The cost of doing business

[_Who Knows]

Just curious - does anyone know the REASON that the church keeps it's financials secret? Is there a revelation concerning this? Has it been brought to a sustaining vote before the church population?

[_Jason Bourne]

It's not tithing money, so what do you care?

It is still from money that could be used forr things like feeding the poor, etc, etc. All the funds the Churhc has ultimatly can be sourced back to the contributions of members.

[_guy sajer]

]The irony of all this is that the Mormon Church is a voluntary organization created, one presumes, for the benefits of its members, not the other way around.

I agree that it is. However, I believe that the benefit is salvation, not some social welfare program.

If there is one-way transparency, it is rightly downward, not upward.

Why?

Because the church (or at least most Church's) exists for the benefit of the members, not the other way around. (Something like, "sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.") The church is, therefore, accountable to the members for providing the benefits members voluntarily sign up to receive. It, however, shirks this responsibility while instead demanding that members be held accountable for their membership.

That said, I have no problem with joint accountability, in fact, I endorse it to a degree, but accountabilty is entirely one way in the Mormon Church.

So, what makes you any different than thousands of other true believers who naïvely trusted their religious leaders believing them to act for God? Are you smarter, more enlightened, more street saavy?

Would you endorse blindly entrusting religious leaders to act in their members' best interests absent any accountability as a general principle (assuming that those who do have equal faith in their religious leaders as you do)? If no, why are you an exception to the general principle? What makes your situation different? If yes, what is the likely outcome of this kind of systematic blind faith?

[_christopher]

That said, I have no problem with joint accountability, in fact, I endorse it to a degree, but accountabilty is entirely one way in the Mormon Church.

I remember this backwards thinking/responsibility when I was leaving the church and like many others ran across Steve Benson's 100 or so page writeup. He talks about a meeting with Oaks and Maxwell and afterwards where Oaks complained about Benson breaking their confidentiality. Isn't typical clergy-member confidentiality supposed to be for the member, not the clergy?

Chris <><

[_Mister Scratch]

The only sloppy argumentation here is your elementary school "spaghettie [sic] monster" stuff. Which, I might add, is yet another FAIR/MAD cliché. Don't you have any original material of your own, asbestosman?

Your argument would carry more weight if you mention that in your experience, those who do not open their books often have something embarassing to hide.

No, that would be merely my opinion. Are you sure you even understand what good "argumentation" is? Anyways, there is sufficient evidence showing various ways in which Church leaders have bungled the finances, such as Elder Moyle's baseball baptisms and attendant rapid building program (in fact, it was Pres. Moyle's sloppy handling of finances which led to the books being closed in the first place), or the Kirtland Bank.

Perhaps the contemporary Church has something to hide. Perhaps not. But don't try to tell us that the spending of the money did not come from tithing, when you obviously don't know. You have zero documentation to make up your argument. All you have is the reassurance of Church spokesmen, which, as has already been pointed out, is somewhat suspect given the Church's fiscal history.

On the other hand, I think there may be good reasons to keep the books closed. Just look at the arguments made that the money should be going to feed the poor and so on. I think that is an overly simplistic view of both economics and morality. I guess if you don't believe the church is true then the idea that feeding people is more important than building temples makes sense. But if you really believe that the church is true, then I think templework--or at least providing the saving ordinances for mankind--is more important than feeding them.

I don't think that has ever been a real issue in this discussion. As to whether feeding people or building a mall is more important... Now that is a good question.

Now that doesn't mean one can neglect helping the poor. Without food and shelter nobody will care about salvation. However, I think that helping the poor is more the responsibility of individual people than it is the church's. It is up to us to be charitable by helping the poor. It is up to the church as a whole to provide the ordinances of salvation.

So what does a mall have to do with salvation? Nothing directly. It has to do with keeping the downtown area from decaying--and possibly investing money which the church tells us does not come from tithing.

This still doesn't explain what the mall has to do with salvation. Who cares if downtown SLC is a borderline slum? It's the salvation that counts---at least according to your own logic.

