- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
One further quote from Max Dupree…I am on this third book now. He makes this observation about what he calls “vital” non-profit organizations. Quote:Nonprofit groups make themselves accountable to the people they serve, and obligation far beyond a corporation’s commitment to its customers
I assume the church is considered a non-profit. I would like to ask a couple questions:
1. Should non-profit organizations be accountable to the people it serves?
2. Who does the LDS Church serve?
3. Are they accountable to this group?
SilentDawning wrote:One further quote from Max Dupree…I am on this third book now. He makes this observation about what he calls “vital” non-profit organizations.
Quote:Nonprofit groups make themselves accountable to the people they serve, and obligation far beyond a corporation’s commitment to its customers
I assume the church is considered a non-profit. I would like to ask a couple questions:
1. Should non-profit organizations be accountable to the people it serves?
2. Who does the LDS Church serve?
3. Are they accountable to this group?
1 = YES
2 = The members? I think, and I hope.
3 = NO. Absolutely not. At least not financially.
IMO, of course.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
No – not to the people they serve, since they usually are giving money to those people. They should be accountable only to follow the rules that govern their non-profit standing and to use contributions as they say they use them. Pretty much everyone, in theory, although the membership receives the benefit of the majority of its resources.
No – with the same caveats as above.
The for-profit corporate entity is accountable to an even lesser degree than the church entity.
It’s possible that many leaders, including some of the Q15 believe they are there to serve God, and only God. Therefore, the reasonable and obvious answer, in thier opinion, would be YES to question 3.
It doesn’t work for me, but from a staylds standpoint…maybe.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I also disagree with this statement on some fronts. I think Vital non-profits should be accountable to the people who support them financially – not necessarily the people they serve. This is because most non-profits have two sets of people — the people they serve, and the people who fund them. In the case of the church, the people that support them, and the people they serve are primarily the same (if you consider members the primary service target). However, this does not mean they are accountable to members’ financial supporter’s values and whims…they are accountable to use funds to pursue the organization’s stated vision and mission, consistent with the organization’s values.
The reason I think they SHOULD be accountable to this group is because this group sustains the organization, and agreed to do so on the basis of the church’s claims about its mission.
My answers to the questions, therefore are:
1. No — not to the people they serve, but to the people who fund them.
2. The church’s primary target group are its members, although one might consider non-members who are investigating the church could also be included. I agree with cWald that most Q12 probably believe they are accountable to God only, and not the members. Perhaps that is why we see so little accountability from church leaders in general? (if you believe they do not behave in an accountable way).
3. No, the church is not accountable to the members due to lack of financial transparency as cWald said. They are sometimes accountable to members for other things (such as providing leadership that doesn’t lead people astray — but to me, they act in an accountable when mostly when there is a widespread, well-known, embarrassing problem. And sometimes, not even when that happens).
SilentDawning wrote:
Quote:Nonprofit groups make themselves accountable to the people they serve, and obligation far beyond a corporation’s commitment to its customers
Fwiw, in our state (maybe everywhere?), a 501(c)3 says whether it has members or not. If it has members, they are entitled/obligated to vote in certain issues, like electing board members. If it’s a non-member organization, the people it serves do not vote. I can’t remember how the member/non-member status affects “rights” to financial information.
The church is accountable to no one, and you know what they say about absolute power. I would actually just be happy if the church said something along the lines of “we have $xx, we have invested $xx for future needs, we spent $xx on humanitarian service, $xx on buildings and maintenance, $xx on the missionary effort, etc.” That said, no other church that I’m aware of does this, either, except perhaps at an individual congregation level in protestant churches where they have a board the operates pretty much independently. By making a financial statement, the church could certainly quell some anti arguments, but of course would spur some other ones.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.