- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was thinking about how I would manage my financial relationship with the church if I was to apply their principles, to the church itself. The church’s practices involve a) secrecy about their actual financial affairs b) the expectation of donations regardless of personal circumstances c) withholding of privileges if such payment is not fortchoming from the members d) a regular accounting of one’s fulfilment of financial obligations to the church e) when funds are asked for (welfare), there is a needs analysis with disclosure of personal financial statements. f) the church does not incur debt
Applying these principles, this means that when the church asks for money:
a) I would never disclose my financial performance or position.
b) I would expect a certain level of service/quality in the church experience to be provided, regardless of the financial position of the church.
c) If such services were refused, I would withhold my labor, money or other resources until they were provided for a duration of time acceptable to me.
d) I would expect an annual “financial settlement” to make sure the church is fulfilling its obligations to the membership. Perhaps in the form of an annual, or semi-annual financial report. This would be an unaudited report, based on goodwill.
e) If the church requires a special assessment of the local members, I would need to see a financial accounting to justify need. The church would be bound to also consider my brainstormed ideas for optimizing, and preferably, eliminating the need for my donation — the focus would be on getting the church self-reliant again.
f) I would not donate funds until I was out of debt.
g) I would direct any donations to causes or missions that I think are important.
I know this seems ludicrous in spots. But that is my interpretation of church financial policy in reverse.
Does any of this seem reasonable? What seems unreasonable?
Reasonable or not, it does show an interesting power dynamic between the church and members. And this is one reason why, I think, there is not full financial transparency. Can you imagine the detailed criticism and nitpicking that would happen if there was full transparency? I love the idea in theory; in practice, not so much.
CS — my new acronymn for Curtis Sunshine — I gave this some thought… 1. The church used to publish financials. But they did away with this practice when they ran deficits out of fear of how the membership would react. So, it appears that disclosing financials is not a big problem provided the numbers are not bad or suggest bad financial management. At least, this is the historical precedent. Good numbers demonstrate sound management and confidence the church is in fact “eternal”.
2. I find it’s the lack of transparency of the church that bothers people — not the actual numbers. Taken with the historical whitewashing, I think the lack of financial transparency bothers people as an extension of that lack of transparency — at least to some people.
3. The Church publishes its financial statements in Canada. Here is the financial statement there, which is public record.
You have to look at the revenue and expenditure sides separately. Revenues of 176 Million. It looks like they run a loss due to expenditures of 219 Million, but the bottom of the expenditures side gets confusing as they seem to zero out any “profits” through a gift — probably to the US Home office of the church. A gift of about $109 Million. Included in their loss is depreciation and amortization of buildings, a non-cash expense, about 30M, which accounts for quite a bit of the loss.
This transparency does not seem to rankle anyone in Canada — I lived there for decades as an active member and never heard peep from anyone about it.
4. Here is how the Lutheran church handles the finances — they are available on a downloadable basis for the entire organization and its sub units here. So, it’s not uncommon or problematic for other organizations to publish their financials. I admire them for it, frankly.
http://www.elca.org/Resources/Financial 4. I don’t see a major backlash against the Lutheran church as a result of this transparency. I did a search on “Lutheran Church Financial Mismanagement” and came up with nothing. See search results below.
There was some cries for more financial management for the Catholic church, but in my view, such attention can only help leaders be more accountable — in any context. The natural man is alive and well everywhere….
5. Anyway, my point was to turn LDS financial management practices back on itself to see what behavior it would hypothetically dictate for members if they practiced the same principles the church practiced — role reversal. Some of them seem ridiculous (like expecting a certain level of service and quality when the church is largely volunteer, and when there may not even be money for such levels of service).
Such intellectual exercises sometimes bear fruit in the form of new ideas.
But I think transparency is never a bad thing. Lack of transparency breeds suspicion and mistrust, particularly in the context of a lack of transparency of our history. And on other matters such as a) whether apostles have seen Christ and b) the fact that leaders at the top are in fact paid….we let the membership believe “cultural, partly true statements” if they happen to serve our interests.
