Transparency in Church Finances

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

harmony wrote:I think if the members knew how much money the Brethren are paid, and some of the things on which the money is spent, there would be quite a bit more murmuring in the rank and file. The rank and file takes the "unpaid clergy" thing very seriously, among other fiscal policies.


This is hilarious. Harmony, you don't know how much their stipend is, so how can you say that?

harmony wrote:Okay, in my opinion, Packer got a huge promotion and likely one heckuva jump in salary.

Is that better?


Finally, an accurate statement.
I like you Betty...

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

Post by _maklelan »

Who Knows wrote:I just think that most people would be shocked to see how wealthy the church is, and where/when/how their tithing money is being spent, how much 'administrative' costs there are, how much the GA's are making, etc. while Joe Schmoe is out cleaning the toilets in the chapel for free.


I wasn't shocked when I found out. It's not that big a surprise. None of you know, and most of you don't believe me. It's not that big a deal, but most of you enjoy imagining that it is, and you don't want anyone with actual experience to ruin that daydream for you.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

maklelan wrote:
harmony wrote:I think if the members knew how much money the Brethren are paid, and some of the things on which the money is spent, there would be quite a bit more murmuring in the rank and file. The rank and file takes the "unpaid clergy" thing very seriously, among other fiscal policies.


This is hilarious. Harmony, you don't know how much their stipend is, so how can you say that?

harmony wrote:Okay, in my opinion, Packer got a huge promotion and likely one heckuva jump in salary.

Is that better?


Finally, an accurate statement.


Maklelan---

Have you not been around LDS apologetics very long? The usual TBM counter to criticism of the GAs salaries is to counter by saying that they would be able to make far, far more money if they kept their secular jobs.

Here is another bit of food for thought:
---Under the tenure of SWK, the Brethren were all asked to relinquish their secular jobs. SWK asked them to do this in the 1970s, but the Brethren did not achieve full compliance until the 1990s, probably because they all enjoyed the extra money they made. (Of course, since then, it is possible that GBH upped the salaries for GAs, which is precisely what "Flew the Coop" said on RfM.) Prior to SWK's decree, the Brethren all held high-status jobs in addition, or sometimes even because of, their ecclesiastical appointments. (source: [yep, you guessed it] Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

maklelan wrote:
Who Knows wrote:I just think that most people would be shocked to see how wealthy the church is, and where/when/how their tithing money is being spent, how much 'administrative' costs there are, how much the GA's are making, etc. while Joe Schmoe is out cleaning the toilets in the chapel for free.


I wasn't shocked when I found out. It's not that big a surprise. None of you know, and most of you don't believe me. It's not that big a deal, but most of you enjoy imagining that it is, and you don't want anyone with actual experience to ruin that daydream for you.


But you haven't fully explained what your "actual experience" is.... I asked you to provide documentation that the GAs are paid an annual stipend of $30,000 and you have not done that. I asked you why you thought your MP was in a position to know all of the details of the Brethren's finances, and you have not done that. Further complicating matters is your apparent insistence upon (or agreement with) statements that "we cannot know" anything about Church finances... Why say this if you feel confident in your "actual experience"?
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Maklelan---

Have you not been around LDS apologetics very long? The usual TBM counter to criticism of the GAs salaries is to counter by saying that they would be able to make far, far more money if they kept their secular jobs.


I'm confused by your concern. If I don't do what they all do I'm criticized as unfamiliar with it, but if I just do the same thing that they do just because they do it aren't you still going to be critical? Are you just hardwired to criticize?
I like you Betty...

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

Post by _maklelan »

Mister Scratch wrote:But you haven't fully explained what your "actual experience" is.... I asked you to provide documentation that the GAs are paid an annual stipend of $30,000 and you have not done that. I asked you why you thought your MP was in a position to know all of the details of the Brethren's finances, and you have not done that. Further complicating matters is your apparent insistence upon (or agreement with) statements that "we cannot know" anything about Church finances... Why say this if you feel confident in your "actual experience"?


