Church Finances

[Mormorrisey]

I don't know if anybody had a chance, but apparently Gerald Causse, the presiding bishop, penned a little Q&A about church finances at the newsroom. Just a fluff piece, really.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... bal-church

But what caught my eye, was this lovely statement in the Q&A on why the church doesn't publish it's financial information:

"The Church is not a financial institution or a commercial corporation. It has no other objective than preaching the gospel and inviting all to come unto Christ. While the Church chooses not to publish the details of its finances, the Church does provide public information on the financial principles it follows, the financial controls in place to protect Church funds and the source and use of these funds. The Church also provides all financial information required by law."

What a crapload. Most Mormons I know wouldn't buy a friggin' toaster online without checking out reviews, or doing background checks before investing in sound companies, yet these same people just take the corporation at its word? And it gets better. Right underneath is the question "Is the church a rich church?" And one sentence caught my eye:

"Additionally, some people may try to attach a monetary value to the Church in the same way they would assess the assets of a commercial corporation. Such comparisons simply do not hold up."

Hold on a second - you're upset that some people are trying to figure out how much the church is worth, yet you refuse to publish your financial wherewithals? Good grief, you can't have it both ways. Well, I guess I forget what I was dealing with.

In any event, what a tone deaf piece - only the hardcore TBM will "buy" this crap on church finances, the NOM will scoff at it, and I think general run-of-the-mill members will just ignore it. But surely, they recognize that most critics aren't buying this? Or even the folks at Bloomberg?

[IT_Veteran]

Yeah, I posted that very paragraph (your first one) in a Reddit comment today. They damn sure wouldn’t make any sort of investment without all the particulars, but expect everyone else to spend 10% of their hard-earned money “because I said so.”

Oh, and I had a good feeling when the bishop told me I’d go to the temple and spend eternity with my family if I did it.

[Not Buying It]

I honestly can’t figure out who that FAQ was written for. Journalists and others outside of the Church will find it ridiculous. Exmos and NOMs will find it laughable. Believing members couldn’t care less how the Church spends its money and will never bother reading it, and they are the only ones who would find it adequate.

[moksha]

Most religious groups publish their financial information. Honesty is important to them and it helps keep them honest.

For a Church that likes to emphasize the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety, the lack of financial transparency seems to shout that something hinky is going on.

Hope that syllogism helps.

[GoodBoy]

My favorite part is that they aren't a commercial corporation when "corporarion" is in their actual legal name.

[Reuben]

I honestly can’t figure out who that FAQ was written for. Journalists and others outside of the Church will find it ridiculous. Exmos and NOMs will find it laughable. Believing members couldn’t care less how the Church spends its money and will never bother reading it, and they are the only ones who would find it adequate.

It could be that the existence of the FAQ is important to some members, but not its contents. The essays often function that way.

[moksha]

It could be that the existence of the FAQ is important to some members, but not its contents.

The same has been said about FARMS and FAIRMormon. It is important that someone down in Provo has answers. The content of those answers is not as important as having answers.

[IT_Veteran]

It could be that the existence of the FAQ is important to some members, but not its contents.

The same has been said about FARMS and FAIRMormon. It is important that someone down in Provo has answers. The content of those answers is not as important as having answers.

I've seen this in my family as well. My DW posted a link to the essays on her FB wall the other day with zero commentary, just the link. We'd talked about it before and I told her if I did it, everybody knows I'm an apostate and would just assume that I was attacking the church by misinterpreting the essays. I told her if she posted them, people would actually take the time to look at them as she's very in the closet about her FC, except with our kids.

Within a short time, my mom commented on her post that she loved the essays. I had to wonder if she's actually read more than the introductory paragraph of each one. She was a GD teacher for a few years post-2013, so it's possible, but I'm fairly sure she's never read them with a critical eye.

[jfro18]

It could be that the existence of the FAQ is important to some members, but not its contents.

The same has been said about FARMS and FAIRMormon. It is important that someone down in Provo has answers. The content of those answers is not as important as having answers.

I've seen this in my family as well. My DW posted a link to the essays on her FB wall the other day with zero commentary, just the link. We'd talked about it before and I told her if I did it, everybody knows I'm an apostate and would just assume that I was attacking the church by misinterpreting the essays. I told her if she posted them, people would actually take the time to look at them as she's very in the closet about her FC, except with our kids.

