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

[_maklelan]

I disagree that it would be a big headache. Pretty much every church in the USA operates locally. Even the Catholic church follows this, thus you can't actually sue the Catholic Church, only an individual diocese. I fail to see how this is intractable, or even headache inducing, for the LDS church but not for dozens of other churches.

I would say first that leaving funding completely in the hands of local organizations would cripple smaller congregations. It would also significantly complicate correlation. At what level do you place the autonomy? The ward/ branch or stake/district level? Stakes and wards all over the world would not be able to afford their buildings, and they would be at the mercy of the tithe payers. Developing areas would be crippled. Area level? With only 27 areas that doesn't significantly reduce the liability.

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.

The Catholic church is comparable, but the number of lawsuits leveled at individual dioceses every year is staggering. That would turn into a huge headache for the LDS church.

[_maklelan]

What does good stewardship have to do with hiding the numbers from everyone, members and non-members alike?

You're returning to your earlier straw man. I did not say that stewardship had anything to do with the church's reasons for keeping the books closed. I asked you not to put words in my mouth. That appears to have been too much to ask.

[_Joseph]

mukluk writes: "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. "

*****************************************

ld-sinc has the same problems. They hide them.

[_Buffalo]

What does good stewardship have to do with hiding the numbers from everyone, members and non-members alike?

You're returning to your earlier straw man. I did not say that stewardship had anything to do with the church's reasons for keeping the books closed. I asked you not to put words in my mouth. That appears to have been too much to ask.

Let me put it this way - in what way was GBH's answer relevant to the question asked? In what way was it relevant to the issue of ecclesiastical fiscal transparency?

[_Aristotle Smith]

I would say first that leaving funding completely in the hands of local organizations would cripple smaller congregations.

How? Why would it be any different than now? If you read Daymon Smith's The Book of Mammon it's pretty clear that the church already ignores smaller wards and branches relative to the amount of focus on larger wards with stakes.

It would also significantly complicate correlation.

Why? How much funding does it take to produce a manual every couple of years? Technology can solve many of the problems that a central organization was needed to mitigate against in the past.

At what level do you place the autonomy? The ward/ branch or stake/district level? Stakes and wards all over the world would not be able to afford their buildings, and they would be at the mercy of the tithe payers.

The stake level seems like a good balance between pooling resources and local autonomy. And why would people not be able to afford buildings? You do realize that people in 3rd world countries manage to build and maintain churches without the largesse of a 1st world funder? In any case even if they were not, do what other churches do and have each 1st world ward sponsor a 3rd world ward/branch.

Developing areas would be crippled.

Again, why? Does not the existence of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of local autonomous and functioning churches in the 3rd world provide empirical rebuttal to this assertion? JW's, SDA's, and Pentecostal groups already do more with less than does the LDS church in terms of preaching the word and establishing congregations in poor areas.

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.

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

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.

The Catholic church is comparable, but the number of lawsuits leveled at individual dioceses every year is staggering. That would turn into a huge headache for the LDS church.

No, that's a unique situation for the Catholic church. Notice that Protestant and Jewish groups do not suffer from this problem. Would localizing control automatically create a huge batch of pedophile bishops? I think not.

[_maklelan]

Let me put it this way - in what way was GBH's answer relevant to the question asked? In what way was it relevant to the issue of ecclesiastical fiscal transparency?

I've already explained this multiple times as well. It was not a comprehensive answer, as I've stated, but it certainly meant something to Hinckley. Additionally, I don't think it's really realistic to expect Hinckley to have responded in a PR interview by stating that the church feels the contributions are private, and it is trying to avoid the risk of punitive damages in lawsuits, and it wants to avoid unwanted media attention any time there is a mishandling of funds, and it wants to avoid whatever other arbitrary criticisms people would throw at it for its spending. (Harmony's approach to the Deseret Ranches on this thread already shows that everyone out there knows better than the leaders the church what the true church should and should not be spending their money on, and it oddly always seems to come down to personal issues.)

[_Buffalo]

Let me put it this way - in what way was GBH's answer relevant to the question asked? In what way was it relevant to the issue of ecclesiastical fiscal transparency?

I've already explained this multiple times as well. It was not a comprehensive answer, as I've stated, but it certainly meant something to Hinckley. Additionally, I don't think it's really realistic to expect Hinckley to have responded in a PR interview by stating that the church feels the contributions are private, and it is trying to avoid the risk of punitive damages in lawsuits, and it wants to avoid unwanted media attention any time there is a mishandling of funds, and it wants to avoid whatever other arbitrary criticisms people would throw at it for its spending. (Harmony's approach to the Deseret Ranches on this thread already shows that everyone out there knows better than the leaders the church what the true church should and should not be spending their money on, and it oddly always seems to come down to personal issues.)

