Open the financial records guys

[_ajax18]

I don't decide what is right, proper and even ethical bases on what the government does and does not do.

I see your point, but that's kind of what I do when I vote. I think we agree on this one Jason. You may want to revise your position. Agreeing with Ajax can make a man question himself. I personally doubt the Church has much to be embarrassed about and I think it would quelch a lot of criticisms. I think Jesus's and other martyrs willingness to die for the cause presented a stronger case for the reality of eternity and life after death. Should He have been required to do that to satisfy my suspicions? No, but it sure made for a stronger case when He did.

I remember how bad my grandmothers children rode her when the stuff hit the fan in the Jim Bakker case. Her reply that all that mattered to her was that she had given in good faith made sense to me. To what extent should we seek to find out information to make good judgments? I'm certainly glad people began finding out what Rome was doing with German sacrifices during Martin Luther's time. They too could argue that it's God's church and above the judgment of man. At what point do you become an unwise steward when you just blindly give money to people and organizations?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, marriage is "good and wholesome". Too bad you helped deny it to a great number of people---people who do not even live in your state, I might add. And you have damned yourself with your MAD post, by the way.

Speaking of false accusations, no one has been denied marriage (as that word is traditionally, and now constitutionally, meant). Any man or woman in California, regardless of sexual orientation, can legally marry someone of the opposite sex.

A nice equivocation.

As for me supposedly being damned by my MAD posts, I don't view you as in a position to be my judge--not that it is any of your business.

You may as well just admit that the MAD post was a bad move on your point. It painted you in a most unfavorable light.

Feel free to demonstrate your false accusations, Wade. You know how much it pains you when people stand outside the temple with signs pertaining to DNA or blacks and the priesthood.

Speaking of false accusation, it comes as news to me that I am supposedly "pained" by those things.

Wade, who are you kidding? You once stated that the Church is the "most precious and dear" thing in the world to you. Are you really trying to make me believe that you aren't upset by the protesters?

Why did you seek this opportunity to exact revenge?

Speaking again of false accusations, your question is based on a false presupposition (I didn't exact revenge), and thus can't reasonably be answered as asked.

You were obviously looking to "rub it in."

[_cinepro]

I am not sure how you can rationally conclude that when you GIVE your money to the Lord/Church, that somehow the money is still YOUR'S?

I think there are two different issues being unintentionally mixed up here.

The first issue is whether or not the Church should "open" the books so Church members and others can see how much money there is, and where it is going.

The second issue is whether or not Church members should have a say or influence over how that money is spent.

Those are two separate issues, and to argue for the first is not the same as arguing for the second.

But the greater danger is that some Church members won't want to "have a say" over how the money is spent, but will instead find some evidence of mismanagement and just decide to stop giving altogether. As long as the current system of secrecy works and people are still willing to give with faith in the fallible financial management currently being used, there is no need to change it.

[_wenglund]

The Church is my church and yours as members.

True--just as BYU is my alama mater and Fidelity Investments used to be my company. It is just that I don't view it as my role to tell the leaders of those respective institution what to do with THEIR finances, including in terms of public disclosure. That is their business, not mine. My role as a member is to be a good member.

Does that mean that I or others can't harbor an opinion about how the finances may best be handled publically? Not at all. We are free to formulate opinions on whatever issue we want, and to voice those opinions whereever and whenever we see fit--heightened concerns about "dissent" notwithstanding.

To me, though, I find it works best to focus more on fulfilling my role as a member and formulating and voicing opinions in relation thereto. I like Paul's analogy of the Church as a body. Each part has their respective roles to perform, and when each part functions as intended, the whole body works beautifuly. But, if the foot is busy advising the head what to do (on obscure discussion boards where the head is unlikely to be present), rather than focusing on its own role, the whole body may end up tripping and landing on its face.

Do you get what I am trying to say?

What surprises me is how strident so many members are about the idea of disclosure as you seem.

