The Church publishes it's financial information...

[_harmony]

2. No tithing was spent on helping the poor and the needy nor humanitarian aid.

The mental defect of the OP as usual doesn't surprise me.

"Tithing" money isn't used in the LDS Church for "the poor" and otherwise, other money's are.

Doesn't the idiot know that "Fast Offerings" are what go to the poor and needy, and according to his own quoted states 1.6 Million were received, and 1.7 Million were given out, not to mention the other "services" that are given to the community and to the members themselves.

And an accurate accounting of all said humanitarian funds would be helpful.

The fact that a religion has "operating costs", oh heavens for bid. Let's bring out the mob and the pitchforks!

Yes... building projects like City Creek Mall. Stipends big enough to allow GAs to accumulate million dollar estates. Subsidies for the education of the top elites' children... all with the tithes of the poor and widowed.

I don't see you all chastising ALL other charitable organizations which all operate pretty much the same way, but don't generally have the same "infrastructure" to deal with, thus obviously with a religion there is dgoing to be more that goes into the Church itself, than goes into the pockets of the poor and needy. Further, this idiot ignores the fact that the Church PREVENTS people from being poor and needy, by first training them to be better quality people, and second by teaching them HOW to fish, rather than only giving them a fish and remaining forever SLAVES to the man.

Tisk tisk :(

Most other charities publish an annual report that shows exactly what they do with their donations, down to the penny. The church does nothing even comparibly close.

[_harmony]

I would guess that some very faithful LDS members would be disturbed to find out that the LDS church contributed to let's say a Jewish or Catholic charity

Not so. The faithful might be appalled at Packer's million dollar estate built on the tithes of the poor and widowed, but not an occasional contribution to a different religion for charitable purposes.

Why tempt the very membership into questioning where and why the money goes where it goes.

Members don't need their heads patted with condescion and pity. They are perfectly capable of determining what tithes should be spent on. And they have a right to see where the money goes. Such condescension smells like fiduciary irresponsibillty. I'd really like to see the books on City Creek and follow that money trail to its source.

Many faithful LDS members would not question it and say, God runs the church and he knows where the money gets spent and approves it. So this is why in my opinion the church does not open the books.

Just because many faithful members are foolishly trusting doesn't mean the leaders should compound the problem by being dishonest.

[_ajax18]

Should each church leader pay for their own church related traveling and other expenses?

You mean like the full time missionaries have to? If you stay until they tell you to go they'll pay for your ticket but if your two years comes up and they want to keep you another couple months, you can either buy your own ticket or put in a couple months more.

What if some church leaders can easily afford the expenses while other church leaders cannot?

LDSfaqs was saying they are all independently weathy from previous business ventures. That's what I was told as a child as well. It was sort of a prerequisite for being an apostle. But then we learned that was impossible since aposltes like Gordon B. Hinckley had never worked for anyone but the Church.

A simple small salary to help offset the expenses they rack-up is all any of them get and I doubt anyone can prove otherwise.

The could put the argument to rest right now if they would just open the books. What are they hiding?

[_harmony]

The could put the argument to rest right now if they would just open the books. What are they hiding?

At this point, I think it's more than just the exposure of what they're hiding. I think it's a matter of pride and arrogance: they see themselves as in charge, period. No one, least of all the average member, is going to tell them how to run their corporation. They've certainly never heard of participatory governance. Opening the books would require them all to drink from a huge cup of humility and the ability to accept the consequences of a generation of poor management... and humility and the ability to accept consequences is not what our leaders do best. They don't even do it average.

[_ajax18]

At this point, I think it's more than just the exposure of what they're hiding. I think it's a matter of pride and arrogance: they see themselves as in charge, period. No one, least of all the average member, is going to tell them how to run their corporation.

