Albion wrote:Open financial records speak to accountability by flawed men. My church, and all that I have any knowledge of, are perfectly open about incomes and expenditure.
Which is better, to have one's faith group's leaders accountable to its members, or to have them accountable to God?
The LDS financial records are completely open, to God.
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 08, 2012 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
café crema wrote:Actions speak louder than words, what a congregation spends it's money on is more relevant than it's beliefs, you know, by their fruits and all.
harmony wrote:Just because you believe it does not make it so.
That's certainly true!
harmony wrote:Trust not the arm of man, especially when man has control of the bank account.
I don't trust the arm of man. But in the world we live in each of us has got to trust someone. I see the observation Joseph Smith made as perfectly reasonable, that we should trust God to tell us directly those things that we can't figure out any other way.
Albion wrote:Open financial records speak to accountability by flawed men. My church, and all that I have any knowledge of, are perfectly open about incomes and expenditure.
Which is better, to have one's faith group's leaders accountable to its members, or to to have them accountable to God?
The LDS financial records are completely open, to God.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could easily be both.
Equality, in keeping with the spirit of this forum I went through your post and edited out every sentence that contained a thinly veiled reference to profanity and got:
Equality wrote:Or a cement facility at the point of the mountain.
Seems like you're saying that if God was interested in preventing urban blight God wouldn't have had the Mormons build "a cement facility at the point of the mountain." Can you tell us why you think so, this time leaving out all the (thinly veiled) profanity?
Stormy Waters wrote:It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could easily be both.
That's true. The question then is, does God want Her/His faith group's leaders to be accountable to its members?
Well the faith group's leaders say that God doesn't want them to be accountable, but they would, wouldn't they? There is a great verse in Thessalonians about avoiding all appearance of evil, I think that's certainly applicable here. You see, it's common knowledge that several leaders of the LDS church have made statements that when they were given, had the full weight of doctrine, but after a time these statements have been cast aside(think Adam God.) obviously the leaders of the LDS church have trouble distinguishing between their own pet theories, opinions, and the everlasting word of God, so I don't think it's an unreasonable request that the church make at least an attempt at transparency in its dealings.
Hades wrote:The question still remains. What does the Church have to hide.
Hades, what do you have to hide? Your own personal consumption report is woefully inadequate when it comes to quantity of liquids consumed on 1 May, and then again on 29 April and 22 April both it doesn't give the number of liters of liquids consumed on either of those days either! Is there some embarrassing reason you don't like to publish how many liters of water you drink on Tuesdays? Why are you trying to hide from us the number of liters of liquids you drink each Tuesday?
Of course absent some pressing need to file a personal consumption report it makes no sense to require anybody to publish one. Which is exactly what I'm saying about a financial report. So far nobody has given one single reason why the LDS Church should publish a financial report except that other churches do it, which is no reason at all. To say the LDS Church is hiding something because it doesn't publish its finances is as ridiculous as saying Hades is hiding something because he doesn't publish his consumption report.
That was extremely lame. I don't strong arm money out of people to pay for the water I drink. I pay for it myself, so I have no need to report my water consumption to anyone.
The Church strong arms 10% of the faithful's annual income and then doesn't tell them where it's going. People should have a right to know what their so called charitable contributions are paying for. The church also enjoys tax exempt status. The tax payer is picking up the slack and should have a right to know what is being done with these so called charitable contributions.
If God is inspiring above board spending, then what is the problem? Why the secrecy?
The main reason the church should publish its financials is transparency. These are just men. They are not gods. When things are hidden it is easier for men and women to do things that they may not do when things are transparent. I don't buy the argument that once I give it is given to God and I should not care what is done with it. That is between the stewards and God. The LDS leaders are not the owners of the Church. Well the president may be in a legal sense. But it is the Church body has a vested interest in the money that they so willingly donate. To show transparency is simply the right thing to do. The Church did this until 1959. Then they stopped. No explanation was given. But it seems suspect that they had run a few years of annual deficits due to an over ambitious building program run by Henry D Moyle. At the same time there was a big push to increase tithing revenue to cover the annual deficits. Then they brought in N Eldon Tanner who was a financial whiz and he cleaned things up.
Now the Church was not about to go broke. It had plenty of assets to cover the debts. But the annual deficits were concerning. It just seems odd to me that the books were closed when this was going on.
The main reason the church should publish its financials is transparency. These are just men. They are not gods. When things are hidden it is easier for men and women to do things that they may not do when things are transparent. I don't buy the argument that once I give it is given to God and I should not care what is done with it. That is between the stewards and God. The LDS leaders are not the owners of the Church. Well the president may be in a legal sense. But it is the Church body has a vested interest in the money that they so willingly donate. To show transparency is simply the right thing to do. The Church did this until 1959. Then they stopped. No explanation was given. But it seems suspect that they had run a few years of annual deficits due to an over ambitious building program run by Henry D Moyle. At the same time there was a big push to increase tithing revenue to cover the annual deficits. Then they brought in N Eldon Tanner who was a financial whiz and he cleaned things up.
Now the Church was not about to go broke. It had plenty of assets to cover the debts. But the annual deficits were concerning. It just seems odd to me that the books were closed when this was going on.
That is very spot on. That is precisely why I do not pay tithing to the Church at this time. I have been very straight forward with my bishop and stated that instead I will give to charity. If the men of God in the Church can not be as honest and open as any charity, then I'm being a bad steward by supporting them in their behavior. And I have made it very clear to him that I'm more than willing to give as much as the Lord would like, but I need to know that those that receive the money are good, honest people.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom