Open the financial records guys

[_Scottie]

It seems like after an organization gets to 5 Billion a year, it would be impossible to be not-for-profit.

Why? I bet there are other NFPs that get more than that.

I believe that after an organization reaches a certain point, it should not be tax exempt anymore. I just cannot fathom how organizations such as the red cross and such are using all of this money on their cause and the executives are not getting filthy rich from the donations of others.

They do a minimal amount to get in the papers where people trumpet the good the church does.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

That wasn't meant to disparage the amount of good they do in the world. The fact that the LDS church has trucks with supplies ready to move when Hurricane Ike hit was very impressive to me!!

My beef is that it appears they are spending a minuscule fraction of the money they receive for humanitarian aid. They could, and probably should, do so much more.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm still amazed that the IRS doesn't require the LDS church (or any NFP) to release their financial records. How is this possible?

In my post-LDS days, I've attended a few non-LDS congregations. Every one of them has open accounting, meaning that the books were openly available to any member who inquired. Most of the churches I attended even publish weekly and year-to-date income / expense numbers on the back page of the agenda they hand out for the service.

It doesn't surprise me that run-of-the-mill LDS accept whatever is read over the pulpit at general conference. What astounds me is how a multi-billion dollar "church" can claim NFP status while NOT releasing basic financial information to the public, or at least to those who "donate".

If anyone is familiar with the IRS rules, I'd be interested to hear them.

Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) allows for a number of various organizations to be tax exempt. Churches are among those. Most tax exempt must file an annual information form that reports a large amount of information and in 2009 the information required will be increased. This is called Form 990. These are available for public view. For some reason I do not know churches are exempt from filing this form under current tax law.

Additionally many tax exempts must submit their records to an audit from an independent CPA firm. This is based on size, assets and donations. Again churches are exempt.

That said many churches will disclose financial data of their own accord. Unfortunately the LDS Church is not among them.

[_Jason Bourne]

I believe that after an organization reaches a certain point, it should not be tax exempt anymore. I just cannot fathom how organizations such as the red cross and such are using all of this money on their cause and the executives are not getting filthy rich from the donations of others.

Ok

Currently IRS and congress disagrees.

My beef is that it appears they are spending a minuscule fraction of the money they receive for humanitarian aid. They could, and probably should, do so much more.

I have reasonably estimated that the Church give out about 500 million a year in fast offering assistance. This, along with other things they do are significant.

[_wenglund]

To me, the more important question is:

"If the federal government doesn't see a need for the Church to disclose its finances, nor does it see a need to tell the Church what to do regarding publically disclosing its finances, then why do certain private individuals, who are not in any way involved in the decision-making about Church finances, and some of whom are no longer members of the Church, think they need to tell the Church what to do regarding disclosing its finances, all the while ironically not disclosing their own private finances?"

Could it have anything to do with being hypocritical "busy bodies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

I believe that after an organization reaches a certain point, it should not be tax exempt anymore. I just cannot fathom how organizations such as the red cross and such are using all of this money on their cause and the executives are not getting filthy rich from the donations of others.

Ok

Currently IRS and congress disagrees.

Unfortunately.

My beef is that it appears they are spending a minuscule fraction of the money they receive for humanitarian aid. They could, and probably should, do so much more.

I have reasonably estimated that the Church give out about 500 million a year in fast offering assistance. This, along with other things they do are significant.

That's a fair point. Fast offering money is one area of the church in which I have great respect.

It is also a program administered on a local level. Generally speaking, the local leaders are the salt of the earth. I've never met a bishop that I didn't immensely respect. Not to say the slimeballs aren't out there, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

[_Mister Scratch]

To me, the more important question is:

"If the federal government doesn't see a need for the Church to disclose its finances, nor does it see a need to tell the Church what to do regarding publically disclosing its finances, then why do certain private individuals, who are not in any way involved in the decision-making about Church finances, and some of whom are no longer members of the Church, think they need to tell the Church what to do regarding disclosing its finances, all the while ironically not disclosing their own private finances?"

Could it have anything to do with being hypocritical "busy bodies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Couldn't we say pretty much the same thing about your meddling in the affairs of gays? Or are you gay yourself?

[_wenglund]

To me, the more important question is:

"If the federal government doesn't see a need for the Church to disclose its finances, nor does it see a need to tell the Church what to do regarding publically disclosing its finances, then why do certain private individuals, who are not in any way involved in the decision-making about Church finances, and some of whom are no longer members of the Church, think they need to tell the Church what to do regarding disclosing its finances, all the while ironically not disclosing their own private finances?"

Could it have anything to do with being hypocritical "busy bodies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Couldn't we say pretty much the same thing about your meddling in the affairs of gays?

Your question falsely presupposes that I am "meddling in the affairs of gays", and thus cannot rationally be answered as asked.

Or are you gay yourself?

Your fallacy of bifurcation aside, the answer to your question is no--not that it is any of your business (speaking of ironies, if not "busy bodies").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Your question falsely presupposes that I am "meddling in the affairs of gays", and thus cannot rationally be answered as asked.

Did you not at one time troll gay messageboards? Did you not once run a website for the "CSSAD"? Did you not hold up an anti-gay marriage sign at Temple Square? If that doesn't amount to "meddling," I don't know what does.

Or are you gay yourself?

Your fallacy of bifurcation aside, the answer to your question is no--not that it is any of your business (speaking of ironies, if not "busy bodies").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then the meddling is even worse. Try hanging that "busy body" label around your own neck, friend.

[_Jason Bourne]

To me, the more important question is:

"If the federal government doesn't see a need for the Church to disclose its finances, nor does it see a need to tell the Church what to do regarding publically disclosing its finances, then why do certain private individuals, who are not in any way involved in the decision-making about Church finances, and some of whom are no longer members of the Church, think they need to tell the Church what to do regarding disclosing its finances, all the while ironically not disclosing their own private finances?"

Could it have anything to do with being hypocritical "busy bodies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't decide what is right, proper and even ethical bases on what the government does and does not do. Tax law is a capricious thing and a tool that is often not used wisely. What amazes my is that the Church used to publish it finances and no longer does so. Had you been an adult at that time I am sure you would have been happy about it and now you are happy about the books being closed. In other words whatever the Church does is a ok. You think some are busy bodies. Some may think you don't think and that you follow blindly.

[Gadianton]

Did you not at one time troll gay messageboards?

No. Not that it is any of your business (speaking of "busy bodies"), for two evenings back in the year 2000, I posted several well-intended and meaningful investigative questions on one gay message board.

Did you not once run a website for the "CSSAD"?

Yes. I once ran a web site for the study of sexaul attraction disorders. The intent was to proffer a reasoned approach to public discourse on issues involving sexual disorder that may affect society as a whole.

Did you not hold up an anti-gay marriage sign at Temple Square?

No. Not that it is any of your business (speaking of "busy bodies"), but my sign spoke only about the Church, and made no mention of gays.

If that doesn't amount to "meddling," I don't know what does.

I will take you at your word, and accept that you don't know what does.

Then the meddling is even worse. Try hanging that "busy body" label around your own neck, friend.

I think you have me confused with your projections.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-