Open the financial records guys

[_wenglund]

Were it "the right thing to do" (in the leaders' far more informed and broadly scoped opinion), then that is what they would have been doing. Clearly, the leaders differ in their opinion from you.

Why do the self-appointed advisors to the prophets not get that?

Because we are not obsequious pushovers for whom it is sufficient that these guys say "I am God's servant"? That would be my first response. No offense.

Yes...I can see how not being an "obsequious pushover" may prevent some critics from reasonably grasping that the Church leaders may differ in their opinions from the critics, and may even be more informed in their opinions than the critics (which was my point). I am pleased to see that you agree.

It may also prevent them from grasping other things that would be in their and Church's interest. Oh well..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Yes...I can see how not being an "obsequious pushover" may prevent some critics from reasonably grasping that the Church leaders may differ in their opinions from the critics, and may even be more informed in their opinions than the critics (which was my point). I am pleased to see that you agree.

I agree with almost nothing you have written. First, I am aware that the leaders of the Church likely differ in their opinion with me and other 'critics.' That does not make them right in their secretive policies. Neither does the fact that they may be more informed than the critics. Other organizations do just fine with greater financial transparency.

You have no more information than I do, precisely because of the opaqueness of LDS Church government and administration, so that leaves you in the position of trusting relatively blindly. That I do not choose to follow you in that irrational decision is not the result of some failing on my part.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

I was an employee of Fidelity, not an investor.

So, with that correction in mind, please re-read what I said to if it may help you to correctly grasp the point that I was making. ...or not.

I grasp it. I just disagree with it. And I still think is is not the same thing.

[_Jason Bourne]

An interesting article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -12.0.html

And I think this organiztion give some compelling reasons for Church's disclosing financial information:

http://www.ecfa.org/Content.aspx?PageName=Comment5

Some excerpt:

For the evangelical organization, the question often arises as to whether or not a person or organization must—at all times and under all circumstances—tell the truth to all persons in word and deed, when asked and even when not asked. In the Old Testament, "truth" ties together such concepts as personality and objectivity, integrity and reliability, and the character of people or organizations. Moral integrity, both as it relates to facts and principles, should be our concern as we present ourselves to other Christians and to the secular world. In John’s account of Jesus' arrest and trial before the high priest, the high priest questions Jesus about His disciples and teaching. To this Jesus responds:

I have spoken openly to the world . . . I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. (John 18:20)

Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and perhaps required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents an even higher standard of openness and example for Christian organizations operating in the forum of the Church. It may be true to assert that the public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of the Christian ministry in general is at stake.

Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God's gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to make assets and the acquisition thereof our lasting companion and goal

[_wenglund]

I agree with almost nothing you have written.

My apologies. I thought your comments were in answer to the question that I asked (and this because you quoted my question and then supposedly answered it). I didn't realize you weren't following the line of discussion.

First, I am aware that the leaders of the Church likely differ in their opinion with me and other 'critics.' That does not make them right in their secretive policies.

That, alone, doesn't make them right or wrong. It doesn't make them good, bad, or indifferent, or any of a number of positive or negative value judgements. It doesn't even make them red or purple or green.

However, I am not speaking to what is right or wrong, but rather about what "works" best for organizations, and whose opinions are most efficacious to be voiced, when, where, an how?

Relatively unknown members, some posting under pseudonyms, griping about this and that about the Church on an obscure message board, doesn't strike me as effectual in the least--particularly when we all have great room to improve with ourselves and our respective rolls.

Neither does the fact that they may be more informed than the critics.

True. It simply makes it more likely that they are in a better position to know whether their policy is in the best interest of all parties--not that the critics and self-appointed advisors will see it that way.

Other organizations do just fine with greater financial transparency.

Yes...and still other organizations do just fine when keeping their finances private. In fact, I suspect that your family organization does quite well keeping your finances private.

You have no more information than I do, precisely because of the opaqueness of LDS Church government and administration, so that leaves you in the position of trusting relatively blindly. That I do not choose to follow you in that irrational decision is not the result of some failing on my part.

You have inanely assumed that for me it is about blind trust. Actually, in my case, it has nothing to do with trust, nor does it have to do with you being blindly critical. Rather, again, it has everything to do with what "works" in terms each party focusing on their respective roles in an orderly organization.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

An interesting article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -12.0.html

And I think this organiztion give some compelling reasons for Church's disclosing financial information:

http://www.ecfa.org/Content.aspx?PageName=Comment5

Some excerpt:

For the evangelical organization, the question often arises as to whether or not a person or organization must—at all times and under all circumstances—tell the truth to all persons in word and deed, when asked and even when not asked. In the Old Testament, "truth" ties together such concepts as personality and objectivity, integrity and reliability, and the character of people or organizations. Moral integrity, both as it relates to facts and principles, should be our concern as we present ourselves to other Christians and to the secular world. In John’s account of Jesus' arrest and trial before the high priest, the high priest questions Jesus about His disciples and teaching. To this Jesus responds:

I have spoken openly to the world . . . I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. (John 18:20)

Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and perhaps required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents an even higher standard of openness and example for Christian organizations operating in the forum of the Church. It may be true to assert that the public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of the Christian ministry in general is at stake.

Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God's gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to make assets and the acquisition thereof our lasting companion and goal

That is all well and good for those organizatons, and I wish them all the best.

however, I am greatly pleased to see that your own life and responsibilities are in such fantastic order that you have all this time to investigate how the Church leaders should be doing their jobs and what decisions they should be making in the stewardship they were called to.

It is a bit sad, though, that all this work you have put into your self-appointed duties, will be virtually wasted on a handful of people here who are entirely out of the loop like you, and some of whom aren't even members of the Church--though, for whatever reason they feel obliged to weigh in on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

It reminds me of the mission president boasting that he and his wife could easily baptize 20 people a month because of their superior faith.

Wonder how he would do with Electrolux Vacuums then?

I always thought that financial openness helped to prevent the appearance of impropriety much more than a brown beverage in the hand of a missionary caused the appearance of impropriety.

When has cloak and dagger or smoke and mirrors ever truly been the way of God?

[_Jason Bourne]

That is all well and good for those organizatons, and I wish them all the best.

however, I am greatly pleased to see that your own life and responsibilities are in such fantastic order that you have all this time to investigate how the Church leaders should be doing their jobs and what decisions they should be making in the stewardship they were called to.

It is a bit sad, though, that all this work you have put into your self-appointed duties, will be virtually wasted on a handful of people here who are entirely out of the loop like you, and some of whom aren't even members of the Church--though, for whatever reason they feel obliged to weigh in on the matter.

Your comments are petty wade and the tone demeaning. This is a discussion board. I lose no sleep over this. It is something I like talking about and one thing I think it would be good for the church to change. I tossed out some interesting things other organizations do and your response above was a non response. They gave compelling ideas. You stoop to sarcasm and a rather pious tone. Thus you have lost the argument.

My guess is though, that at some point in the future, church's will be required to file a Form 990 like all other tax exempts. The LDS church is already required to disclose this information in places like the UK and other countries. It to me is sad that they may be compelled to do so some day rather then do it on their own.

[_Trevor]

My apologies. I thought your comments were in answer to the question that I asked (and this because you quoted my question and then supposedly answered it). I didn't realize you weren't following the line of discussion.

Wrong again. You are simply mischaracterizing the nature of my response.

Relatively unknown members, some posting under pseudonyms, griping about this and that about the Church on an obscure message board, doesn't strike me as effectual in the least--particularly when we all have great room to improve with ourselves and our respective rolls.

Relatively? You are too generous. I agree with you that we all have room to improve ourselves. Certainly it is the great project of our lives. Such a project does not necessarily preclude the criticism of an institution. Your assumption that it does shows you have been trained very well.

True. It simply makes it more likely that they are in a better position to know whether their policy is in the best interest of all parties--not that the critics and self-appointed advisors will see it that way.

I have no doubt that they are in a better position to know many facts. The question is not their knowledge but their judgment, something that is heavily influenced by the institutional culture of the LDS Church. Sometimes that influence is very beneficial, and at other times not so much. It is not impossible for outside observers to call it correctly, and sometimes critics see things more clearly than the people sitting inside the fishbowl. It is not as clear cut as you depict it.

Yes...and still other organizations do just fine when keeping their finances private. In fact, I suspect that your family organization does quite well keeping your finances private.

I was thinking more along the lines of similar organizations, not of any organization. The trade practices of Amazonian villages are not really pertinent to the discussion, neither are my family's finances. When I set out to start a new church and claim tax-exempt status for it, though, I'll keep you apprised.

You have inanely assumed that for me it is about blind trust. Actually, in my case, it has nothing to do with trust, nor does it have to do with you being blindly critical. Rather, again, it has everything to do with what "works" in terms each party focusing on their respective roles in an orderly organization.

And this, again, is exactly how the Church has taught you to approach the problem. It is also, by the way, in the interest of those who wield power over the organization, which might justifiably raise suspicions about the purpose for inculcating members with this attitude. It is the idea that "they know best" what the needs of the Church are, while "the members" do not, nor do these members need to know what is going on. All very natural for a hierarchical, authoritarian organization born in the secrecy of a marginal personality cult. But optimal? Questionable certainly.

[_Henry Jacobs]

It's a simple matter of respect. If an organization has the least regard for those who support it financially, it will gladly share information about what those supporters have accomplished with their donations.

It's sad that church most members don't even believe they deserve the minimal respect that a financial report would represent.

What did the membership do in the 1950's to deserve their new "none of their business" status?