Church finances

[falisrm]

Did you know if the church ever published their finances, it would literally blow every other church finances out of the water. Almost every church spends 95% of their income for their congregation every year. Many churches are in the red. The LDS church only spends like 10% of its income for each ward. Thats 90% savings every year for other programs in the church.

Then of course if it ever is published, people will start doing everything they can to make sure the church doesn't have that kind of money.

[FunkyTown]

Yay us!

[Vort]

I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that it's irrelevant to me. (Not intending any offense, falisrm, just using your post as a discussion springboard.)

I and millions like me have already promised everything we have and everything we are to the kingdom of God (i.e. the Church). If our bishop demanded of us the deed to our house, the title to our car, and the contents of our bank account, our only question would be "When do you want it?" As far as we are concerned, that stuff already belongs to God's Church; we are merely stewards.

At the moment, we give 10% of our stewardship to the Church and live on the remainder. Whom God calls to collect that 10% and how God instructs them to deal with it are not areas of concern for us.

[falisrm]

I think its a good thing. The church knows how to be conservative and manage its tithes. While other congregations spend 60% of their income just on salaries or adminstration costs, the LDS church is following correct principles. I was reading the NT last night and saw that Paul ripped on pastors for earning a salary for preaching. Apparently Paul was a tent maker and supported himself.

[beefche]

Ok, before this becomes a jump on other churches discussion....

Let me remind everyone that there is much, much good in other churches. And their pastors and other leaders who are paid have good intentions and do a great work. The fact that they are paid does not lessen the work they do. We may not agree with it or even truly understand it, but they do believe that it is a job and a calling.

[beefche]

Did you know if the church ever published their finances, it would literally blow every other church finances out of the water. Almost every church spends 95% of their income for their congregation every year. Many churches are in the red. The LDS church only spends like 10% of its income for each ward. Thats 90% savings every year for other programs in the church.

Then of course if it ever is published, people will start doing everything they can to make sure the church doesn't have that kind of money.

I'm curious...if this isn't published, then how do you get your stats?

[HiJolly]

I'm curious...if this isn't published, then how do you get your stats?

It is published in Great Britain, as it is Overland Revenue law. But I do question the stats. 95%? 10%? The first stat is for other churches. The second is for our Churdch. Where DO you get these?

HiJolly

[mountainrider]

Ok, before this becomes a jump on other churches discussion....

And their pastors and other leaders who are paid have good intentions and do a great work. The fact that they are paid does not lessen the work they do. We may not agree with it or even truly understand it, but they do believe that it is a job and a calling.

that's a pretty broad brush. What about all the ones that are out for filthy lucre, like Swaggert, Baker, Hinn and the dozens of others that are looking out for only 1 thing and it isn't their parishoners well being?

There is a reason why the Lord's church is set up the way that it is.

[falisrm]

I've been researching churches finances for like a year now (i know i have no life). The LDS church publishes its finances in 2 countries, the UK and Canada. In both countries they only spent 10%. everything else is reverted back to head quarters. That doesn't mean thats all the expenses for the church but maintain ward and stake budgets is a big one. I also talked to my dad who is a stake clerk. He said the same thing.

Almost every other church publishes financial reports every year and the expenses are huge. Its always around 90% spent for that same year. Savings isn't a part of the equation.

[beefche]

that's a pretty broad brush. What about all the ones that are out for filthy lucre, like Swaggert, Baker, Hinn and the dozens of others that are looking out for only 1 thing and it isn't their parishoners well being?

There is a reason why the Lord's church is set up the way that it is.

I'm not going to judge individual's heart, motivations, and intents. But, yes, you are correct. There are those who are in it for money and/or power/prestige. But, I can say the same for the LDS church (although money wouldn't be a big issue).

And I completely agree that the Lord's church is set up the way it is for a purpose. I just don't feel comfortable saying that paid ministers are bad or evil or imply that we are more righteous because our ministry in unpaid. I know a few pastors and they are good and honest people who are doing the best with the knowledge and beliefs they have. One of the strongest testimonies of Jesus I have ever felt or heard was by one of these paid ministers.

