What recourse do you have?

[_Runtu]

I find it interesting that anyone would assume there's something wrong with wanting to know how one's charitable donations are spent. It's almost as if asking for accountability were somehow an affront to the Brethren.

[_Pokatator]

If the church runs this like the United Way, which I know is fact, the scenario would go basically like the following. Someone donates to the UW and they can designate where the monies go. Someone can deny a charity such as Red Cross any of their donation. But at the end of the campaign the money is divided into the predesignated slices of the pie. The UW can claim that they did not give any of the donors money to the Red Cross but the Red Cross gets its full designation out of other donors donations that did not make any designations for their funds. In other words the Red Cross gets all the money that was predesignated for them, they lose nothing.

I believe that the church would handle those earmarked funds in the same manner. No slice of the budget pie would but shorted by any earmark.

It isn't the shortage of funds in a specific category that is the question. It is the member's willingnes to comply with the laws of God. It would be the same as a missionary saying he would serve, but only if he was called to a specific country.

I really wasn't trying to illustrate a question. I was illustrating that the person who earmarks a donation actually changes nothing. The church is not going to honor the earmark. The question of whether the donor is willing to comply with the laws of God as you interpret them is a different issue than I brought up.

Again, the church is not going to honor the earmark, it is useless to make an earmarked donation.

[_charity]

I find it interesting that anyone would assume there's something wrong with wanting to know how one's charitable donations are spent. It's almost as if asking for accountability were somehow an affront to the Brethren.

When I have made a donation to United Way and designated the donation to a specific fund, it was because I didn't want my donation going to one of their recipients that I disagreed with. And realizing as Pokatator said, that it didn't make any difference, I stopped donating to United Way, and donated directlyi to the one I wanted.

That kind of decision making indicates that you agree with some and disagree with others. So if a person is designating their donation to go for one particular type of use, they are saying they disagree with another. That is not supporting the leadders,and is criticizing them.

If you want to see how funds are spent in the Church, look around. Temples. Chapels. Church welfare. LDS social services. Humanitarian aid, CES. So, if someone is complaining about temples, or Church welfare, etc. they have a problem with the Church that goes beyond a petty concern about just how their tithing funds are used.

[_moksha]

Maybe imported wood was not the best decision. (Not that I am saying it wasn't.) But that was made by someone who had the authority to do so. Maybe the Spirit would confirm, yes, this was not the best decision if you asked the question. But the problem is, the question should not have been asked in the first place. We are each given our stewardships. We have the responsibility and accountability in that area. We don't have the responsibility for someone else's stewardship.

How right you are Charity, this imported wood decision should have been left solely to the steward with the luxurious tastes. He knew that American wood produced by American lumber mills would not have the same patina of sophistication as that imported from Italy. Just ask the Astors or Rockefellers. To second guess such a decision is tantamount to questioning the Lord, is it not?

[_Pokatator]

I find it interesting that anyone would assume there's something wrong with wanting to know how one's charitable donations are spent. It's almost as if asking for accountability were somehow an affront to the Brethren.

When I have made a donation to United Way and designated the donation to a specific fund, it was because I didn't want my donation going to one of their recipients that I disagreed with. And realizing as Pokatator said, that it didn't make any difference, I stopped donating to United Way, and donated directlyi to the one I wanted.

That kind of decision making indicates that you agree with some and disagree with others. So if a person is designating their donation to go for one particular type of use, they are saying they disagree with another. That is not supporting the leadders,and is criticizing them.

If you want to see how funds are spent in the Church, look around. Temples. Chapels. Church welfare. LDS social services. Humanitarian aid, CES. So, if someone is complaining about temples, or Church welfare, etc. they have a problem with the Church that goes beyond a petty concern about just how their tithing funds are used.

Charity, you can look at United Way and see how the funds are spent, humanitarian aid, homeless shelters, food banks, half-way houses, indigent care, etc. The big difference is that the United Way's books are open and church's books are closed. The United Way isn't building malls and the church is.

How could you make your judgment above about United Way if their books were not open? Same goes for the church.

[_Runtu]

When I have made a donation to United Way and designated the donation to a specific fund, it was because I didn't want my donation going to one of their recipients that I disagreed with. And realizing as Pokatator said, that it didn't make any difference, I stopped donating to United Way, and donated directlyi to the one I wanted.

In other words, there was enough transparency that you could determine that you didn't want some of your donations used for particular purposes.

That kind of decision making indicates that you agree with some and disagree with others. So if a person is designating their donation to go for one particular type of use, they are saying they disagree with another. That is not supporting the leadders,and is criticizing them.

Since when does disagreeing equal criticizing? Have you never disagreed with your husband? Can you do that without criticizing?

