Transparency in Church Finances

[_harmony]

Sadly, many people are also led to believe otherwise by pure and weak speculation by people who claim to have "seen reports." The truth is, you haven't the first clue what is and isn't true, and you won't believe someone who's actually been a part of it because you'd much rather believe all the speculation that makes the church look silly.

All of this endless speculation would go away if the books were open, like they were in the beginning, like they were until 1957, when fiscal malfeasance almost shut down the church and the books were closed to save the leaders' embarrassment.

[_maklelan]

Sadly, many people are also led to believe otherwise by pure and weak speculation by people who claim to have "seen reports." The truth is, you haven't the first clue what is and isn't true, and you won't believe someone who's actually been a part of it because you'd much rather believe all the speculation that makes the church look silly.

All of this endless speculation would go away if the books were open, like they were in the beginning, like they were until 1957, when fiscal malfeasance almost shut down the church and the books were closed to save the leaders' embarrassment.

Please provide documentation that that's why the books were closed.

[_ajax18]

Sadly, many TBMs are misled to believe that the GAs live these sorts of pauper's lives, with very minimal compensation, and that simply isn't true.

Sadly, many people are also led to believe otherwise by pure and weak speculation by people who claim to have "seen reports." The truth is, you haven't the first clue what is and isn't true, and you won't believe someone who's actually been a part of it because you'd much rather believe all the speculation that makes the church look silly.

Which goes back to the point I made earlier that as Jason admitted they're probably making at least $100k and $200k + for the big 15. Because most people wouldn't like this, it's imperative that this information be kept secret. If it weren't secret, you wouldn't be able to defend the argument that they make too much with you don't know. You could only say that they deserve to be paid this much.

[_Bond...James Bond]

So can we agree Boyd and Gordon don't sit around clipping coupons for Orange Juice and SpaghettiOs?

Can we agree they're getting a nice chunk of change thrown their way?

[_Mary]

Mak, do you think that the church finances should be made public?

If there is nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of, then what's the problem?

Mary

[_Roger Morrison]

From the opening post, i think Soho's??:

just a quick question: What is your personal opinion on the churches that have completely open books and are willing to share them?

IMSCO, i think they are noble, ethical, sensitive, nonautucratic, above board, respectful, lovely, of good report, praiseworthy and indeed such show themselves to be of the highest moral character.

In all probability this is how most converts felt about the LDS church when they were baptised. Time, exposure and experience tends to change one's perceptions and perspectives, with varrying degrees of reality-acceptance and inevitable consequences.

As with most individuals, they are their own worse enemy. So it is with LDSism, THEY are their own worse enemy. It is clothed in secrecy, arrogance, ignorance, self-righteousness, pride, conceit, deceit and denial.

Below the surface there is little lovely praiseworthy or of good report, except that which is approved by Church Public Relations Office. An unfortunate state of their functioning dysfunction. All of which could be repented of...

But, who's/what's perfect, eh? Warm regards, Roger

[_Mister Scratch]

Wait a sec... You've seen actual, real data on this? How do you know that the men at the top of the hierarchy are only receiving $30,000? The reports I've read from various sources suggest that the amount is well over 100k for Seventies, and over half a million dollars for Apostles.

Just what do you mean when you say "report"? Do you mean a legitimate investigation done by a professional, or are you just trying to make some person's weekend pseudo-sleuthing sound respectable? Please provide a reference to one of these "reports."

Yes, that is what I mean by "report." I think we both know that the GAs are very, very cagey about releasing documentation to professionals. So, the genuine evidence we have to rely upon is the stuff from people who know the GAs, or else legit documentation such as is found in Quinn's work.

This is all on top of the reported "unlimited" credit card, which one of the GAs admitted he was unhappy to give up.

What do you call an expense account that links to an organization with vast resources? Let's call it an "unlimited credit card" so it will sound unique and shifty. Make sure not to make it clear that it's exactly the same as any other large corporation's expense account.

And therein lies the rub. Do you really want to conflate the Church of Jesus Christ with "any other large corporation"? And "credit card" is not my phrase. It was used by Dr. Shades in another thread, in reference to, I believe, George P. Lee [sp?].

There is also an intriguing passage in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power in which Quinn goes through the estate of (I believe) Joseph Fielding Smith, who had amassed a fortune of somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000.

Is it Joseph Fielding Smith or is it someone else?

As I said, I am pretty sure it was Joseph Fielding Smith, but sadly I do not have the text at hand. (It was a former President of the Church. Do you have a copy of the book on hand?)

To be honest, Mak, I am confused as to where you are getting your information. Your post sounds very much like the materials of a faith-promoting rumor, in my opinion.

And why does something faith-promoting always get dismissed as false on this site?

I am not dismissing it as "false" any more than you are dismissing my assertions---which, let's face it, are more legitimately documented than yours---as "dubious."

Perhaps you guys subscribe to some assumptions and biases of your own.

No doubt I do.

It is something to take into consideration.

I have already done so.

