Church Transparency

I think some of the clamor for more transparency comes from those that have come to the conclusion that the church has “hidden” many other things and there is a bit of distrust – something that TBM’s really can’t even comprehend without feeling like they are insulting God himself. The mall next to temple square probably also caused many more to say, “what is going on?”

I don’t have a huge issue paying tithing given that it costs a lot for the building and such and I use those. No different than any other church – other than if I donate a bunch I don’t get a wing of the church named after me.

But I wouldn’t mind knowing some of the spending on other areas so I can determine if I want to contribute to the fast offering funds for my other charitable giving. If I have no info, I will give “several times more” than the cost of our fast, but the other money I could put there – I will go give to other charities.

I do feel that the church started handling it’s financial affairs quite different after they were nearly bankrupt and have been somewhat paranoid about the long term. I agree with the author in that the church shouldn’t just give it all away and be in a hand to mouth situation like “oops, tithing down 10% during a recession and we have to board up a few buildings”. Just like any corporation you need to have some reserves. But if they have 100B in reserves and only give 10% of the interest off of this to the poor, then maybe I will want to contribute to an org that is giving to people suffering now rather than my $1,000 going to the reserves and will give $5 a year for now on.

One interesting item is the church DID disclose financial info up until something like the 1940’s.

And like Heber says – if it isn’t such a big deal, go ahead and publish something. In the end, the government may come along and require it. Many other governments have done so. Maybe those that want transparency should stop asking the church and go talk to the government.

[Admin Note]: We have had other discussions about the SLC revitalization project in our past. We had to shut down one thread, in particular, due to it turning contentious and condemnatory – and for rehashing things that had been said already multiple times. This post is not about that project, although it includes that project.

If anyone wants to try starting another thread about that project, have at it. We will see if we can have that conversation civilly this time. This thread, however, needs to stay focused on transparency. The project can be mentioned in this thread, as an element of transparency, but it can’t become the new focus of the thread.

Their standard is to be debt-free and have enough in reserves to fund the Church, in totality, for a full year even if all revenue streams ended abruptly. I like that as a standard, especially for an organization that preaches that general concept to its membership – so I am fine with what appears to regular members like me to be massive reserve amounts.

From a general, financial perspective — that is great. I believe in it myself. What I don’t believe in, is the fact that the church expects the members to help it achieve that goal, when it makes it near impossible for many members to be personally self-reliant. To the church, Church self-reliance trumps individual self-reliance. To me, it’s a convenient double standard that one should always pay their tithing, even if it means making them dependent on the church for assistance.

And I’ve seen how they expect the poor to cut the cable or internet, or their cell phone during needs analyses. These are generally small amounts and small comforts, and the latter two are near necessities in our world today.

Taken with the fact that the church has never been there for me in my times of need (not welfare, but other temporal needs some of you know about), I tighten up when I hear the church making such financial demands on its members.

As we have discussed in previous threads about the downtown SLC revitalization project that included a mall, I also am fine with that sort of expense from the corporate organizations owned by the Church’s corporate wing – and with the Church having a corporate wing. That, however, is an entirely different aspect than transparency from the religious organization part of the LDS Church – and I think that simple distinction is what constitutes the central issue for most people who want transparency the most strongly. They want to see clearly that “religious donations” are not being funneled into business ventures – that, in fact, those donations are being used for “religious reasons”.

Two thoughts — given the apparently widespread sanitization of history and other things that break trust with the members, I believe financial transparency would help restore trust — unless, of course, the religious institution has something it is uncomfortable sharing with us financially. My own life experiences shows me that church leaders are men, make mistakes and can be prone to selfish forms of leadership in the church just as they are in any temporal organization. And transparency would only help mitigate this tendency in men…..as JS wrote “as soon as they get a little bit of authority as they seem to suppose, they immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion”…

Second, I like what Ghandi said — charitable organizations should get all of their funding from their membership — that way they are always accountable to them. REvenue streams that are independent of the church allow it to behave in ways that are not good for the membership, if leaders choose.

The apologist’s argument doesn’t ring with me at all — the that that it’s at such a high level is meaningless argument — that is hogwash. I can read financial statements competently, and yes, the high level statement may prompt further questions requiring greater detail, but it doesn’t make them meaningless. Simple rations and metrics — like knowing how much of total tithing dollars goes directly back to programs that help members is an accountability measure I would like to see.

Leaders might worry that the widow may be tempted to keep her mites if they publicize high level figures. Everyone can currently speculate but it might be a bit tougher when you’re sitting there with $2 and an outrageous heating bill that’s due next week and you thumb through the conference edition of the Ensign and see that the church took in 8 billion mites last year.

In that scenario I don’t even think the motivations of the leaders is to get at that $2. They’re probably just concerned with the person receiving the blessings that come from paying their tithing. Honestly.

For those that believe that the church is 100% inspired it doesn’t matter what the money is used for because it is all God’s will.

I agree. It is that for most believers.

This is not a big issue for me (although I can understand it being big for others). For me any money I give the church is truly a donation and is truly just giving back for the facilities and services that my family recieves. In that way, I am only paying for services rendered and do not have any future expectations tied to the money.

I think that’s a good approach…although…

…I bet there is a limit to this right? I mean…if you found out they were pumping millions into an anti-LGBT marriage campaign…that would disturb you, right? (Or pick any social issue that is a hot button for you). I mean, there is a limit. I just sense you pretty well trust them, so you don’t need to ask about where the money is going, you are satisfied they’re using it responsibly, however they think that is. Is that right?

If so, there is a limit for you, then I guess I would just suggest that “limit” varies form person to person, maybe based on the trust factor. So I would agree with your categories and say some people are more interested in the transparency than others, based on trust. You agree?