I think there is a lot of truth in that but it's hard for me to see because I haven't ever been in the inner circle and experienced it. Most bishops and SPs I've known were just hard working people who were also paying their dues like everyone else while verbally following the party line in defense of the Church if questions like this ever came up. The truth is that nobody knows just how much the GAs, MPs, etc are paid. But I did see how they lived and I know they didn't earn all that money before they were called. It reminds me of my mission. Nobody could prove that the zone leader was using our utility bill funds to fund his own extravagant lifestyle. But when we watched him order pizza and take 50 taxis a week, and basically wine and dine people into getting baptized, other missionaries started asking how he paid for it all. When our water and electric was disconnected for lack of payment we began to wonder even more. His line was that his mother was constantly sending him extra money. People who knew his family knew this was a lie, but the mission president must have brought into it. He kept him as zone leader and nobody argues if the number of baptisms he's turning into the office are high enough. Apparently it didn't even matter if many of the names belonged to fictitious people he had made up. Oh sure they excommunicated him after he finished the mission but the leadership knew about this for at least six months and chose to not act at all. It was the other missionaries who suffered because of it, so why not take their time.

I feel pretty strongly that everyone should have a right to know and that financial transparency should exist. I plan to tell the Lord the same when I die in case He doesn't already know how I currently feel about it. That being said, I do believe the widows who sacrificed to pay for the Packer estate will be blessed with treasures of much greater worth in the next life than the entire Packer estate. But that's my personal belief and not at all Church doctrine. The simple fact that it's not really a belief espoused or emphasized by a Church that believes we're all saved by grace and all inherit the same reward adds further evidence to me that it's just not the complete truth. Unless there is ever any other information uncovered on this issue than I currently am privy to, I can't see myself ever feeling any different about it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Mr FAQs you need to get better on your FAQs because you make a lot of mistakes below.

Maybe you've missed it..... But the leadership of the Church doesn't get their "living stipend" from the "Church" side. They get it form the Corporate side.

Yes President Hinckley said as much. But so what? All the funds from the for profit businesses as well as member contributions are eligible for use in the mission of the Church.

By the way I personally have no issue with GAs getting a reasonable pay for what they do. They do it full time to a very old age. Some ( see below) who were not all that succesful in their pre GA work often I imagine take pay cuts. One GA I know who was an attorney certainly did according to what he shared with me.

Further, from what I know their stipends are actually MUCH LESS than most corporate CEO's.

How do you know this?

Further, all of these men are self made men, having had their own lives, careers and businesses for much of their lives, and volunteered the rest of the time for the Church long before being called, by no action of their own to be Apostles.

This is certianly not true. Hinckley worked for the Church most his adult life. Monson worked for the Deseret News and was like 36 when called. He could not have accumulated wealth. Packer was a church teacher. Holland likewise then president of BYU. Eyring was a teacher/professor, some were attorneys that likely made a good living but were not independently wealthy. Bednar was a college professor and BYUI pres. I would think that many GAs do need some sort of pay to live on.

Again I am ok with that. I do however think it should be disclosed to members what they are getting paid.

Our Church is run NOTHING like any other Church, and yet you all are so paranoid about seeing the finances.

This is certainly true. The question is whether that is good or bad.

Further, the Church is "audited" by various firms, and when-ever there has been a problem, it's dealt with.

Nah I don't think so. The only audit the Church gets is by internal employees on its payroll. Independent CPA firms do not audit the Church. They do however audit BYU and the for profit arms of the Church.

But, the Church functions so perfectly, that there is rarely a problem. It's SYSTEM was established by God, and it's amazing how perfect and non-corrupting it is.

Oh my where to begin. I think you need to read church history a bit more. The Church has had lots of money issues over its existence. One was in the late 50s and early 60s when when Henry Moyle's out of control building program and acquisition of property put the Church in annual deficits for a number of years. Coincidentally that is right about the time the Church stopped publishing financial information.

Further, what "controversy".....? Do you yell "FIRE" when there is no smoke???

It is just good practice to publish financial information. It is called transparency and it shows integrity.

Even further, it's only the "Church" side that is kept private.

Which is likely the bulk of where the money is generated by donations and where it is spent.

The Corporate side of the Church is entirely open according to corporate law. We know who the boards of directors are, we know who operates the various company's, the financial portfolio's of whatever company are open to the shareholders, etc. etc. Again, what is the problem???

Secrecy is the problem.

[_harmony]

Further, all of these men are self made men, having had their own lives, careers and businesses for much of their lives, and volunteered the rest of the time for the Church long before being called, by no action of their own to be Apostles.