It surprises me that you would mis-think that I am strident about the idea of disclosure when I explicitly said that I could care less one way or the other. My point isn't about whether the Church should or shouldn't disclose its finances, but whether or not it is our business, as members, to fuss about it one way or the other. Should we feet be busying ourselves with telling the head what to do, or would the body of the Church be better served for us to busy ourselves with where we are stepping and headed to go?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I am not sure how you can rationally conclude that when you GIVE your money to the Lord/Church, that somehow the money is still YOUR'S?

I think there are two different issues being unintentionally mixed up here.

The first issue is whether or not the Church should "open" the books so Church members and others can see how much money there is, and where it is going.

The second issue is whether or not Church members should have a say or influence over how that money is spent.

Those are two separate issues, and to argue for the first is not the same as arguing for the second.

But the greater danger is that some Church members won't want to "have a say" over how the money is spent, but will instead find some evidence of mismanagement and just decide to stop giving altogether. As long as the current system of secrecy works and people are still willing to give with faith in the fallible financial management currently being used, there is no need to change it.

I am actually speaking to a third issue--i.e. whether it is, or should be, the business of members to, on obscure online discussion boards, tell the leaders of the Church (who are likely not present on the obscure discussion boards) whether or not they should publically disclose the Church's finances.

I am suggesting that it should not be our business to do so--if for no other reason than it does no good, and may even prove counter-productive (i.e. distract us from exploring issues more germane to our own personal lives and roles and responsibilities).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

I am actually speaking to a third issue--i.e. whether it is, or should be, the business of members to, on obscure online discussion boards, tell the leaders of the Church (who are likely not present on the obscure discussion boards) whether or not they should publically disclose the Church's finances.

Who cares? They should do it because it is the right thing to do, regardless of what any of us, on either side, say.

[_The Nehor]

As a TBM myself may I say that I would personally have no problem with the Church if I found out they took my money and burnt it all on an altar. If God is displeased with how our leaders use the money he is perfectly capable of smiting them himself. My part is to do what God asks. They have the same problem. They are not accountable to me as to how they use the money. They are accountable to God.

[_Scottie]

As a TBM myself may I say that I would personally have no problem with the Church if I found out they took my money and burnt it all on an altar. If God is displeased with how our leaders use the money he is perfectly capable of smiting them himself. My part is to do what God asks. They have the same problem. They are not accountable to me as to how they use the money. They are accountable to God.

Do you not see this as blind obedience?

[_The Nehor]

As a TBM myself may I say that I would personally have no problem with the Church if I found out they took my money and burnt it all on an altar. If God is displeased with how our leaders use the money he is perfectly capable of smiting them himself. My part is to do what God asks. They have the same problem. They are not accountable to me as to how they use the money. They are accountable to God.

Do you not see this as blind obedience?

Nope, because my obedience is to God and giving the tenth up. What happens with it might be the subject of curiosity but it has nothing to do with my obedience.

This is similar to all other laws of the Gospel. I obey the Word of Wisdom because God told me to and not because of medical studies showing that substances can be harmful. If tomorrow the studies were all overthrown and it was shown that wine and cigarettes were healthy I wouldn't start drinking and smoking. Studying reasons for things can be fun and even edifying but it is secondary to the trust I have in God's will.

God has asked me to do things that made no sense. Sometimes I find out later why. In some cases I still don't know.

[_Trevor]

Nope, because my obedience is to God and giving the tenth up. What happens with it might be the subject of curiosity but it has nothing to do with my obedience.

I respect your choice. I choose to hold those who lay claim to my money responsible for how they dispose of it. This includes corporations, charities, and churches. If I find that a group I give money to behaves in a way I find objectionable, then I will stop giving them my money. If a charitable organization, non-profit, or church decides to keep its books sequestered from public view, they will not get my money. Credibility and trust are earned. Financial transparency does wonders toward securing my contributions.