If you want to see how funds are spent in the Church, look around. Temples. Chapels. Church welfare. LDS social services. Humanitarian aid, CES. So, if someone is complaining about temples, or Church welfare, etc. they have a problem with the Church that goes beyond a petty concern about just how their tithing funds are used.

And here we come back to the heart of the matter. For whatever reason, you think it's sinful to disagree with the leadership.

Having worked for the church, I understand that it is not all the "inspired restored church," but rather a huge, paid bureaucracy with all the problems that entails. And I wasn't entirely happy with some of the ways church funds were spent. I worked on a project that was essentially donating church employees' time to a for-profit company; we billed our hours to an internal project code, but we were really doing the work for an outside company. That was wrong and possibly illegal. But according to you, taking issue with such a practice is tantamount to evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

[_charity]

Maybe imported wood was not the best decision. (Not that I am saying it wasn't.) But that was made by someone who had the authority to do so. Maybe the Spirit would confirm, yes, this was not the best decision if you asked the question. But the problem is, the question should not have been asked in the first place. We are each given our stewardships. We have the responsibility and accountability in that area. We don't have the responsibility for someone else's stewardship.

How right you are Charity, this imported wood decision should have been left solely to the steward with the luxurious tastes. He knew that American wood produced by American lumber mills would not have the same patina of sophistication as that imported from Italy. Just ask the Astors or Rockefellers. To second guess such a decision is tantamount to questioning the Lord, is it not?

Do you know if the imported wood was more expensive than high priced American craftsmen could produce? Or wou dyou then complain about not using American craftsmen?

[_truth dancer]

It is my understanding that there is a "rule" for this reason. Tithing is a commandment of God and for a reason. We are giving the 10% back as a demonstration of our gratitude for all that God has given us. No strings. If we attach strings, then we aren't following the commandment. What people feel comfortable with is not always the test of a truth.

I know it is your understanding. That is not what I asked.

I asked where it is written, or where is the rule that states the slip must be marked "tithing" for it to count as tithing. Who, (besides you) states that if someone gives 10% of their increase to the church but asks the money to go help people, they are not following the commandment? Is it in the CHI? (Anyone know)?

Why is YOUR opinion better than any other TBM on this matter? Do you think YOUR ideas are somehow better than those who are following their personal inspiration?

I would ask why they would think they should attach strings if they believe the Church to be the kingdom of God on earth.

Perhaps the HG inspired them to give the money to help those in need? Maybe it fit their personal sense of holiness to help others rather than build malls? Maybe they received a personal witness that Christ wants the money to be donated to those who are less fortunate?

If a person feels they have inspiration/revelation which is in conflict with the leaders, they have a bigger problem than the original question. They should get to work and figure out what is going on with them.

Wait a sec... isn't it you who has claimed that everyone is entitled to their personal inspiration? If the leaders can make mistakes and if one doesn't get a confirming witness to something they say or do, and if one's personal inspiration conflicts with the leaders, why must THEY "get to work and figure out what is going on with them?" Maybe it is the leader? Or maybe a person is asked to do something different because it is God's will?

My point is, why do YOU think YOU know?

You admit leaders make mistakes. You admit they are fallible. Yet if someone doesn't see eye-to-eye with a leader they have a problem? So In other words, leaders do NOT make mistakes and are INfallible? Or are leaders fallible but you must get a witness that their mistake is right? Or are you to follow even if your personal witness tells you they are making a mistake?

[_the road to hana]

It didn't help that he was secretly committing adultery, however.

rcrocket

Maybe he was just taking "Follow the Prophet" to its literal extreme.

[_wenglund]

Lets play pretend and say that I am a temple worth, fully active, priesthood toting Mormon boy.

Now, lets say that I read somewhere that the LDS church is using my tithing funds in a way that I don't agree with. They are importing materials for temples, not giving enough relief, paying the GA's way too much, etc. Lets say I am also VERY disturbed by the fact that they don't release any kind of financial reporting.

What recourse do I have if I want to maintain my good standing in the church, and not lose the eternal blessing afforded me via the temple?

I can think of four viable options.

1. Consider one's charitable offerings to be just that--charitable offerrings, and once it is charitably offerred, consider it no longer any of one's business, nor a means of control in having things go one's way.

2. Humbly realize that inspired leaders may know best how to direct tithing monies, and trust in them in spite of one's disturbances.

3. Imagine that the relatively few dollars (proportional to the whole received by the Church) that one is giving, as only going towards those causes one is undesturbed by, and that everyone else's money is going to the supposed disturbing causes.

4. Self-direct one's 10% to charitable causes (in and out of the Church), and bring a record of those offerings to tithing settlement, and honestly and accurately state your belief that you are a full tithe payer, and do the same during temple recommend interviews.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-