[bytor2112]

I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that it's irrelevant to me. (Not intending any offense, falisrm, just using your post as a discussion springboard.)

I and millions like me have already promised everything we have and everything we are to the kingdom of God (i.e. the Church). If our bishop demanded of us the deed to our house, the title to our car, and the contents of our bank account, our only question would be "When do you want it?" As far as we are concerned, that stuff already belongs to God's Church; we are merely stewards.

At the moment, we give 10% of our stewardship to the Church and live on the remainder. Whom God calls to collect that 10% and how God instructs them to deal with it are not areas of concern for us.

Um...if your Bishop asks?? Wow, that's faith. If President Monson said that the Lord required it, no doubt. Might be a little over reaching of authority for the Bishop...IMO.

[guitarwizard]

Um...if your Bishop asks?? Wow, that's faith. If President Monson said that the Lord required it, no doubt. Might be a little over reaching of authority for the Bishop...IMO.

Law of Consecration. I guess that would be the case, if it was instated.

[Vort]

Um...if your Bishop asks?? Wow, that's faith. If President Monson said that the Lord required it, no doubt. Might be a little over reaching of authority for the Bishop...IMO.

If I understand the D&C correctly -- big "if", I realize -- the bishop is the man assigned by God to oversee such things in the ward. I consider him an authorized servant of God, every bit as much as President Monson. If that is indeed his purview, as I believe it is, then his word would be sufficient for me.

[Vort]

Law of Consecration. I guess that would be the case, if it was instated.

Let me point out that we are under the law of consecration right now. At least, those of us who have received our temple endowment are. The fact that we haven't currently been instructed to hand everything over to the bishop is irrelevant. We are bound under the law of consecration even if we are not currently living its highest expression, just as surely as we are bound under the law of chastity even if we aren't currently living polygamy.

[mountainrider]

I'm not going to judge individual's heart, motivations, and intents. But, yes, you are correct. There are those who are in it for money and/or power/prestige. But, I can say the same for the LDS church (although money wouldn't be a big issue).

And I completely agree that the Lord's church is set up the way it is for a purpose. I just don't feel comfortable saying that paid ministers are bad or evil or imply that we are more righteous because our ministry in unpaid. I know a few pastors and they are good and honest people who are doing the best with the knowledge and beliefs they have. One of the strongest testimonies of Jesus I have ever felt or heard was by one of these paid ministers.

I completely agree with you. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all paid preachers are of the televangelist money grubber ilk. I think that is sad when they are. There are thousands of others who are in it for the right reasons. I just wanted to point out that there are all types, good and bad.

[Moksha]

The last time the Church put out and annual financial report was in 1959.

[Palerider]

I car pooled with a guy for 10yrs who was a Baptist. He was also on the Church Board where he attended. I was serving as Bishop at the time and we always talked about Church Finances. He told me they were debating heavily on how much they should budget for their youth for the coming year. I told him how much we set aside for our youth program and he was very impressed. He always asked me finance questions and we talked about how it was done in his church and in ours.

[NateHowe]

We also need to understand that our Church is not set up like most other churches. The Church has high assets on paper, but almost every asset the Church owns is depreciating and cost-incurring. Consider the great number of Temples and meetinghouses. They bring in no profit, but the buildings must be lit, heated, maintained, etc. Most other churches rent out their space when possible during times they are not in use. Any functions held in our buildings are rent-free.

Other churches have raffles, bake sales, etc. to raise money for specific groups within the church community. Our Church gives each sanctioned sub-organization a sufficient budget from tithing funds.

Additionally, the Church as an organization follows the prophetic counsel to keep a year's supply of finances at hand. The Church diversifies its investments in order to keep itself stable in case tithing contributions suddenly stop for any reason. The finances of the Church show the wisdom of its leaders.