Thank goodness for the internet! It has a lot in common with the Holy Ghost — a revelator of truth! (and falsehoods, judge wisely).
SilentDawning wrote:
CS — my new acronymn for Curtis Sunshine — I gave this some thought…1. The church used to publish financials. But they did away with this practice when they ran deficits out of fear of how the membership would react. So, it appears that disclosing financials is not a big problem provided the numbers are not bad or suggest bad financial management. At least, this is the historical precedent. Good numbers demonstrate sound management and confidence the church is in fact “eternal”.
2. I find it’s the lack of transparency of the church that bothers people — not the actual numbers. Taken with the historical whitewashing, I think the lack of financial transparency bothers people as an extension of that lack of transparency — at least to some people.
Agreed, but I think they are starting to have the opposite problem with the numbers looking “too good” (as in looks like the church is trying to build up too much weath).
Quote:3. The Church publishes its financial statements in Canada. Here is the financial statement there, which is public record.
You have to look at the revenue and expenditure sides separately. Revenues of 176 Million. It looks like they run a loss due to expenditures of 219 Million, but the bottom of the expenditures side gets confusing as they seem to zero out any “profits” through a gift — probably to the US Home office of the church. A gift of about $109 Million. Included in their loss is depreciation and amortization of buildings, a non-cash expense, about 30M, which accounts for quite a bit of the loss.
This transparency does not seem to rankle anyone in Canada — I lived there for decades as an active member and never heard peep from anyone about it.
My understanding is that Canada requires the church to publish AND Canada does not allow moving Canadian religious contribution outside of Canada with one exception – for education where Canadians participate in. So the church essentially takes all “revenue” ($ above Canadian expenses) and funnels that 100% to BYU. All legal (from what I understand). It does feel a bit of a loophole, but still it is valid. But like you say, those laid back Canadian members don’t seem to be screaming about it.Quote:4. Here is how the Lutheran church handles the finances — they are available on a downloadable basis for the entire organization and its sub units here. So, it’s not uncommon or problematic for other organizations to publish their financials. I admire them for it, frankly.
Me too. “Holy Envy” applies. Quinn in his book he just released said in an interview that if they released more details most would see it as very positive. Kind of that he thinks some are more negative than the numbers would warrant.Quote:Such intellectual exercises sometimes bear fruit in the form of new ideas.
But I think transparency is never a bad thing. Lack of transparency breeds suspicion and mistrust, particularly in the context of a lack of transparency of our history. And on other matters such as a) whether apostles have seen Christ and b) the fact that leaders at the top are in fact paid….we let the membership believe “cultural, partly true statements” if they happen to serve our interests.
I like turning things on their head a bit. It does make you think.
But you just helped me figure out why this lack of transparency on the financial side bothers me. I would be shocked if the church does anything illegal or much of any financial tricks that even could get a penalty slapped on them. But I think you helped me see that my HUGE issue I have with the dishonesty on the history side is probably bleeding over to the finance side. Yes they need to be more open about payments to GA/MP’s (and they need to be giving some to the women in general leadership positions – not sure if they get anything more than a pat on the head).
LookingHard wrote:
Agreed, but I think they are starting to have the opposite problem with the numbers looking “too good” (as in looks like the church is trying to build up too much weath).Well, the church would not want to lessen their revenues — given the scrutiny, they would use more of the surplus for good causes, and that would make the lives of the members better. As I said earlier — there is nothing wrong with a sound financial base provided those funds are used for good. Yes, there is a need for a financial reserve as a risk management step, but we have problems with:
a) inadequate access to social services. I tried to get help once and they were booked solid from now until the second coming.
b) a lot of people turned away from BYU, which could be expanded.
c) greater charitable giving like other organizations of the same size as us.
Mormon = More Good!
I give them credit for requiring less of an assessment for local members for buildings however. They have eased the financial burden of senior missionaries, which is good. So there are steps in the right direction…
In the end, I see nothing bad for the members the church is supposed to be serving in Proclaiming the Gospel, Redeeming the Dead, Perfecting the Saints and Caring for the Poor and Needy by being transparent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.