Calm Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 I always saw the Almanac as something for trivia buffs/games for FHE and to have on the side table when for moments of waiting where I didn't want to get involved deeply in anything. We bought one once at a sales table, think it was a year or two out of date. I think we probably opened ours up a couple of times at most to intentionally look for something. Couldn't really justify buying it back when we wanted it, think we might buy it now just for the occasional browsing. Once the Internet started putting so much info out there, I was not surprised to see it cease publication because people wouldn't really see much of a need to buy it. Lot of work to put it together plus low sales...wise business decision to stop, imo. I think I gave it away or I would take a gander at it to see what it had that couldn't be found relatively easy these days with google. Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’ve never indicated I was comfortable with your “wholly owned subsidiary” language. I’ve said, instead that the Deseret News is a commercial property of the Church which, itself is a non-commercial entity. The Church News is, of course, a supplement to the Deseret News. I’m not clear on what question you think I haven’t answered. I’ve tried to make clear that the Church does not micromanage the Deseret News and, as such, would not routinely do things like ordering that the almanac cease publication or stepping in with supplementary funding to sustain its continued publication. DMC is owned by the Church. DN (of which the Church News is a part) is a company (aka subsidiary) owned by DMC. DMC's Board of Directors is made up of the prophet and his counselors, three members of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric. I know you already know this. Just clarifying what I meant by wholly owned subsidiary. But, my question was this: If Church leadership (and you can define that as those leaders which form the DMC’s board of directors) wanted the almanac to continue to be published, couldn’t they have provided the resources to make that happen? Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 20 minutes ago, rockpond said: DMC is owned by the Church. DN (of which the Church News is a part) is a company (aka subsidiary) owned by DMC. DMC's Board of Directors is made up of the prophet and his counselors, three members of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric. I know you already know this. Just clarifying what I meant by wholly owned subsidiary. But, my question was this: If Church leadership (and you can define that as those leaders which form the DMC’s board of directors) wanted the almanac to continue to be published, couldn’t they have provided the resources to make that happen? DMC is a holding company, not a subsidiary. You seem enamored with that term, but I maintain it is misleading in that it connotes the Church is a commercial business, which it is not. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: DMC is owned by the Church. DN (of which the Church News is a part) is a company (aka subsidiary) owned by DMC. DMC's Board of Directors is made up of the prophet and his counselors, three members of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric. I know you already know this. Just clarifying what I meant by wholly owned subsidiary. But, my question was this: If Church leadership (and you can define that as those leaders which form the DMC’s board of directors) wanted the almanac to continue to be published, couldn’t they have provided the resources to make that happen? I suppose they could do a host of things they’re not doing now. The question is, why would they, or why should they be expected to? Or, more to the point, at hand, what could reasonably be read into the fact that they are not? The latter question is important, because it helps discern between reasonable expectations and conspiracy theories. 3 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: DMC is a holding company, not a subsidiary. You seem enamored with that term, but I maintain it is misleading in that it connotes the Church is a commercial business, which it is not. Yes - DMC is a holding company. More specifically an asset management company. It is not the subsidiary, nor did I state that. DN is the subsidiary of DMC. It has nothing to do with my feelings for the word, it’s just the correct term for it. Also, acknowledging that DN is a subsidiary of DMC does not connote that the Church is a commercial business. Link to comment
bluebell Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 35 minutes ago, rockpond said: But, my question was this: If Church leadership (and you can define that as those leaders which form the DMC’s board of directors) wanted the almanac to continue to be published, couldn’t they have provided the resources to make that happen? What if the church didn't care one way or the other if the almanac continued to be printed? Have you considered that possibility or is 'they did not want it to be printed' the only reasonable interpretation of these events in your view? From my perspective, I don't think we can say that because the church didn't step in to pay for the almanac then that means they didn't want it to be printed. That seems like an assumption that is not well supported. However, I think we do have support for the idea that the church didn't care either way and let DN do whatever they thought best with it. This is supported by two things: The DN was going to try to keep printing it and offered that job to Scott (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows that they were fine if it continued to be printed) The DN could not find anyone who would take on the job (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows they were fine if it stopped being printed) Your argument seems to be that the evidence we have clearly shows that the church had a negative feeling about the almanac's continued presence (otherwise they would have saved it) but from my perspective, the evidence shows that the church was neutral on the topic (which is why they did not nothing to stop it and also nothing to save it). 