Within a short time, my mom commented on her post that she loved the essays. I had to wonder if she's actually read more than the introductory paragraph of each one. She was a GD teacher for a few years post-2013, so it's possible, but I'm fairly sure she's never read them with a critical eye.

In my experience, when you read the essays you get out of them exactly what you want to get out of them.

If you read them quickly, you get some facts you might not have known followed by some really deceptive apologetics.

If you read them with a critical eye, you can see where the essays get really bad pretty quickly.

There is literally something for everyone in those essays - especially if you take them at face value, which almost every member will do.

[IT_Veteran]

The same has been said about FARMS and FAIRMormon. It is important that someone down in Provo has answers. The content of those answers is not as important as having answers.

I've seen this in my family as well. My DW posted a link to the essays on her FB wall the other day with zero commentary, just the link. We'd talked about it before and I told her if I did it, everybody knows I'm an apostate and would just assume that I was attacking the church by misinterpreting the essays. I told her if she posted them, people would actually take the time to look at them as she's very in the closet about her FC, except with our kids.

Within a short time, my mom commented on her post that she loved the essays. I had to wonder if she's actually read more than the introductory paragraph of each one. She was a GD teacher for a few years post-2013, so it's possible, but I'm fairly sure she's never read them with a critical eye.

In my experience, when you read the essays you get out of them exactly what you want to get out of them.

If you read them quickly, you get some facts you might not have known followed by some really deceptive apologetics.

If you read them with a critical eye, you can see where the essays get really bad pretty quickly.

There is literally something for everyone in those essays - especially if you take them at face value, which almost every member will do.

I found that it didn't even take a particularly critical eye. I think I would have been satisfied by apologetic answers for a lot longer if they actually made any sense. It seemed like, with the race issue for example (this was a real problem for me) we went from it being doctrinal to the church saying it was never really doctrine. That we didn't understand the reasoning. I think the biggest blow to my shelf had been the teaching that all of the church leaders believed it was from God, they didn't understand it and really wanted to change it but just couldn't get the answer they needed. A deeper look, even if only just below the surface, shows that wasn't true at all.

[jfro18]

I found that it didn't even take a particularly critical eye. I think I would have been satisfied by apologetic answers for a lot longer if they actually made any sense. It seemed like, with the race issue for example (this was a real problem for me) we went from it being doctrinal to the church saying it was never really doctrine. That we didn't understand the reasoning. I think the biggest blow to my shelf had been the teaching that all of the church leaders believed it was from God, they didn't understand it and really wanted to change it but just couldn't get the answer they needed. A deeper look, even if only just below the surface, shows that wasn't true at all.

Just judging from my interactions with DW and listening to a lot of Mormon Stories (and other) podcasts, it seems like apologetics work for a lot of people as long as they aren't really looking for answers.

Once you are actually open to the possibility there might be something wrong with church history/issues/whatever, the apologetics start to look as weak as they look to us. But until that point, TBMs are just looking to make sure it's been addressed without really taking the time to comprehend what the answers might be.

Just my opinion of course - the apologetics with regards to blacks and the church are just straight up deceptive. And it's even worse since the church itself is taking the same line of "It was never really doctrine" even though ever prophet from Brigham until the end spoke it. I also really hate when the church calls the end of the ban a revelation when it has been well documented that it was nothing more than an organizational decision that was molded by interviewing the Q15 for input.

[IT_Veteran]

I found that it didn't even take a particularly critical eye. I think I would have been satisfied by apologetic answers for a lot longer if they actually made any sense. It seemed like, with the race issue for example (this was a real problem for me) we went from it being doctrinal to the church saying it was never really doctrine. That we didn't understand the reasoning. I think the biggest blow to my shelf had been the teaching that all of the church leaders believed it was from God, they didn't understand it and really wanted to change it but just couldn't get the answer they needed. A deeper look, even if only just below the surface, shows that wasn't true at all.

Just judging from my interactions with DW and listening to a lot of Mormon Stories (and other) podcasts, it seems like apologetics work for a lot of people as long as they aren't really looking for answers.

Once you are actually open to the possibility there might be something wrong with church history/issues/whatever, the apologetics start to look as weak as they look to us. But until that point, TBMs are just looking to make sure it's been addressed without really taking the time to comprehend what the answers might be.

Just my opinion of course - the apologetics with regards to blacks and the church are just straight up deceptive. And it's even worse since the church itself is taking the same line of "It was never really doctrine" even though ever prophet from Brigham until the end spoke it. I also really hate when the church calls the end of the ban a revelation when it has been well documented that it was nothing more than an organizational decision that was molded by interviewing the Q15 for input.

