So when the LDS Church did publish financials then I assume you would have pushed for them to close the books. Right?
No. Different circumstances necessitate different choices.
What was different 50 years ago?
I agree that to some degree the Church finances are different from individual finances in the ways you suggest (though I don't think it accurate to refer to the Church as a "charitable organization").
technically I now agree with that as far as definitions go and the tax law. Yet those who give believe that they are donating a charitable contribution to an entity that among other things does do charitable work.
I just don't agree that the differences you listed exempt the Church from the privilege or right of privacy.
Ok. Why?
Nor am I certain you are correct about the reason behind the closing of the books
.
My conclusion is only based on what I have read and the timing of the decision. Why do you think they did this?
And, I think you are mistaken as to whom the stewardship is accountable to.
Why?
If there is mismanagement, that is the business of the Chuch leaders, not the members or the public at large. Again, the need for trasperancy is a function of distrust. To me, those of us who trust, and who mind our own business, do not require transperancy from those we trust and whose businees it actually is.
First, please do not imply I mistrust. Second, what if information came out that causes distrust? Would you be as happy to still give?
For those who do not trust the leaders of the Church, or who believe they are accountable to contributors, or who are concerned about the perceptions of others who may be distrustful, may think it appropriate to surmount the right of privacy and disclose the finances.
I still fail to see where the inherent right to privacy is for a church organization.
2: While others here my not trust the Church leaders I do. And I believe it is likely that they handle the finances quite well and that there is no malfeasence going on. From what little information is available it seems they are doing a good job. I may not always agree with how money is spent, like on a large mall-I personally thought that a bad move- but that is ok. I don't have to agree. But transparency puts them above reproach. It is interesting that most large Churches chose to publish their finances for that reason-transparency as well as stewardhip-to show that they are doing the right thing with the widows mite.
A
gain, "reproach" is in the eye of the distrusters.
No reproach is not in the eye of the distruster. The position is that the leaders are so in touch with the sacrafice members make that they want to make sure that there is never ever any reason for them to not be trusted. They take the widows mite seriously and say take the stance that the sacrifice is often great and the faithful steward is careful and wise with the talents given.
For those who trust, reproach is not a factor--certainly not sufficient to surmount the right of privacy. I see no valid reason for those of us who trust, to cater to the potential reproach of those who distrust. At least that is how I see it.
I trust them. But it is sort of like Ronald Reagen said, Trust and verify.
I can appreciate your difference of opinion, though I am confident in my own point of view.
As am I.
On balance, do you really think the church will be benefitted by openning the books? If so, how? (If you think that by doing so it will somehow pursuade the distrusting to be more trusting of the Church, or somehow place the Church above reproach in the minds of some, I think you are mistaken.)
For me at least it is not an issue about benefiting or not benefiting the Church. There will be critics no matter what they do. It is an issue of accountability and stewardship. I do believe leaders are accountable to their flock for their actions and for completing their duties faithfully. I do not distrust but I do not want to give opportunities for things to happen that would or could cause mistrust. We know that the Church leaders at times have not managed the financial as well. I do not think they were evil or padding their pockets. But it seems that open books persuaded them to become more fiscally sound. Thus I am for transparency.