2 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I suppose they could do a host of things they’re not doing now. The question is, why would they, or why should they be expected to? Or, more to the point, at hand, what could reasonably be read into the fact that they are not? The latter question is important, because it helps discern between reasonable expectations and conspiracy theories. You keep bringing up conspiracy theories... I'm not sure why. I haven't suggested any conspiracies. As for what can reasonably be read into it either: Church leadership at the time was unaware of the almanac and the decision resided solely within the DN and/or CN organizations. Church leadership at the time didn't care either way about the publication of the almanac. Church leadership didn't want the almanac published for the time being. Am I missing a reasonable expectation? Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: What if the church didn't care one way or the other if the almanac continued to be printed? Have you considered that possibility or is 'they did not want it to be printed' the only reasonable interpretation of these events in your view? From my perspective, I don't think we can say that because the church didn't step in to pay for the almanac then that means they didn't want it to be printed. That seems like an assumption that is not well supported. However, I think we do have support for the idea that the church didn't care either way and let DN do whatever they thought best with it. This is supported by two things: The DN was going to try to keep printing it and offered that job to Scott (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows that they were fine if it continued to be printed) The DN could not find anyone who would take on the job (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows they were fine if it stopped being printed) Your argument seems to be that the evidence we have clearly shows that the church had a negative feeling about the almanac's continued presence (otherwise they would have saved it) but from my perspective, the evidence shows that the church was neutral on the topic (which is why they did not nothing to stop it and also nothing to save it). See my response above that I was apparently typing when yours came through. I think it's possible that they didn't care or that they didn't know. I wasn't suggesting that there is conclusive evidence that the church had a negative feeling about the almanac. I'm not sure how aware the FP, Q12, and Presiding Bishopric were of the almanac. Neutral is a possibility. And, not wanting the data publicly available is also a possibility. Link to comment
Calm Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: You keep bringing up conspiracy theories... I'm not sure why. I haven't suggested any conspiracies. As for what can reasonably be read into it either: Church leadership at the time was unaware of the almanac and the decision resided solely within the DN and/or CN organizations. Church leadership at the time didn't care either way about the publication of the almanac. Church leadership didn't want the almanac published for the time being. Am I missing a reasonable expectation? Number 1 is an unreasonable expectation, imo. They may have been unaware of the problems it was having in being cost effective as its publishing was likely not seen as part of the mission of the Church, but unaware of it at all? Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted April 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Neutral is a possibility. And, not wanting the data publicly available is also a possibility. True, however I think only one of those possibilities actually has evidence to back it up. I think the fact that the DN would have continued to print it if someone had taken the job actively disproves the argument that church leadership didn't want the data publicly available. If Scott had taken the job, it would have continued to be printed. It was Scott, not the church leadership, that made the difference. If the church had not wanted the data to be publicly available anymore, then Scott would not have been the deciding factor. 6 Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted April 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, rockpond said: And, not wanting the data publicly available is also a possibility. And yet if Scott had agreed to take on the job ( or others if offered) it would have been published. It would have been very easy for leadership to tell someone to drop it completely, the job wouldn't have been offered at all. They didn't have to be subtle about it and hope that it would disappear. That they didn't stop the job from being offered would seem to indicate at least at that time they were neutral. Not wanting is a possibility just as being unaware is a possibility, but in my opinion both are highly unlikely based on the greater context of how things worked and were done. edit: ach, what bluebell said! Edited April 19, 2019 by Calm 5 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: You keep bringing up conspiracy theories... I'm not sure why. I haven't suggested any conspiracies. As for what can reasonably be read into it either: Church leadership at the time was unaware of the almanac and the decision resided solely within the DN and/or CN organizations. Church leadership at the time didn't care either way about the publication of the almanac. Church leadership didn't want the almanac published for the time being. Am I missing a reasonable expectation? Based on personal inside knowledge and what I have shared here (plus what I haven’t shared), I’d say that option number 3 above has a near-zero likelihood. In fact, since you have been pushing your narrative here, that the Church is covering up its statistics, the validity of your reasoning has pretty much