Financial Statements for the Church(UK) 2005

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Who knows,

It's a snapshot of a small part of the church but I few things are interesting that probably cross over to the larger organization. For example, I was actually quite surprised there were so many highly compensated people working for the church. Making between 140-160k a year is a pretty decent wage in the for-profit world. For a non-profit to be paying like that is impressive. Just imagine what those in the highest offices of the church are making.

My second surprise was how apparently unhumanitarian the Humanitarian Fund & the Fast Offering Fund was behaving by retaining so many donations. I always assumed that my donations were actually going to help the poor and those in need.


Phaedrus

//This is a good example why there should be financial transparency in charities given non-profit status.

[_Who Knows]

I was actually quite surprised there were so many highly compensated people working for the church. Making between 140-160k a year is a pretty decent wage in the for-profit world. For a non-profit to be paying like that is impressive. Just imagine what those in the highest offices of the church are making.

Yeah, that is surprising (minor correction - the FX rate in '05 was about 1.75, so that upper grouping was about $120k to 140k). I'm assuming they're the church lawyers, and maybe a CFO type guy. And that may include pension, medical insurance, etc. But either way, that is a lot of money for a non-profit to be paying.

My second surprise was how apparently unhumanitarian the Humanitarian Fund & the Fast Offering Fund was behaving by retaining so many donations. I always assumed that my donations were actually going to help the poor and those in need.

Yes, that is interesting. The church seems to be holding on to the funds for a while before expending them. Meanwhile, they're earning interest on the member's donations. Same goes for fast offerings.

What's also interesting is the lack of 'humanitarian' donations out of the regular church funds. So not only do they hold onto the humanitarian funds, they didn't spend any of their 'own' cash on humanitarian efforts.

//This is a good example why there should be financial transparency in charities given non-profit status.

I couldn't agree more! Now, if only my wife would agree that her tithing money could be better spent...

[_Mercury]

//This is a good example why there should be financial transparency in charities given non-profit status.

The LDS "church" is not a nonprofit organization. Its a business, both literally and legally.

[_guy sajer]

Well, I'm not surprised about Humanitarian Aid not being spent there. Britain hasn't had any real need lately. Does the statement show how much of their charitable donations and Humanitarian Aid went to HQ? I know that receipts exceed expenditures in these funds (and Fast Offerings) for most of the developed world and a lot flows to poorer nations.

I believe that the destination of charitable donations is determined by the organization to which one contributes not where it's spent. So, if the LDS Church gave, say, 1 million pounds to, say, Oxfam UK, which Oxfam UK then spent on development projects in, say, Ghana, then it would still go on the record as a contribution within the UK.

I'm on board with others who contend that the amount of money donated by the Lord's one true church to humanitarian causes is piddling relative to the church's resources. It appears to value spending money to help the dead over spending money to help the living. How weird is that?

It is one, of many, pieces of evidence that the Mormon Church is not what it claims to be.

[_asbestosman]

It appears to value spending money to help the dead over spending money to help the living. How weird is that?

It is one, of many, pieces of evidence that the Mormon Church is not what it claims to be.

I don't see how spending more money on the dead than on the living is evidence that the church isn't what it claims to be. It is, however, evidence that the chuirch isn't what most people wish it were or indeed think of when they consider what churches spend money on.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yep, the GA Lexus fund, the Prophets penthouse condo and the innumerable cash flow humanitarian fund for the GA's relatives.[/quote]


Do you like wise condemn the CEOs of Red Cross and Untied Way for their salaries? Can you prove other then your baseless accusation the GAs relatives get financial benefits?

Not to mention the no limit expense fund the GA's and their families get (confirmed by steve benson).

I have yet to see this proved and Steve Benson is not reliable in my opinion.

[_Jason Bourne]

The LDS "church" is not a nonprofit organization.

Yes it is an NFP, legally and based on US tax law. I will take those in wuthorities views over yours. The US government thinks the LDS Church is a non profit. I think they know a bit more about this then you do.

Its a business, both literally and legally.

All NFPs are in business of doing waht they do. TO succeed they need to operate like a business. If they have income unrelated to their NFP purpsoe they are taxed on it. The LDS Church pays tax on its activites that are out side the scope of its NFP activities.

Of course your hostility clouds your ability to understand this and be reasonable about it.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm on board with others who contend that the amount of money donated by the Lord's one true church to humanitarian causes is piddling relative to the church's resources. It appears to value spending money to help the dead over spending money to help the living. How weird is that?

While I agree to a certain extent and would like to see more given to humatarian things I think you overstate the under statement. Also the Church does have lots of physical property to maintain and that takes a big chunk of what it brings in. Also, it believes one of its main missions, that even may override human relief type work is preaching and taking what they believe is salvation to the world both in missionary work and in temple work. That is costly as well.

It is one, of many, pieces of evidence that the Mormon Church is not what it claims to be.

And why is that and what bearing does this have on what it claims to be?

[_asbestosman]

Can you prove other then your baseless accusation the GAs relatives get financial benefits?

I seem to recall, and my BYU alumnus bro also seems to recall, that there were special BYU scholarships for decendants of general authorities.

[_Who Knows]

FYI, T-shirt is totally wrong (on the sister MAD thread). I'm quite sure he's never really looked at or analyzed audited financial statements based on his comments.

Phaedrus - you're correct in your assessment (regarding the restricted funds - fast offerings, hum. aid, etc.).