I'd say you're exactly right. Which is why the fluff they've posted about finances isn't going to raise questions with believing members, nor answer them for anyone else. I am very glad my DW was willing to look at me as a person, realize that I'm capable of rational thought and wanted to know what I do so she could decide for herself. I count myself very lucky in that regard.

[Kalikala]

She was a GD teacher for a few years post-2013, so it's possible, but I'm fairly sure she's never read them with a critical eye.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see your mom ever reading anything about the church with a critical eye. She’s too invested.

[BlackMormon]

I don't know if anybody had a chance, but apparently Gerald Causse, the presiding bishop, penned a little Q&A about church finances at the newsroom. Just a fluff piece, really.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... bal-church

But what caught my eye, was this lovely statement in the Q&A on why the church doesn't publish it's financial information:

"The Church is not a financial institution or a commercial corporation. It has no other objective than preaching the gospel and inviting all to come unto Christ. While the Church chooses not to publish the details of its finances, the Church does provide public information on the financial principles it follows, the financial controls in place to protect Church funds and the source and use of these funds. The Church also provides all financial information required by law."

Translation: We don't disclose anything. I love the "inviting all to come to Christ" . How old is this slogan? What I find interesting is that the Messiah was neither called Jesus nor Christ until the Greeks changed his real name from Yeshua to Jesus (close de Zeus) and Messiah to (Christos) or Christ.
This is the biggest BS I have ever seen. Billions of people worship the Savior whose name was changed by Greek translators.
But I digress. There is no way the Church is going to be transparent with its funds because it's billions and lots of assets, stocks , investments, etc.

[jfro18]

The craziest thing to me is that at some point the church made the calculated decision that it's better to let the speculation run wild as to their finances than to just report the information honestly to their paying members. And to be fair, most members are not willing to question anything, so they aren't wrong.

I tend to think a big reason they do not report their finances is because if they reported just how much $$ and assets they have, it would kill the argument that tithing is necessary to spread the word of the church. Of course you still need to pay up to buy entrance into the temples, but it's really hard to keep everyone writing those 10% checks when you're sitting on billions in assets that you can't even find needs to spend on.

Or maybe it's because they don't do as much in humanitarian efforts as they pretend, or maybe they mismanaged money and don't want it to be known... who knows but the bottom line is that they are willing to ask teenagers how often they masturbate but if you ask them how they are spending the money donated by members *you* are the enemy.

[Mormorrisey]

Or maybe it's because they don't do as much in humanitarian efforts as they pretend, or maybe they mismanaged money and don't want it to be known... who knows but the bottom line is that they are willing to ask teenagers how often they masturbate but if you ask them how they are spending the money donated by members *you* are the enemy.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to briefly visit with a GA 70 who came to our area. Long story, it would probably out me, so I won't share it. But I took the opportunity to ask him about the Lord's true shopping mall, which REALLY bothered me at the time. He stammered about it beautifying the SLC core, how they'll probably sell it eventually, yada yada.

But when I pressured him about it a little more, he stopped, and basically said that Satan was leading me to question the church on this matter. Really? That's all you've got? That's how you're going to stop anybody from questioning ANYTHING you're doing? I guess it's worked to this point, but it ain't working on me anymore, or on many others.

But whatever the reason they don't tell financial details, from a lack of humanitarian donations to mismanagement, the only ones buying are the hardcore who are going to be left holding the bag when things go south, and that's the tragedy.

[IT_Veteran]

Or maybe it's because they don't do as much in humanitarian efforts as they pretend, or maybe they mismanaged money and don't want it to be known... who knows but the bottom line is that they are willing to ask teenagers how often they masturbate but if you ask them how they are spending the money donated by members *you* are the enemy.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to briefly visit with a GA 70 who came to our area. Long story, it would probably out me, so I won't share it. But I took the opportunity to ask him about the Lord's true shopping mall, which REALLY bothered me at the time. He stammered about it beautifying the SLC core, how they'll probably sell it eventually, yada yada.

But when I pressured him about it a little more, he stopped, and basically said that Satan was leading me to question the church on this matter. Really? That's all you've got? That's how you're going to stop anybody from questioning ANYTHING you're doing? I guess it's worked to this point, but it ain't working on me anymore, or on many others.