This is certianly not true. Hinckley worked for the Church most his adult life. Monson worked for the Deseret News and was like 36 when called. He could not have accumulated wealth. Packer was a church teacher. Holland likewise then president of BYU. Eyring was a teacher/professor, some were attorneys that likely made a good living but were not independently wealthy. Bednar was a college professor and BYUI pres. I would think that many GAs do need some sort of pay to live on.

The worker is worthy of his hire... and when your house, your clothes, your food every dime in your pocket comes out of tithing, then you'd best be letting the members, whose contributions you're building your estate on, know what you're doing.

Otherwise, the GAs are the worst kind of hypocrits. There is no splitting hairs; every dime the church has at some point came out of the tithes of the members.

Open the books! Show the members what their tithes have paid for... from Bednar's suits to Packer's estate. Show my widowed MIL who lived her entire life in poverty how her tithes to build the kingdom instead went to build Packer's estate.

[_Jason Bourne]

Harmony

You know while I am fine with a GA receiving pay for what they do I believe it should be reasonable and not excessive. And you know I believe the books should be open and such pay disclosed. It is the right thing to do.

As for Packers estate you and I have discussed the fact that he bought the home when it was likely a reasonable and modest price and the value has skyrocketed due to mostly the land it sits on increasing due to population growth where there used to be none. While it may be true he owns a property now worth a million it is not like he spent a million on it. More likely he spent $50,000 or so on it and it appreciated to a million. I think it is only fair to point that out.

But sure, disclose what they make.

[_ajax18]

More likely he spent $50,000 or so on it and it appreciated to a million. I think it is only fair to point that out.

That seems like a very fair point to me. Thank you for pointing that out. That still kind of amazes me that someone could do that well in a land investment in this economy. I've paid rent far too long.

[_harmony]

Harmony

You know while I am fine with a GA receiving pay for what they do I believe it should be reasonable and not excessive. And you know I believe the books should be open and such pay disclosed. It is the right thing to do.

As for Packers estate you and I have discussed the fact that he bought the home when it was likely a reasonable and modest price and the value has skyrocketed due to mostly the land it sits on increasing due to population growth where there used to be none. While it may be true he owns a property now worth a million it is not like he spent a million on it. More likely he spent $50,000 or so on it and it appreciated to a million. I think it is only fair to point that out.

But sure, disclose what they make.

The point is... it wasn't his money to spend. Neither side comes out looking good in that transaction:

Packer didn't earn enough as a CES employee to buy the property. He couldn't bear living in what he considered to be lesser housing. So when the church offered to buy the house for him with the tithes of the poor and widowed, he showed his true colors: Packer sold his soul for a house. He's no different from Esau, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. There is no honor in placing so small a price on personal integrity.

The church comes off looking worse: they used tithing, which is supposed to be for the building up of the kingdom, not for the building up of a piece of property for man. And they've hid it ever since. They've been pouring money into it ever since. Houses don't go from $50K to $1million without some sort of investment. Will the property come back to the church after Packer's death? Or is it part of his estate that will go to his family? Yeah, the answer to the question makes a difference.

It's dishonest to say GAs aren't paid, and then have the example of Packer's estate as a glaring example. They've all lived the lie for decades. Pay them, then own up to it. Open the books to the public, admit those payments over the pulpit in GC. Don't sugar coat it, don't try to hide it behind corporate profits, don't lie, for God's sake! Own it for what it is: a salary. And when push comes to shove, understand that this subject is a deal breaker.

Money is a touchy touchy subject for me. Members make daily sacrifices to pay their tithes, and those tithes should be consecrated to the building up of the kingdom--temples, missionary work, hymnals, etc.--not spent on GA lifestyles. I cannot tell you the many sacrifices... the things she went without... that my MIL willingly shouldered in order to pay her tithes. To have those sacrifices denigrated and cheapened by the way the money is spent is disgraceful and shameful. For the widowed and poor to sacrifice only to have it spent on million dollar estates and expensive suits, malls and genetically engineered fish, shoddy construction and monuments to GAs egos is hard, very hard, for me to swallow.