My mission president worked over the church's welfare program under the presidency of President Kimball. In fact, as I understand it, he developed many of the systems in use today. He is a consultant by trade. After that he supervised tithing for the entire church. He worked in Salt Lake and oversaw the administration of tithing from the top. He has worked directly with the First Presidency since his position under President Kimball. One day I was waiting for him to get off the phone with someone he was calling "Tommy" only to find out it was President Monson. He is Elder Holland's cousin and I have met several of the Brethren when they came to visit him both on the mission and here at home. He invited me to sit with him and a seventy a couple of years ago at General Conference. We spent the time prior to the session speaking with Elder Scott. As I said before, on my mission the President called me in from my first area to serve as the financial secretary. He asked me if I knew why he had called me into the offices so quickly. I said I assumed he considered the offices a training ground for mission leaders. He told me it was exactly that, but that he also wanted to train some of us for future positions in chruch leadership after the mission. I was told I needed to learn church finances because I would have big responsibilities in that area in the future. For almost a year I was in their working on mission finances but also being trained by him on how things worked in the church. One day, because of an emergency ATM failsafe, a number of missionaries were able to (and did) withdraw almost ten times their normal allotment. In trying to deal with the nightmare of filtering the money back through a system in South America with no possible way to deposit the money in our American account, I was told about the serous nature of messing with church funds, which now graces Vegas' signature line. My mission president explained how certain people have access to certain funds and he told me what they are and are not allowed to do with that access. The irony was on occasion he would try to get reimbursed for something that he wasn't allowed to. The missionaries did it more often, though. During that year he shared with me the route that tithing travels in coming to Salt Lake, what it does when it gets here, and where it goes when it leaves. He shared with me the system within which General Authorities operate, as well as the Emeritus Authorities. After that assignment I was called to serve as Branch President and assigned the task of excommunicating a few members of the branch. I've been in leadership ever since and am well aware of how the church does and does not operate.

I'm sorry, but my mission president didn't give me any receipts or photocopies of bank statements. Why do you require that for my evidence but "strong speculation" is all you need to feel secure with the opinion of the critics?
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

maklelan wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:But you haven't fully explained what your "actual experience" is.... I asked you to provide documentation that the GAs are paid an annual stipend of $30,000 and you have not done that. I asked you why you thought your MP was in a position to know all of the details of the Brethren's finances, and you have not done that. Further complicating matters is your apparent insistence upon (or agreement with) statements that "we cannot know" anything about Church finances... Why say this if you feel confident in your "actual experience"?


Thank you so much for this elaboration, Mak. I appreciate it greatly. Let me break it down a bit, in the hopes of getting some further explanation.

My mission president worked over the church's welfare program under the presidency of President Kimball. In fact, as I understand it, he developed many of the systems in use today. He is a consultant by trade. After that he supervised tithing for the entire church.


I am not sure what this means. How does one "supervise tithing for the entire Church"? Also, since there is some division (so far as I know) between the U.S. Church and the Church elsewhere in the world, does this mean that he "supervised" tithing for the whole world? Does "supervise" mean that he merely logged in all the tithing? Or did he see how it was spent? I guess the bottom line is that "supervise" seems a rather vague term.

He worked in Salt Lake and oversaw the administration of tithing from the top.


Again, does "oversaw the administration" mean that he knew how it was being spent? Also, does this mean he told you how much the Brethren make?

He has worked directly with the First Presidency since his position under President Kimball. One day I was waiting for him to get off the phone with someone he was calling "Tommy" only to find out it was President Monson. He is Elder Holland's cousin and I have met several of the Brethren when they came to visit him both on the mission and here at home. He invited me to sit with him and a seventy a couple of years ago at General Conference. We spent the time prior to the session speaking with Elder Scott.


This shows that he is well-connected, and on a first-name basis with some of the FP, but beyond that, I don't see what this proves, I'm afraid.

As I said before, on my mission the President called me in from my first area to serve as the financial secretary. He asked me if I knew why he had called me into the offices so quickly. I said I assumed he considered the offices a training ground for mission leaders. He told me it was exactly that, but that he also wanted to train some of us for future positions in chruch leadership after the mission. I was told I needed to learn church finances because I would have big responsibilities in that area in the future. For almost a year I was in their working on mission finances but also being trained by him on how things worked in the church.


Again, what does this mean? What do you mean by the phrase "how things work[...] in the Church"?

One day, because of an emergency ATM failsafe, a number of missionaries were able to (and did) withdraw almost ten times their normal allotment. In trying to deal with the nightmare of filtering the money back through a system in South America with no possible way to deposit the money in our American account, I was told about the serous nature of messing with church funds, which now graces Vegas' signature line.


There is no doubt in my mind that the Church really, really hates anyone who tampers with the money. I totally believe you on this. (In fact, this is one of the few things that merits excommunication, according to the CHI).

My mission president explained how certain people have access to certain funds and he told me what they are and are not allowed to do with that access.


Which is what? Please elaborate.

The irony was on occasion he would try to get reimbursed for something that he wasn't allowed to. The missionaries did it more often, though. During that year he shared with me the route that tithing travels in coming to Salt Lake, what it does when it gets here, and where it goes when it leaves.


Please explain. I would be very interested in learning about this system.

He shared with me the system within which General Authorities operate, as well as the Emeritus Authorities. After that assignment I was called to serve as Branch President and assigned the task of excommunicating a few members of the branch. I've been in leadership ever since and am well aware of how the church does and does not operate.


I would love to know. I do not have this kind of "insider" knowledge that you appear to have. All I am able to rely upon is the sort of information I've posted above. Perhaps you can share some more that will help quell my doubts about the totally ethical way in which Church funds are handled?

I'm sorry, but my mission president didn't give me any receipts or photocopies of bank statements. Why do you require that for my evidence but "strong speculation" is all you need to feel secure with the opinion of the critics?


Because I have never been given an adequate explanation from the TBMs. Your is the best I have ever heard, and so far all it amounts to is an, "I have insider knowledge, so just trust me" sort of assertion. Regardless, I would appreciate hearing more of the details.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

maklelan wrote:
Who Knows wrote:I just think that most people would be shocked to see how wealthy the church is, and where/when/how their tithing money is being spent, how much 'administrative' costs there are, how much the GA's are making, etc. while Joe Schmoe is out cleaning the toilets in the chapel for free.


I wasn't shocked when I found out. It's not that big a surprise. None of you know, and most of you don't believe me. It's not that big a deal, but most of you enjoy imagining that it is, and you don't want anyone with actual experience to ruin that daydream for you.


When you found out what? You saw a copy of the church's financial statements? You saw balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements, equity statements? You saw tithing revenue, admin expenses, charitable contributions, etc.?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Mister Scratch wrote:
maklelan wrote:One day, because of an emergency ATM failsafe, a number of missionaries were able to (and did) withdraw almost ten times their normal allotment. In trying to deal with the nightmare of filtering the money back through a system in South America with no possible way to deposit the money in our American account, I was told about the serous nature of messing with church funds, which now graces Vegas' signature line.


There is no doubt in my mind that the Church really, really hates anyone who tampers with the money. I totally believe you on this. (In fact, this is one of the few things that merits excommunication, according to the CHI).


I was curious then, and curious now, what this has to do with anything?

ANY corporation, in fact probably anyone, views messing with funds in a serious nature.

I just don't know what your point is here, since it's a given.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Jason said:

We still are only speculating. But I am equating what they do to a similar position in the working world and in my opinion from 100k to 200k a year is not out of line. But I understand your viewpoint as well.


"Speculating" yes, and philosophising... How much is too much? How about going by the "7-formulae"? Top pay to be no more than 7 X the lowest pay, and working down from there... Set that aside... Jesus said " the greatest should be the servants..." Servants generally live by service-income standards. Minimum wages and tips...

"...the working world..." 100K$$ - 200K$$? Might you mean the Corporate world? OK, I know Corp Salaries, run to the astronomical. So there is little ryhmn or reason when it comes to fiscal fishing...

THE BOOKS SHOULD BE OPEN! THAT IS THE HONOURABLE, AND RESPECTFUL THING TO DO in a republic where rights of citizens Trump rites of autocracy!

Several of the churches i've attended in the past months show a weekly tally of attendance, AND offerings: last week's & to date. Doesn't seem to negatively effect them! I attended one service where they announced there would, "be no collection today! Spend it on your family!" They were far enough in the 'black' to forego it! "WOW!"

I put that one along side a UU Minister saying, a few years ago, "...I hope there is not something better you could be doing today!" "WOW!"

But LDSism IS evolving. As they claim in AoF # 9: "...He will yet reveal many great and important things..."

Now, there's something to "speculate" upon... Warm regards, Roger
Post Reply