why do so many apologetic responses come down to a Clintonesque parsing on the definition of words?

This is an unfair mischaracterization. The interpretation of words is a tricky thing, and I take it seriously. It's how I make my living. I am being perfectly honest and believe I am getting much closer to the sense of Hinckley's comments than you are. I certainly understand the church's perspective on tithing much better than you. If you have a specific concern then express it, but these rhetorical little musings only show your concerns are not based on anything objective.

[_Joseph]

The people who made the contributions know what they contributed. They get it all spelled out at the end of every year.
*************************

ld-since used to give a financial statement that was open to the members. They no longer do this.

Hiding this information sure looks like they are hiding more than just the numbers.

In countries where they are required by law to publish the dollar figures they do so. Why don't the members everywhere have the privilige of seeing just where their contributions are spent?

ld-since is building a multi billion dollar shopping mall. Is ANY tithing money or donation used in this business venture? Without books open to the membership we cannot know. We do know that trusting ld-sinc leadership on this is not a good thing. Do you really think Jesus wants a shopping mall?

And muckluck, your lawyerese weaseling does not change the facts. ld-sinc leadership does not trust the members enough to give an honest accounting of the monies donated and 'earned' from all sources. WHY NOT?

Every con game around works like this: "trust us"

[_maklelan]

ld-since used to give a financial statement that was open to the members. They no longer do this.

Hiding this information sure looks like they are hiding more than just the numbers.

In countries where they are required by law to publish the dollar figures they do so. Why don't the members everywhere have the privilige of seeing just where their contributions are spent?

ld-since is building a multi billion dollar shopping mall. Is ANY tithing money or donation used in this business venture? Without books open to the membership we cannot know. We do know that trusting ld-sinc leadership on this is not a good thing. Do you really think Jesus wants a shopping mall?

And muckluck, your lawyerese weaseling does not change the facts. ld-sinc leadership does not trust the members enough to give an honest accounting of the monies donated and 'earned' from all sources. WHY NOT?

Every con game around works like this: "trust us"

You're not aware of the reason they closed the books in 1959?

[_Joseph]

You're not aware of the reason they closed the books in 1959?

Hanky panky, free spenders and financial fraud they were afraid would be discovered by the members who would then stop sending money to the crooks at the top of the pyramid?

[_Buffalo]

Budgets must show expenses as well as assets.

Not always, as I've shown. The above doesn't really engage the definitions I've provided.

Do you think Hinckley didn't know what the journalist was asking?

No, I think he knew what he was asking, but instead of thinking about it for a while and then providing a 30-minute explanation, he went with a simple answer that was closest to his heart. He thought of the church's budget in terms of sacred funds entrusted to the church be its membership. There's nothing sinister about that just because it's not how you think of the church's budget. Hinckley's exposure and relationship to it is far different from yours.

Why do so many apologetic responses come down to a Clintonesque parsing on the definition of words?

This is an unfair mischaracterization. The interpretation of words is a tricky thing, and I take it seriously. It's how I make my living. I am being perfectly honest and believe I am getting much closer to the sense of Hinckley's comments than you are. I certainly understand the church's perspective on tithing much better than you. If you have a specific concern then express it, but these rhetorical little musings only show your concerns are not based on anything objective.

Why would financial transparency and accountability endanger the sacred nature of tithing money? In practical experience, transparency tends to ensure ethical use of funds.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Why would financial transparency and accountability endanger the sacred nature of tithing money? In practical experience, transparency tends to ensure ethical use of funds.

Two words: Punitive Damages

The church pretty much has to keep the books closed because it has centralized EVERYTHING. Any trial which would assign punitive damages against the LDS church would need to penalize the church corporate, i.e. be proportional to the church's actual revenues. That's a lot of money. This is also why the LDS church will never go to trial, because at some point their books would be open so that a judge/jury can make a fact based assignment of damages.

There are two solutions to this problem. One is to keep all budgets local. That way if a trial ever assigned punitive damages, the claim could only be made against a ward or at most a stake. The damages would be much smaller and would not cripple the whole church.

The second solution is to never open the books and ensure that you always settle before any legal action becomes an actual trial. The GA's have gone with this option.