Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

ttribe

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,656
  • Joined

Everything posted by ttribe

  1. I have no idea what you mean by that, but go ahead re-read Smac's post and tell me, with any measure of intellectual honesty, that his statement (as he presented it) isn't an expression of his personal preference for how John should have handled the posting of this nonsense apologetic.
  2. Neither John, nor anyone else in this thread, for that matter, owe you any kind of response to what you "prefer."
  3. Please, you bear very little of the blame for this ongoing B.S.
  4. It's funny that these "mistakes" seem to persist for 100+ years and are "corrected" by researchers, thus bypassing the stated line of authority. YMMV, of course. BTW, when you lead with character assassination, as you did in your response to John's post, your credibility begins to approach zero at a rapid pace.
  5. Stu wins the thread. The moderators can close it up.
  6. At what point do amateur apologists realize that all of the ways they are "smarter" than virtually every single member of the First Presidency and Q12 for the past 150 years in terms of re-explaining doctrinal problems is no different than us apostates who were critical of those same members of the First Presidency and Q12, only we were branded "apostates" and the new "apologists" are just adding their own "further light and knowledge"? If this weak apologetic had any basis in any teaching of any past leaders acting within their duty to interpret and teach scripture, wouldn't the Church, itself, be promoting it, rather than an amateur on social media?
  7. FYI - Jacob (aka "Thoughtful-Saint") is amongst the most hateful posters in the Twitter-Mo universe. He sits DezNat-adjacent and has a long history of demeaning and hurtful posts regarding members of the LBGTQ+ community as it relates to LDS matters.
  8. The Church has confirmed the release of the "putative 'church statement'" and did so quite a while ago. As I've already pointed out to you, people who are effective conmen and conwomen are effective precisely because they are able to convince people of their "sincerity" and their "honesty." I do not believe you are applying nearly enough critical thinking to your evaluation of the evidence. In fact, your repeated posts on this topic seem to be born from motivated reasoning, more than anything else.
  9. Teddy absolutely cannot handle the cognitive dissonance that comes from facing the reality that his hero turned out to be a conman. Many, many victims of fraud go through the same struggle. Teddy just seems particularly committed to not facing the facts.
  10. You haven't read any of the victims' statements, have you?
  11. Unfortunately, that is true. But, we've already seen (on this very board) how some considered their claims to be less credible while anonymous.
  12. The six plaintiffs have dropped their anonymity:
  13. 1 - You have no idea if the lawyer had those discussions with her clients. 2 - We are talking about traumatized children who were the victims. The law may be cold-hearted, but that does not require your commentary to be.
  14. The utter lack of humanity in this statement is...astonishing.
  15. Well, since I plainly stated that EP's 990 is informative regarding only a "significant proportion," and not the entire amount, your question cannot be accurately answered, at least not in this moment. With some additional information, a forensic accountant might be able to come up with an estimate, but it would only be that. Aside from operational costs, the Church clearly has money going into its real estate portfolio and its building construction expenditures. With enough time and resources, one could probably cobble together a lot of the real property purchase information (at least in the States) and come up with some reasonable estimates of ongoing construction costs which, when pieced together with the EP information might provide a snapshot that's at least in the same "county" if not the ballpark, itself. But, near as I can tell, this is all rather beside the point. The Plaintiffs' fraud claim is hopeless, in my opinion. As things are currently stated in the Complaint, there is simply no sufficient evidence of intent, not to mention specific damage, for the Court to treat this as anything but a fishing expedition. I will say, as a side note, that after nearly 20 years in forensics, as well 5 years as a Big 4 auditor way back in the day, I am generally a fan of more disclosure than less for organizations. The Church used to issue financial statements up until 1959 and since then the party-line has been that it doesn't disclose the information to avoid looking like a deep pocket for litigation; but that cat is way, way out of the bag since the EP information started coming to light. In a number of foreign countries, the Church is required to disclose financial information as it pertains to that country, even to this day. IMO, the Church could easily make this ongoing criticism go away with a return to it's pre-1959 policy. It's not like the general public doesn't know that the Church has an enormous amount wealth just sitting in EP, at this point.
  16. First, you may not realize this, but I've already said that this case will likely go nowhere (I am a forensic accountant/expert witness by profession) when I weighed in on page 1. Second, clearly anything that dives all the way into tithing receipts and operational expenditures is well beyond the scope of information from EP's disclosures. Third, the counter is that EP appears to be the ultimate repository for the actual (semi-liquid) assets under the control of the Church. From that standpoint, the Form 990 is informative as to the disposition of a significant proportion of the annual tithing revenue.
  17. Ever heard of a Form 990? ETA: Obviously, there's an exemption for churches to choose not to file the form, but their affiliated entities (e.g. EP) are not exempt.
  18. I'm certainly not someone who can't see that nuance, but IIRC the 'disavowal' seemed to try to distance MRB from TB quite a bit. Either way, it's a salient piece of information.
  19. Interestingly enough, it seems the link has been getting scrubbed from the Internet with extreme prejudice today. The original video to which the story referred is still floating around out there.
  20. ClickFunnels founder says Elder Ballard introduced him to T Ballard. https://news.yahoo.com/clickfunnels-founder-claims-lds-church-005008004.html?guccounter=1
  21. This psychological analysis of exmos, as if they were homogeneous, is laughably wrong and reveals WAY more about its author than any exmos.
  22. As a financial clerk, I could have gotten you any ward members' donation history. EP is under the purview of the Presiding Bishopric. Individual donation records are easy to obtain.
×
×
  • Create New...