Transparency in Church Finances

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Bond...James Bond wrote: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?


Sure. And I am ok with them getting paid well, but not with it not being open to the members.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Jason Bourne wrote:
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?

I remember reading in the SL Tribune that the one regret, of that Native American General Authority who quit, was that he no longer was able to use their credit card. No cards are unlimited, but the Church ones would have a very deep overdraw limit.

Transparency in finance is good to show there are no shenanigans and to reassure the faithful and the world that all is well. Financial reporting does not have to be a test of faith.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote: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?


Sure. And I am ok with them getting paid well, but not with it not being open to the members.


I was always ok with them receiving a living expenses stipend as with mission president etc. But I always thought it was for necessities. $200k/year. is a lot of money. How is this fair when the average tithe payer makes only a fraction of that? I'm not so sure all of them could make that kind of money elsewhere. It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was big financial promotion.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

ajax18 wrote:I was always ok with them receiving a living expenses stipend as with mission president etc. But I always thought it was for necessities. $200k/year. is a lot of money. How is this fair when the average tithe payer makes only a fraction of that? I'm not so sure all of them could make that kind of money elsewhere. It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was big financial promotion.


Mission presidents don't get a stipend at all. They pay their rent and their expenses. Whatever is spent on official church business they get reimbursed. I handled my mission presidents reimbursements, and often I had to tell him he couldn't get reimbursed for things. It's not a promotion for any single one of them.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_twinkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:01 am

Post by _twinkie »

Here's what I have a problem with. I'm supposed to pay 1/10th of my salary-and then I must submit to an interview and accounting of that. Why do I have to adhere to different standards than the church itself? I am not a fool tithe payer though.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

twinkie wrote:Here's what I have a problem with. I'm supposed to pay 1/10th of my salary-and then I must submit to an interview and accounting of that. Why do I have to adhere to different standards than the church itself? I am not a fool tithe payer though.


What do you mean a different standard?
I like you Betty...

My blog
_twinkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:01 am

Post by _twinkie »

Well, I have to tell what my salary is. If I tell them I'm a full tithe payer and I paid $7000, they know I made 70k that year. The church doesn't tell us how much they made OR what they did with the money.

If someone is having financial difficulty, instead of doing the charitable thing which would be just to help someone out, from what I understand, they get all up in a person's business.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

maklelan wrote:
ajax18 wrote:I was always ok with them receiving a living expenses stipend as with mission president etc. But I always thought it was for necessities. $200k/year. is a lot of money. How is this fair when the average tithe payer makes only a fraction of that? I'm not so sure all of them could make that kind of money elsewhere. It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was big financial promotion.


Mission presidents don't get a stipend at all. They pay their rent and their expenses. Whatever is spent on official church business they get reimbursed. I handled my mission presidents reimbursements, and often I had to tell him he couldn't get reimbursed for things. It's not a promotion for any single one of them.


You're conflating things again, Mak. Ajax isn't talking about MP's. Read his last sentence again: "It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was a big financial promotion." He's talking about the Brethren. The Twelve. And he's right; for some of them (like Packer, who was a CES employee, If I recall correctly), it was a promotion, and one heckuva jump in salary.

And yes, some MP's get living stipends. Just because yours didn't doesn't mean none of them do. Try to remember that not everything happens as you've seen it happen.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

twinkie wrote:Well, I have to tell what my salary is. If I tell them I'm a full tithe payer and I paid $7000, they know I made 70k that year. The church doesn't tell us how much they made OR what they did with the money.


The church is not subordinate to you.

twinkie wrote:If someone is having financial difficulty, instead of doing the charitable thing which would be just to help someone out, from what I understand, they get all up in a person's business.


Nope. When I was branch president the only reason I asked about their finances was to get their bills so I could pay them. As much as so many of the people around here are rabid about the economic dishonesty that goes on behind closed doors, they're wrong. They don't know any more about the way we are trained to approach those situations as a fish knows about the stock market. That they keep dismissing my experiences in favor of their a priori assumptions is a riot. "It's been strongly speculated!" as if that means anything other than they guessed.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

harmony wrote:You're conflating things again, Mak. Ajax isn't talking about MP's. Read his last sentence again: "It seems to me that for some of the Brethren, being called to the Twelve or Seventy was a big financial promotion." He's talking about the Brethren. The Twelve. And he's right; for some of them (like Packer, who was a CES employee, If I recall correctly), it was a promotion, and one heckuva jump in salary.

And yes, some MP's get living stipends. Just because yours didn't doesn't mean none of them do. Try to remember that not everything happens as you've seen it happen.


It's not a promotion for any of them. you're conflating things by assuming I was only referring to mission presidents. BY the way, please provide Packer's salary before and after his calling. I'm exited to be informed about exactly what you think he was making.
I like you Betty...

My blog
Post Reply