Transparency in Church Finances

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

asbestosman wrote:
moksha wrote:
asbestosman wrote:I see no moral obligation for churches to disclose their finances so long as they remain compliant with the law.

Isn't there a scripture that says we should only do the bare minimum and not go the full measure? More proof that we are true!

If there were such a scripture, it wouldn't be applicable to this case. Perhaps the church doesn't release the things publicly because the world would whine about how much is spent on things they consider useless--for example temples. Some people seem to think that churches should only have money for helping the poor and maybe some incidental costs for meetinghouses and possibly for ministers too.


The objection is not to the temples. The objection is to the shopping malls, the park, and the conference center. You know... the gifts to well-to-do Salt Lake City citizens, compliments of the poor Saints in Mexico.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

moksha wrote:
asbestosman wrote:I see no moral obligation for churches to disclose their finances so long as they remain compliant with the law.

Isn't there a scripture that says we should only do the bare minimum and not go the full measure?

I thought someone would correct me on this and point out that the scripture says we should do our best and not merely what we need do to just get by. Where are our scriptorians? Is it truly enough to just hand in the required documentation or is it better to be as honest and forthright as we are able?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Mephitus
_Emeritus
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:44 pm

Post by _Mephitus »

Im with harmony on this. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to any person or organization that wishes to aid and help people. But when money taken for that purpose is then spent on commercial ventures, that's when i see the issue. I could care less on temple or meetinghouse spending. They will do what they feel they need to to fulfill needs in that area. What i object to, is when organizations like this begin to become a corperation invested in capital gain.

As i said in a different thread on this same subject, i think that organizations such as the red cross could be used as an example. I think that it is a very honorable to work purely for the betterment of mankind. But if such an organization was to begin investing donated money into say...microsoft. I think that is unethical. To my personal world view, donated money does NOT in any way belong to said organization. It belongs to the people who donated it.

Lets be honest here, the 6-8billion dollars spent just on the SLC mall could have been used to help MILLIONS of people who legitimately NEED such basic things as food, medical care, shelter, clothing, etc. I feel that it is required for such organizations to have someone to report to so that they do not missapropriate funds that could likewise SAVE A LIFE! To me that is why i see such spending as not only unethical, but completely appaling. I know this line could be a cheap shot, but think of the children. Do we need some place easier to shop tommorow? or do their kids need food so they do not starve to death today!?!

My debate is not on how much the upper ends get, that's for the members to decide. But on the things such money could likewise be used for. The idea of religion is to help people! Not to make ventures into places to make more money for the leaders.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Sono_hito wrote:Im with harmony on this. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to any person or organization that wishes to aid and help people. But when money taken for that purpose is then spent on commercial ventures, that's when i see the issue. I could care less on temple or meetinghouse spending. They will do what they feel they need to to fulfill needs in that area. What i object to, is when organizations like this begin to become a corperation invested in capital gain.

As i said in a different thread on this same subject, i think that organizations such as the red cross could be used as an example. I think that it is a very honorable to work purely for the betterment of mankind. But if such an organization was to begin investing donated money into say...microsoft. I think that is unethical. To my personal world view, donated money does NOT in any way belong to said organization. It belongs to the people who donated it.

Lets be honest here, the 6-8billion dollars spent just on the SLC mall could have been used to help MILLIONS of people who legitimately NEED such basic things as food, medical care, shelter, clothing, etc. I feel that it is required for such organizations to have someone to report to so that they do not missapropriate funds that could likewise SAVE A LIFE! To me that is why i see such spending as not only unethical, but completely appaling. I know this line could be a cheap shot, but think of the children. Do we need some place easier to shop tommorow? or do their kids need food so they do not starve to death today!?!

My debate is not on how much the upper ends get, that's for the members to decide. But on the things such money could likewise be used for. The idea of religion is to help people! Not to make ventures into places to make more money for the leaders.


I agree with you that helping the poor is important, but I don' t necessarily see that as mutually exclusive to investing money. Consumption by the phat cats at the top is one thing. Investing is another. Why couldn't one take the attitude that investing allows you to help people down the road? I heard in church that the Church saves 10% of their income just as they encourage the members to save 10% of their income. I don't see a problem with this with the Church or the Red Cross, or whatever religious or humanitarian organization does. I always knew they had a big pot of money they were sitting on and in a way I was happy to know that.

While I made that comment about Bro. Sanchez to illustrate the difference in the corporate bosses and the foot soldier/galley slaves, as a whole I think the Church puts a lot more money into Latin America than it takes out. I just don't like the elitism going on.

It just seems so much more distasteful to me to see the Brethren thinknig of themselves as corporate CEOs, as if the Church was some kind of corporation? Men called to these positions by revelation, inspiration, and above all relation.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

ajax18 wrote:I agree with you that helping the poor is important, but I don' t necessarily see that as mutually exclusive to investing money. Consumption by the phat cats at the top is one thing. Investing is another. Why couldn't one take the attitude that investing allows you to help people down the road? I heard in church that the Church saves 10% of their income just as they encourage the members to save 10% of their income. I don't see a problem with this with the Church or the Red Cross, or whatever religious or humanitarian organization does. I always knew they had a big pot of money they were sitting on and in a way I was happy to know that.

That's just what I was thinking.

I do see some elitism, but I see it more with members in general instead of general authorities. I do recognize that even these men have their weaknesses, but I don't think my eyes would help them or God better allocate the funds for the mission of the church.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply