Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties


Recommended Posts

I'm not really inclined to go back through all those discussions again.  I am strongly in favor of financial disclosure and think it would be good for the church.  Since you are neither for nor against, then you have no reason to continue debating it with me.

Yes, I only took exception when you tried to tie it to common consent, the united order, and the law of consecration. I pretty much glossed over the other bases for your position, such as: it is what you want, you feel strongly about it, you think it is "right," you are interested in it, it's easy to do, large companies do it, your claim to know a lot about Joseph Smith and the financial world, you see doing otherwise as blind faith, etc. While these aren't necessarily very good non-scriptural reasons, they don't mean much to me either.

Link to comment

Yes, I only took exception when you tried to tie it to common consent, the united order, and the law of consecration. I pretty much glossed over the other bases for your position, such as: it is what you want, you feel strongly about it, you think it is "right," you are interested in it, it's easy to do, large companies do it, your claim to know a lot about Joseph Smith and the financial world, you see doing otherwise as blind faith, etc. While these aren't necessarily very good non-scriptural reasons, they don't mean much to me either.

 

There were some other D&C scriptures (non common-consent thrown in there), the President Hinckley & Elder Bednar quotes.  But all water under the bridge.

Link to comment

I just wanted to post the 1,000th reply to this thread. ;)

 

That is all. :)

But to bad it wasn't the 1,000th post, that would have been cooler.

Link to comment

There were some other D&C scriptures (non common-consent thrown in there), the President Hinckley & Elder Bednar quotes.  But all water under the bridge.

Now I remember, but those do not really provide reasons for financial reporting, just the substrate for miscontextualized interpretations by those who already wanted financial disclosure!

Link to comment

Now I remember, but those do not really provide reasons for financial reporting, just the substrate for miscontextualized interpretations by those who already wanted financial disclosure!

 

So you say.

 

You realize that I have a very difficult time believing your neutral stance on the matter since you reject any reason given in favor of financial disclosure?  (Just rhetorical, no need to answer.)

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment

So you say.

 

You realize that I have a very difficult time believing your neutral stance on the matter since you reject any reason given in favor of financial disclosure?  (Just rhetorical, no need to answer.)

I understand that, but I am neutral. If someone would argue against disclosure on using the sources and kinds of arguments you've used to argue for it, I would have the same reaction. Just as not one of them calls for disclosure (and so should not be abused so as to apply it as such), not one of them calls for non-disclosure, either. It seems you feel so strongly about your position that even neutrality comes across as support for opposing views.

Link to comment

I understand that, but I am neutral. If someone would argue against disclosure on using the sources and kinds of arguments you've used to argue for it, I would have the same reaction. Just as not one of them calls for disclosure (and so should not be abused so as to apply it as such), not one of them calls for non-disclosure, either. It seems you feel so strongly about your position that even neutrality comes across as support for opposing views.

That's hilarious. Thank you for finding an amusing way to wrap up this lengthy discussion.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...