I guess no one else was paying attention

I was paying attention.

when I covered this for Vegas many weeks ago. I served as financial secretary for almost a year on my mission because my president evidently felt he needed to groom me for financial leadership in the church after I had started my career. He ran the tithing for the church for 7 years

I'm not sure what this means.... What do you mean by "ran the tithing"? He oversaw *all* tithing collection for every ward, branch, and stake world-wide? What does this mean?

and ran the welfare system for 9.

I am not sure why you think this qualifies him as an expert in Church expenditures, or as being versed in what the GAs make....

When we would travel he would train me regarding the finances of the church (then Vegas accused me of having sex with my mission president). He told me why inappropriately administering the church's funds is a quick ticket to excommunication (and now Vegas proudly wears my statement about that on his sig line as if it embarrasses me or the church),

I don't know why anybody needs to be "told." It seems perfectly obvious that the Church is quite tight-fisted with its funds.

why GA's don't receive a whole lot of money,

This is very relative. Perhaps you do not think 500k per year is "a whole lot," but I do, and I reckon that a good many members would think so too.

what they do and do not do with the money they do receive, and what they could and could not get reimbursed for.

Please elaborate. (And I am going to have to note, en passant, that your evidence here is really no different than the anecdotal evidence I have seen elsewhere, coming from other people who have worked in the COB, or who otherwise were in positions to know such information. Who is your informant, by the way? Surely since this person was so high up in the hierarchy, it will be no big deal to name names, right?)

Sadly, many TBMs are misled to believe that the GAs live these sorts of pauper's lives, with very minimal compensation, and that simply isn't true.

Sadly, many people are also led to believe otherwise by pure and weak speculation by people who claim to have "seen reports." The truth is, you haven't the first clue what is and isn't true, and you won't believe someone who's actually been a part of it because you'd much rather believe all the speculation that makes the church look silly.

I don't want to dismiss the information you were given, Mak, so why do you want to dismiss what you refer to as "weak speculation"? And I don't think any of this material "makes the [C]hurch look silly." I think it makes the Church look greedy and money-hungry and secretive, but not "silly."

All of this endless speculation would go away if the books were open, like they were in the beginning, like they were until 1957, when fiscal malfeasance almost shut down the church and the books were closed to save the leaders' embarrassment.

Please provide documentation that that's why the books were closed.

Why? You haven't provided any documentation. All you have given us is an anecdote.

I will again point you to Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. He goes into considerable detail on how Elder Henry Moyle fired up a bunch of financially dubious operations which led to J. Reuben Clark issuing a negative comment about all of it. (The operations included the fast-paced construction of meeting houses, and the infamous "baseball baptism" youth program.) The Church began to operate at a deficit, and once again President Clark remarked that closing the books would be bad, because it would enable the Brethren to operate in "secrecy," so to speak, without ever having to be held accountable to the tithe-paying Saints.

Of course, we can sit here and say, "Well, *that's* not why the books were closed! They were closed for another reason!" What other reason, Mak? What good has come from this? Do you think the Brethren were sitting around the temple one day, saying, "Gee, I bet the critics are going to be really mean to us about our deficit spending. We better close the books, so that the antis will quit picking on us!" Do you have any idea how utterly stupid that sounds? You are right that there was never an official, General Conference announcement in which David O. McKay said, "We are embarrassed about our deficit spending, and so we are going to close the books," but honestly, what other explanation can there be?

[_Jason Bourne]

This is all on top of the reported "unlimited" credit card, which one of the GAs admitted he was unhappy to give up.

Mr. Scratch,

The only place I have ever seen this is here, I believe by you, which was taken as solid truth and then spun to the max. Can you document this?

[_Jason Bourne]

Sadly, many people are also led to believe otherwise by pure and weak speculation by people who claim to have "seen reports." The truth is, you haven't the first clue what is and isn't true, and you won't believe someone who's actually been a part of it because you'd much rather believe all the speculation that makes the church look silly.

All of this endless speculation would go away if the books were open, like they were in the beginning, like they were until 1957, when fiscal malfeasance almost shut down the church and the books were closed to save the leaders' embarrassment.

Nah, in never almost shut down the church. They may have run some years where outflow was more the income but you must remember that they has lots and lots of assets in real estate that they could have sold. It was a far cry from being shut down. But I agree with that there was mis-management and that was why they stopped publishing the financials and that they really ought to start.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sadly, many people are also led to believe otherwise by pure and weak speculation by people who claim to have "seen reports." The truth is, you haven't the first clue what is and isn't true, and you won't believe someone who's actually been a part of it because you'd much rather believe all the speculation that makes the church look silly.

All of this endless speculation would go away if the books were open, like they were in the beginning, like they were until 1957, when fiscal malfeasance almost shut down the church and the books were closed to save the leaders' embarrassment.

Please provide documentation that that's why the books were closed.

Why do you think they were? It seems odd that this was the year they did so and that it was also the same time President Moyle's out of control building expansion caught up with the Church.