evaporated. It was based partly on your erroneous assumption that the Church had ceased to publish its statistical report in the Ensign. It turned out you were looking in the wrong month’s edition. Edited April 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Calm said: And yet if Scott had agreed to take on the job ( or others if offered) it would have been published. It would have been very easy for leadership to tell someone to drop it completely, the job wouldn't have been offered at all. They didn't have to be subtle about it and hope that it would disappear. That they didn't stop the job from being offered would seem to indicate at least at that time they were neutral. Not wanting is a possibility just as being unaware is a possibility, but in my opinion both are highly unlikely based on the greater context of how things worked and were done. edit: ach, what bluebell said! What you both said! 2 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 58 minutes ago, bluebell said: It was Scott, not the church leadership, that made the difference. So Scott is the one covering things up. Things are starting to make more sense now. 4 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: Number 1 is an unreasonable expectation, imo. They may have been unaware of the problems it was having in being cost effective as its publishing was likely not seen as part of the mission of the Church, but unaware of it at all? Phrase it this way? 1. Church leadership at the time was unaware of the problems DN was having in being cost effective with publishing the almanac. Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, bluebell said: True, however I think only one of those possibilities actually has evidence to back it up. I think the fact that the DN would have continued to print it if someone had taken the job actively disproves the argument that church leadership didn't want the data publicly available. If Scott had taken the job, it would have continued to be printed. It was Scott, not the church leadership, that made the difference. If the church had not wanted the data to be publicly available anymore, then Scott would not have been the deciding factor. 1 hour ago, Calm said: And yet if Scott had agreed to take on the job ( or others if offered) it would have been published. It would have been very easy for leadership to tell someone to drop it completely, the job wouldn't have been offered at all. They didn't have to be subtle about it and hope that it would disappear. That they didn't stop the job from being offered would seem to indicate at least at that time they were neutral. Not wanting is a possibility just as being unaware is a possibility, but in my opinion both are highly unlikely based on the greater context of how things worked and were done. edit: ach, what bluebell said! This assumes a certain order of operations. Scott may have declined the job, and then the decision to suspend was communicated to whatever Church leaders were involved in its production and they ratified the decision. But I do think, after reading everyone's inputs here, that #2 -- Church leaders were ambivalent out the almanac's continued publication seems like the most likely scenario. 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: In fact, since you have been pushing your narrative here, that the Church is covering up its statistics... I didn't say that the Church was covering up its statistics. I think they are trying to de-emphasize those statistics. They are still publishing them (you'll note that I started the thread on April 6th that provided the MormonNewsroom link to the statistical report). So it is a baseless accusation for you to say that I am pushing a narrative of the Church "covering up its statistics". The de-emphasize argument is supported with evidence: The report has been removed from general conference and without the almanac, I'm not aware of anyway that your average member can get the detailed membership data. Are you? 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: It was based partly on your erroneous assumption that the Church had ceased to publish its statistical report in the Ensign. It turned out you were looking in the wrong month’s edition. Again - I was looking at the digital conference report, not the digital Ensign for April or May. The statistical report was removed from the digital conference report. And, it was moved toward the end of the digital May 2018 Ensign due to it no longer being presented as a part of the Saturday sessions. I assume it will likely appear in the May 2019 Ensign as well. Link to comment
Maureen Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, bluebell said: True, however I think only one of those possibilities actually has evidence to back it up. I think the fact that the DN would have continued to print it if someone had taken the job actively disproves the argument that church leadership didn't want the data publicly available. If Scott had taken the job, it would have continued to be printed. It was Scott, not the church leadership, that made the difference. If the church had not wanted the data to be publicly available anymore, then Scott would not have been the deciding factor. The reason Scott gave for why he didn't take the job was "because the remuneration that was budgeted for it was not enough to make it worth my while..." So it's possible that if Church leadership had provided a larger budget toward the almanac, that Scott would have taken the job. M. Link to comment