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?

[_maklelan]

How? Why would it be any different than now? If you read Daymon Smith's The Book of Mammon it's pretty clear that the church already ignores smaller wards and branches relative to the amount of focus on larger wards with stakes.

Having been a branch president in a branch in Uruguay with six members and a grand total of two occasional tithe-payers, I'm well aware of the dynamics. It would be different because our money all came from Salt Lake. Our district didn't have the money to pay the rent on the building we were using, and when the branch became big enough to require a chapel, our district couldn't possibly have paid for it. I had to travel all the time because our branch was in the middle of nowhere, but I had the mission paying for it all, so I didn't have to put that extra burden on the district.

Why? How much funding does it take to produce a manual every couple of years? Technology can solve many of the problems that a central organization was needed to mitigate against in the past.

That kind of technology isn't easy to come by in many parts of the world, and making sure everything is consistent in congregations all over the world puts an extra burden on those developing districts.

The stake level seems like a good balance between pooling resources and local autonomy. And why would people not be able to afford buildings? You do realize that people in 3rd world countries manage to build and maintain churches without the largesse of a 1st world funder? In any case even if they were not, do what other churches do and have each 1st world ward sponsor a 3rd world ward/branch.

But this is all quite a bit more complicated than just centralizing everything. Why create all the additional steps that may or may not be effective?

Again, why? Does not the existence of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of local autonomous and functioning churches in the 3rd world provide empirical rebuttal to this assertion?

But these churches have no one above them. Where does Salt Lake get their money if tithing stays at the stake level? Does the tiny little district in South America have to send a percentage of their tithing to Salt Lake? That's an additional burden. They have to make sure they collect enough money every week/month/year or they won't make it. Do you have numbers on how many of those independent churches fail every year because of funding?

JW's, SDA's, and Pentecostal groups already do more with less than does the LDS church in terms of preaching the word and establishing congregations in poor areas.

That's not my experience, and we had all three groups in the town where I was branch president.

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.

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.

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.

No, that's a unique situation for the Catholic church. Notice that Protestant and Jewish groups do not suffer from this problem.

That's because they have no real hierarchy. You hear about pastors all the time who get in trouble for these kinds of things, but that's where the lawsuit ends.

Would localizing control automatically create a huge batch of pedophile bishops? I think not.

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.

[_maklelan]

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.

[_Aristotle Smith]

But this is all quite a bit more complicated than just centralizing everything. Why create all the additional steps that may or may not be effective?

You are making an assumption that centralization makes things less complicated. That's usually a false assumption, as centralization tends to create its own set of problems. Plus, I am of the opinion that heavy centralization is the rock on which the LDS church is currently foundering. The LDS central hierarchy essentially mandates a one-size-fits-all solution tailored to the American church. Local congregations lack the power and ability to make the church work for their local areas. I was a missionary in Nicaragua, facing similar problems as I am sure you faced in Uruguay. Being forced to do things the "Salt Lake Way" damaged and in one instance practically killed a branch because locals were not able to adapt the church to meet their needs.

In any case, the reason for doing this would be to allow each autonomous unit to have financial transparency. I think this is a worthy goal in and of itself, because all things being equal the financially transparent organization is going to be more ethical. There really isn't any room to argue otherwise.

That's not my experience, and we had all three groups in the town where I was branch president.

You can't generalize from your specific situation to the big picture. Try this site for a persuasive case that I'm right about JW's, SDA's, and Pentecostal groups:

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=law_harvest

It's done by a faithful Mormon who makes a persuasive case that the LDS church's money and efforts simply do not translate into success. And that the other groups are able to have much more success with much fewer resources.

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.

Again, how can you possibly know this? Sure you know that other groups have problems, because they disclose. You can't know how this compares to the LDS church because it does not disclose.

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.

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

Why? If anything experience shows that on the whole smaller piles of money managed by lots of different people with financial transparency results in more honesty and less problems on average.

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.

Lawyers go for the big fish. They can smell when they have a lean target and will make sure justice happens as quickly as possible. Having been involved tangentially in many lawsuits I can assure you that when both parties are small, justice is swift and usually correct. Throw a lot of money in the pot and justice grinds to a halt and the person with the most money usually wins.