[NateHowe]

Let me point out that we are under the law of consecration right now. At least, those of us who have received our temple endowment are. The fact that we haven't currently been instructed to hand everything over to the bishop is irrelevant. We are bound under the law of consecration even if we are not currently living its highest expression, just as surely as we are bound under the law of chastity even if we aren't currently living polygamy.

As a Church, we are living the lower law of tithing in lieu of consecration. We as a people failed to live consecration. Although we accept the Law of Consecration, we do not currently live it.

[Misshalfway]

We are asked to consecrate our time and talents and resources to the work. But I think that is as far as it goes.... I am agreeing with Nate on this one.

[MarginOfError]

When the Law of Consecration was first put into effect in the 1800's, it was a commandment that was expected of all of the people that accepted the Gospel and joined the Saints in the gathering places (it wasn't established in areas where the groups of Saints were smaller, but these areas also didn't typically have bishops). In essence, at the time, Consecration was a more generalized commandment than it is now.

As it turned out, the general body of the Church couldn't seem to live by Consecration, and Tithing was instituted instead. So let's look at the relationship between Consecration and Tithing with an analogy: Tithing is to Consecration what the Aaronic Priesthood is to the Melchizedek. After sufficient preparation under the law of Tithing, an individual may accept the Law of Consecration. This covenant is accepted in the Temple during the Endowment.

However, contrary to popular opinion, those who lived by Consecration in the 1800's did not simply deed everything they owned to the Bishop and hope they got enough back to support themselves. Consecration was not quite like communal living. Detailed records of consecrated property had to be kept, and anytime property was consecrated, two contracts had to be signed. The footnotes in the second volume of The History of the Church give an example of these contracts. The first enumerated in detail everything that an individual was leasing to the Bishop. The second enumerated in detail everything the Bishop was entrusting to the individual's stewardship. Both contracts had to be signed together in order for them to be valid.

The interesting thing about these contracts is that they were negotiated. It was intended that the bishop would meet with a family and they would work out what the family's needs were and compare that to their resources. Nothing was consecrated until both parties came to an agreement. Furthermore, if it was determined that a family had a surplus, the surplus was not taken unless the Bishop had a need for it. Instead, the surplus was granted back to the family's stewardship, and if necessary, the bishop could ask for it later.

So, yes, those of us who have made the Temple Covenants are under obligation to live the Law of Consecration. However, if the bishop asks for the deed to my house, I won't be giving it up until he and I are both satisfied that my family's needs will be met.

[Hemidakota]

As a Church, we are living the lower law of tithing in lieu of consecration. We as a people failed to live consecration. Although we accept the Law of Consecration, we do not currently live it.

Nate, if I was the Savior and knowing you have received those endowments, I asked you to give everything you owen to the church, would you do it without question?

[Vort]

As a Church, we are living the lower law of tithing in lieu of consecration. We as a people failed to live consecration. Although we accept the Law of Consecration, we do not currently live it.

This is incorrect. It is like saying that since we don't currently live polygamy, therefore we are no longer living the law of chastity. The law of chastity is far broader and deeper than just polygamy, although it might be thought (many of our ancestors certainly believed) that polygamy is a "higher expression" of the law of chastity. Similarly, the law of consecration is far broader than merely the United Order, though many might believe that the United Order is a "higher expression" of the law of consecration.

Please note: Our temple covenants don't say that we will consecrate what we have and what we are if we're ever asked to do so at some future point. Our temple covenants say that we do offer that consecration right now. Just because we haven't actually been asked to write out the check doesn't change the basic fact that we have already consecrated our stuff and our lives to God.

We are under the covenant of the law of consecration right now, whether we choose to live it or not.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Vort

[Vort]

We are asked to consecrate our time and talents and resources to the work. But I think that is as far as it goes.... I am agreeing with Nate on this one.

So, we are "only" asked to consecrate:

1. Our time

2. Our talents

3. Our resources

What else do you think we have that we could consecrate?

[funkymonkey]

...

Edited August 15, 2008 by funkymonkey