But whatever the reason they don't tell financial details, from a lack of humanitarian donations to mismanagement, the only ones buying are the hardcore who are going to be left holding the bag when things go south, and that's the tragedy.

At least he got right to the heart of the matter, I suppose. Anything that causes him a little cog dis is of the devil. Satan must be leading you astray because it makes him feel anxious to consider the question.

[blazerb]

Just judging from my interactions with DW and listening to a lot of Mormon Stories (and other) podcasts, it seems like apologetics work for a lot of people as long as they aren't really looking for answers.

Once you are actually open to the possibility there might be something wrong with church history/issues/whatever, the apologetics start to look as weak as they look to us. But until that point, TBMs are just looking to make sure it's been addressed without really taking the time to comprehend what the answers might be.

Just my opinion of course - the apologetics with regards to blacks and the church are just straight up deceptive. And it's even worse since the church itself is taking the same line of "It was never really doctrine" even though ever prophet from Brigham until the end spoke it. I also really hate when the church calls the end of the ban a revelation when it has been well documented that it was nothing more than an organizational decision that was molded by interviewing the Q15 for input.

What's interesting to me is that the new apologists don't even try to defend the doctrines of the church. The Givens and Bushmans are more likely to tell us to stay in the church because it's a place to grow spiritually. I recently listened to a Mormon Matters podcast about mental gymnastics. It was a panel discussion. It appeared that the participants had no belief in anything about the church. They just went because it is their spiritual home. I am likely oversimplifying. You can find the podcast here: https://www.mormonmatters.org/podcast-i ... -going-on/.

I think a lot of people don't look deeper because they have been told that there are knowledgeable people who have dealt with the issues. However, when you listen to a lot of those knowledgeable people, you find out that they don't really believe what we were told was true. Many of them have no need for a true church, just a spiritual home. Meanwhile, the less knowledgeable people seem to think that the evidence supports their beliefs. I can't think of a better example of why appeals to authority should be viewed skeptically.

[jfro18]

What's interesting to me is that the new apologists don't even try to defend the doctrines of the church. The Givens and Bushmans are more likely to tell us to stay in the church because it's a place to grow spiritually. I recently listened to a Mormon Matters podcast about mental gymnastics. It was a panel discussion. It appeared that the participants had no belief in anything about the church. They just went because it is their spiritual home. I am likely oversimplifying. You can find the podcast here: https://www.mormonmatters.org/podcast-i ... -going-on/.

I think a lot of people don't look deeper because they have been told that there are knowledgeable people who have dealt with the issues. However, when you listen to a lot of those knowledgeable people, you find out that they don't really believe what we were told was true. Many of them have no need for a true church, just a spiritual home. Meanwhile, the less knowledgeable people seem to think that the evidence supports their beliefs. I can't think of a better example of why appeals to authority should be viewed skeptically.

To a large degree this is my wife right now - I know she has been reading apologist stuff as opposed to actually looking into the church essays/research because it's easier to have someone tell you to ignore the facts than it is to confront them head on.

It's tough too because that new apologist line basically boils down to "Don't think about it, just think about how you feel."

It would be as if I was caught cheating on my wife and instead of talking about what happened I just kept telling her to ignore what I did but focus on how our marriage used to make her feel. It might keep you going for a while, but at some point I have to think that's going to crack once you see something on your own that shatters the idea you can just ignore the problems.

I've heard a lot of people say apologetics can be a very slippery slope for TBMs, and I hope of course for DW that is the case... but they have gotten really, really good at just straight up deflecting the history and telling people to let the church think for them so they can focus solely on spiritual issues.

[nibbler]

...The Church also provides all financial information required by law."

In a way they have provided us with the solution. Tired of the one year wait penalty for people that get a civil marriage before being sealed? Write your government representatives to get laws changed to match laws in other countries where the church can't treat people like that because the laws require people to get married in a ceremony open to the public.

Want some fiscal transparency? Write your government representatives to get laws changed to match laws in other countries where the church has to do (minimal) reporting on their financials.

We can sit around waiting for the church to do the right thing or take steps to push the church to involuntarily doing the right thing. I'll let people guess which approach is the more more effective. Writing congresspeople probably won't amount to a hill of beans but it would move the needle more than hoping the church will one day do the right thing in an environment where they are not coerced to do so.

The Church is not a financial institution or a commercial corporation.

#1) lol
#2) Good to know. I guess they don't need people's money and won't be conducting yearly interviews with family about how they've contributed to the church financials.