Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_harmony]

Hello,

Why are TBMs OK with their church hiding its financial records? It boggles the mind.

V/R
Dr. Cam

To whom are you referring, Cam?

[_zeezrom]

Hello,

Why are TBMs OK with their church hiding its financial records? It boggles the mind.

V/R
Dr. Cam

they trust God and they believe God is the captain of the ship.

[_cafe crema]

Explain, please, where "Tithing Trough" Harmony makes any allowance at all for the Church to invest its surplus in a financially prudent way.

In my opinion, the church should never never never have any surplus, until there are no poor in the world and widows have all they need.

No they all have to have a surplus, a surplus allows churches to react to a disaster right away. The people in Haiti received help much sooner because the organizations involved, including churches, had surplus to give.

[_zeezrom]

I was talking to my Catholic friend about private, Catholic schools. He told me most of their funding comes from local donations from the people involved in the school. I asked, "They don't get funding from the Vatican?" He laughed at my question but I was serious. Other churches don't work like the Mormon church, I guess.

[_Runtu]

Well my main point that I have treid to make to you and Pahoran is that it is a poor defense to argue GA stipends don't come from tithing and that somehow makes it better. I found it odd when President Hinckley even addressed where the money might come from. Same thing for the mall really. All money used by the church ultimatly traced back to some contribution by members. And if it is used for malls or or other businesses or investments that can mean less for other things it seespms Christ's church ought to do.

I may be an outlier, but I don't have a problem with the church being involved in business enterprises, as long as there's a clear distinction between the tax-exempt church organization and the for-profit stuff. It's true that all church funds originated at some point in donations, but personal and church money was so intertwined in earlier times that it's hard to say where it all came from.

You might wonder why an unbeliever like me is OK with a church making money. First of all, the church takes in a lot of money in good times and less in bad times. Having other sources of income besides donations can help even things out and provide a source of income in scarce times. To me, it's just a wise strategy for making sure you have enough income to do the things you want to do as a church.

But isn't it slightly immoral for a church to be in business? Couldn't that money be put to better use? Maybe so, but then income from these businesses can be put back into the church (and as I recall, they are) and provide funding for more of the activities we traditionally associate with religious and charitable organizations.

My two biggest issues with church finances are these:

1. Complete lack of transparency and oversight. Church members are just expected to trust that money is used wisely and honestly. It was a huge mistake, in my view, for the church to stop publishing their books in the late 1950s. A lot of people I know in and out of the church are suspicious of closed books. While I don't believe there is a big problem with fraud in church finances, I really don't have any idea because I can't see the books.

2. Unwise investments and wasteful spending. The City Creek project has the potential to be a financial disaster for the church. They started building at the peak of the real estate market, meaning their costs were at their highest. A friend of mine who works on the project says they are massively over budget, and when it's finished, they will not get the expected occupancy and lease rates because of the depressed real estate market. I thought it was a bad investment when they started, but it's become even more so. And the Conference Center serves no real purpose. They didn't need a bigger venue for conference because people in Utah, who are likely to attend, can watch it on TV. Still haven't figured out why they built that thing.

[_harmony]

I may be an outlier, but I don't have a problem with the church being involved in business enterprises, as long as there's a clear distinction between the tax-exempt church organization and the for-profit stuff. It's true that all church funds originated at some point in donations, but personal and church money was so intertwined in earlier times that it's hard to say where it all came from.

I'm not sure making excuses for poor accountability in the early church does anyone any favors.

You might wonder why an unbeliever like me is OK with a church making money. First of all, the church takes in a lot of money in good times and less in bad times. Having other sources of income besides donations can help even things out and provide a source of income in scarce times. To me, it's just a wise strategy for making sure you have enough income to do the things you want to do as a church.

There's the rub, Runtu: if the church was following its own mandate and mission, there would be "sufficient for our needs", and nothing in the investment portfolio. But the Brethren don't trust God to provide, which turns the church into a business first and a church dead last.

When times are tough, everyone tightens their budget. Why is the church exempt from that, given a pass?

But isn't it slightly immoral for a church to be in business? Couldn't that money be put to better use? Maybe so, but then income from these businesses can be put back into the church (and as I recall, they are) and provide funding for more of the activities we traditionally associate with religious and charitable organizations.