That in turn helps keep the environment around the temple better.

So what? What does this have to do with salvation? It has nothing to do with salvation. Instead, what you are saying, in effect, is that the aesthetics of downtown SLC is more important that feeding the poor.

I see no reason we should not take the church at its word about where the money comes from. Has the church proved itself untrustworthy about such matters about where the money comes from?

Unfortunately, yes. Other instances of this would be the Church claiming that the Brethren receive very "modest" amounts of income, and then keeping their financial records a complete secret, locked away in the Church archives, even after these Brethren have long been dead.

[_guy sajer]

]The irony of all this is that the Mormon Church is a voluntary organization created, one presumes, for the benefits of its members, not the other way around.

I agree that it is. However, I believe that the benefit is salvation, not some social welfare program.

If there is one-way transparency, it is rightly downward, not upward.

Why?

Because the church (or at least most Church's) exists for the benefit of the members, not the other way around. (Something like, "sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.") The church is, therefore, accountable to the members for providing the benefits members voluntarily sign up to receive. It, however, shirks this responsibility while instead demanding that members be held accountable for their membership.

That said, I have no problem with joint accountability, in fact, I endorse it to a degree, but accountabilty is entirely one way in the Mormon Church.

So, what makes you any different than thousands of other true believers who naïvely trusted their religious leaders believing them to act for God? Are you smarter, more enlightened, more street saavy?

Would you endorse blindly entrusting religious leaders to act in their members' best interests absent any accountability as a general principle (assuming that those who do have equal faith in their religious leaders as you do)? If no, why are you an exception to the general principle? What makes your situation different? If yes, what is the likely outcome of this kind of systematic blind faith?

I ask these questions, because my observation is that believers habitually exempt themselves from general principles they apply to others, failing in most every case to provide sufficient justification as to why they're an exception, except for "I'm right and you're not" or something like that.

[_harmony]

I cannot emphasize how this lack of transparency appals me. Keeping the financials from the members feels so patronizing, it makes my teeth hurt from grinding together. Like we don't need to know. Like we don't deserve to know. Like God doesn't demand it, why should we? ARGH!

Where's the stewardship? Where's the accountabiliity? Where's the damned checks and balances? Standing up in conference every 6 months and proclaiming that the church is in fine financial shape, all the bills are paid, all's well in Zion, and then saying no tithing is being spent on this mall just stretches credibility to the max.

No one's complaining about millions of dollars to build temples, or even keep temple grounds nice. But $6-8 billion to renovate the whole frickin' neighborhood is more than "nice". It's criminal. And no one cares, no one questions, no one even blinked. Incredible.

And now the COB is in poor shape? And the Conference Center is leaking? Shabby construction, cost overruns to the max, premium prices for materials and labor? What the hell? Who's managing this debacle? Have they lost their ever-lovin' minds? Are they so old, they're suffering from dementia?

And what is the answer? There is no answer; things will continue as they have done for an entire generation, with no complaining, everyone bowing their heads and raising their right arm to the square... and eventually, it will all come tumbling down. Maybe the next generation will get it right; this one certainly messed it up.

[_capt jack]

Jason:

Just to clarify, I found the information on RfM and brought it to another forum for comments; many of the posters there read from work, and exmormon.org is blocked as a 'hate site'. That is pointed out in my original post, and a link to the original post is provided. On this site, James Bond has provided links to the original posts as well.

[_asbestosman]

Because the church (or at least most Church's) exists for the benefit of the members, not the other way around. (Something like, "sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.") The church is, therefore, accountable to the members for providing the benefits members voluntarily sign up to receive. It, however, shirks this responsibility while instead demanding that members be held accountable for their membership.

The benefit is salvation. How does it shirk this responsibility? The church gives us the scriptures and has seminaries and institutes along with Sunday School and other meetings. It encourages daily prayer and seeking personal revelation. It gets members to strengthen eachother.

So, what makes you any different than thousands of other true believers who naïvely trusted their religious leaders believing them to act for God? Are you smarter, more enlightened, more street saavy?

What makes me different? Well it's obviously not smarts or street saaviness. Enlightenment? Only according to God's will I suppose. I certainly haven't done anything to earn it.

Would you endorse blindly entrusting religious leaders to act in their members' best interests absent any accountability as a general principle (assuming that those who do have equal faith in their religious leaders as you do)? If no, why are you an exception to the general principle? What makes your situation different? If yes, what is the likely outcome of this kind of systematic blind faith?

Endorse it? I suppose not although I would certainly understand those who have equal faith that God is providing salvation and that their religious leaders are the ones God has authorized to lead them in that endeavor. At the same time I would encourage them and me to continue searching for more truth and to attempt to understand other views. I don't recommend criticizing leaders that one believes stand as representatives and guides of God.

[_asbestosman]

Your argument would carry more weight if you mention that in your experience, those who do not open their books often have something embarassing to hide.

No, that would be merely my opinion. Are you sure you even understand what good "argumentation" is?

I am not formally trained in debate, so I could easily be mistaken.

Anyways, there is sufficient evidence showing various ways in which Church leaders have bungled the finances, such as Elder Moyle's baseball baptisms and attendant rapid building program (in fact, it was Pres. Moyle's sloppy handling of finances which led to the books being closed in the first place), or the Kirtland Bank.

How do you know that's why they were closed? Did the church state such or did you merely infer it based on one thing following the other?

Perhaps the contemporary Church has something to hide. Perhaps not. But don't try to tell us that the spending of the money did not come from tithing, when you obviously don't know. You have zero documentation to make up your argument.

Neither do you.

All you have is the reassurance of Church spokesmen, which, as has already been pointed out, is somewhat suspect given the Church's fiscal history.

Maybe the church simply did the best they could if someone was financially sloppy in the past. So perhaps the tithing issue is just according to the best of their knowledge and is done according to tax laws (no non-taxable tithing money was used). But since I am not an accountant or tax lawyer, I don't know how that should work either.

I don't think that has ever been a real issue in this discussion. As to whether feeding people or building a mall is more important... Now that is a good question.

Of course I'd rather feed the poor than build a mall, but perhaps that is too simplistic a view of the situation.

Now that doesn't mean one can neglect helping the poor. Without food and shelter nobody will care about salvation. However, I think that helping the poor is more the responsibility of individual people than it is the church's. It is up to us to be charitable by helping the poor. It is up to the church as a whole to provide the ordinances of salvation.

So what does a mall have to do with salvation? Nothing directly. It has to do with keeping the downtown area from decaying--and possibly investing money which the church tells us does not come from tithing.

This still doesn't explain what the mall has to do with salvation. Who cares if downtown SLC is a borderline slum? It's the salvation that counts---at least according to your own logic.

There is a temple there.

That in turn helps keep the environment around the temple better.

So what? What does this have to do with salvation? It has nothing to do with salvation. Instead, what you are saying, in effect, is that the aesthetics of downtown SLC is more important that feeding the poor.

It provides a safe environmen for people to attend the temple and helps keep the place such that it is easier to concentrate on the spirit and things of eternity instead of the problems going on outside. That doesn't mean I'm advocating out of sight out of mind. I just think there's a time and place for thoughts like that. Worrying that your children are getting married next to a slum probably isn't all that uplifting. Keeping the environment of the temple safe and beautiful makes it more accessable for people who no longer have to worry about going there to receive and perform ordinances of salvation.

It also shows respect for God by keeping the neighborhood of the temple nice.

I see no reason we should not take the church at its word about where the money comes from. Has the church proved itself untrustworthy about such matters about where the money comes from?

Unfortunately, yes. Other instances of this would be the Church claiming that the Brethren receive very "modest" amounts of income, and then keeping their financial records a complete secret, locked away in the Church archives, even after these Brethren have long been dead.

In other words the secrecy of the finances itself is the evidence that we should not take the church is untrustworthy?