No one knows that; the books aren't open.

My two biggest issues with church finances are these:

1. Complete lack of transparency and oversight. Church members are just expected to trust that money is used wisely and honestly. It was a huge mistake, in my view, for the church to stop publishing their books in the late 1950s. A lot of people I know in and out of the church are suspicious of closed books. While I don't believe there is a big problem with fraud in church finances, I really don't have any idea because I can't see the books.

I'm not assuming there is malfeasance. I'm assuming poor decisions based on no consequences.

2. Unwise investments and wasteful spending. The City Creek project has the potential to be a financial disaster for the church. They started building at the peak of the real estate market, meaning their costs were at their highest. A friend of mine who works on the project says they are massively over budget, and when it's finished, they will not get the expected occupancy and lease rates because of the depressed real estate market. I thought it was a bad investment when they started, but it's become even more so.

With any luck at all, it will be a ghost town and I'll be proven right once again.

And the Conference Center serves no real purpose. They didn't need a bigger venue for conference because people in Utah, who are likely to attend, can watch it on TV. Still haven't figured out why they built that thing.

It was a gift to the people of SLCentral paid for by the tithes of the poor and widowed all over the world, and a place to put a big tree stump.

[_moksha]

Loved that standing next to pygmies metaphor. Hey, what about this one?

"Stand next to an attack dog and you look like dinner"

[_harmony]

Loved that standing next to pygmies metaphor.

All penguins are short.

[_Jason Bourne]

Harmony


I did not say I favored amassing huge income generating assets by the church. But I think for you to think the church should not set aside for downturns, or as some else noted, for times of emergency or disaster is extreme. And yes most other large churches do the same thing.

Look at it like this. Let's say the church has fixed operating costs of $1000 annually. Assume this covers all the things you seem quite fine with- operating chapels, temples, missions, manuals and so on. Assume that the church got to the $1000 annual costs in relatively good times and now those are fixed costs. Suddenly there is an economic downturn. Now income coming in is $700 for say five years straight. You say the church should simply cut back? Whose chapel should they close and sell off? Which temple? What missions should they close? The answer is they should not have to if they have set aside a reasonable amount of other funds that may generate income for the shortfall. This is simply being a wise steward which is certainly biblical (recall Joseph in Egypt and the seven years of plenty followed by seven of famine). There is nothing wrong or outside any gospel mandate for the church to do this. Of course the question is how much is prudent, wise and reasonable to set aside....

[_harmony]

Harmony
I did not say I favored amassing huge income generating assets by the church. But I think for you to think the church should not set aside for downturns, or as some else noted, for times of emergency or disaster is extreme.

That fund is called fast offerings. I donate every month.

One man's downturn is another man's allowing God the opportunity to bless his people.

Our Brethren have no faith in God to provide for his people, and have placed their faith and our tithes squarely in the things of this world.

And yes most other large churches do the same thing.

I am not aware of any other "true" church of God... or at least not one the Brethren acknowledge.

Look at it like this. Let's say the church has fixed operating costs of $1000 annually. Assume this covers all the things you seem quite fine with- operating chapels, temples, missions, manuals and so on. Assume that the church got to the $1000 annual costs in relatively good times and now those are fixed costs. Suddenly there is an economic downturn. Now income coming in is $700 for say five years straight. You say the church should simply cut back?

Yes. Revise their budget, lay off paid staff--oh wait! there are none--, cut expenditures, live within their means. That's what everyone else does; why is the church exempt from that?

Whose chapel should they close and sell off?

Those that are the least needed.

Which temple?

Those with the least attendance.

What missions should they close?

Those with the least success.

The answer is they should not have to if they have set aside a reasonable amount of other funds that may generate income for the shortfall. This is simply being a wise steward which is certainly biblical (recall Joseph in Egypt and the seven years of plenty followed by seven of famine). There is nothing wrong or outside any gospel mandate for the church to do this.

The answer is, if they were actually fulfilling their mandate and mission, the Brethren would have the faith needed to allow God to provide that which is needed for his church and his kingdom. Selling our souls to the devil isn't exactly his plan.

Of course the question is how much is prudent, wise and reasonable to set aside....

Ask Packer. He made a million on the tithes of the poor and widowed. I know... snarky.