alter idem Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 4 hours ago, rockpond said: There was additional and more detailed information in the almanac than what is published in the Ensign (and now, in the online statistical summary report). I don't know that they should take time in conference to read the report. Agreed. They are also published in MormonNewsroom.org. Yes, the audit report is different. What do you think is the reason that they stand up each year and inform the members that an internal team has audited their books? I can't really figure it out - other than it seems to give many members a feeling of security. After posting I decided to look for info on the church audit and found an interesting article. If you are interested, here it is; https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V48N01_112.pdf As for why they do it--My opinion is that it's been done for many years (it is not required, but started in 1915 to be a regular occurrence when Pres. Joseph F. Smith decided to do it, as he was tired of church leaders being accused of not spending the monies properly) and is a good idea. I think it's good for the security of the members(I like to know they are demanding an accounting each year) and it's good that they do an audit to make sure everything is in order and there aren't problems which might otherwise go under the radar. 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 23 minutes ago, alter idem said: After posting I decided to look for info on the church audit and found an interesting article. If you are interested, here it is; https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V48N01_112.pdf As for why they do it--My opinion is that it's been done for many years (it is not required, but started in 1915 to be a regular occurrence when Pres. Joseph F. Smith decided to do it, as he was tired of church leaders being accused of not spending the monies properly) and is a good idea. I think it's good for the security of the members(I like to know they are demanding an accounting each year) and it's good that they do an audit to make sure everything is in order and there aren't problems which might otherwise go under the radar. The audit report tells members that an internal team has determined the the Church followed its budgets, policies, procedures, and accounting guidelines. That’s roughly analogous to me telling you that my wife has audited my families books and accounts and that we are sticking to budgets and rules we set for ourselves. Without knowing the budgets and rules - What information has the Church actually conveyed with that report? You mention security and that everything is in order. How does the audit report accomplish that? Link to comment
bluebell Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 42 minutes ago, Maureen said: The reason Scott gave for why he didn't take the job was "because the remuneration that was budgeted for it was not enough to make it worth my while..." So it's possible that if Church leadership had provided a larger budget toward the almanac, that Scott would have taken the job. M. Definitely. The point wasn’t that the church couldn’t have saved it if they had wanted to, only that they left it in the hands of the DN to keep it if they wanted. Those aren’t the actions of a group of people trying to stop the almanac from being printed in the DN. Every indication seems to be that church leadership was neutral. They did not do anything to keep the almanac in print but they also didn’t do anything to stop it from being printed. 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I didn't say that the Church was covering up its statistics. I think they are trying to de-emphasize those statistics. They are still publishing them (you'll note that I started the thread on April 6th that provided the MormonNewsroom link to the statistical report). So it is a baseless accusation for you to say that I am pushing a narrative of the Church "covering up its statistics". The de-emphasize argument is supported with evidence: The report has been removed from general conference and without the almanac, I'm not aware of anyway that your average member can get the detailed membership data. Are you? Again - I was looking at the digital conference report, not the digital Ensign for April or May. The statistical report was removed from the digital conference report. And, it was moved toward the end of the digital May 2018 Ensign due to it no longer being presented as a part of the Saturday sessions. I assume it will likely appear in the May 2019 Ensign as well. Since the Conference Report amounts to a verbatim transcript of the conference proceedings, and since the statistical report is no longer read during general conference, doesn’t it stand to reason that the statistical report would not be included in the Conference Report? Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Maureen said: The reason Scott gave for why he didn't take the job was "because the remuneration that was budgeted for it was not enough to make it worth my while..." So it's possible that if Church leadership had provided a larger budget toward the almanac, that Scott would have taken the job. M. 39 minutes ago, bluebell said: Definitely. The point wasn’t that the church couldn’t have saved it if they had wanted to, only that they left it in the hands of the DN to keep it if they wanted. Those aren’t the actions of a group of people trying to stop the almanac from being printed in the DN. Every indication seems to be that church leadership was neutral. They did not do anything to keep the almanac in print but they also didn’t do anything to stop it from being printed. The almanac has always been a product of the Deseret News/Church News. The Church leadership does not provide funding for it. Never has. And lest some here have a misconception, neither the Deseret News nor the Church News (nor the almanac) are funded by tithing. The Deseret News pays its own way through subscription and ad sales. It is a self-sustaining commercial enterprise. Edited April 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 4 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Since the Conference Report amounts to a verbatim transcript of the conference proceedings, and since the statistical report is no longer read during general conference, doesn’t it stand to reason that the statistical report would not be included in the Conference Report? Yes. I've acknowledged my error in looking at the digital conference report rather than the digital version of the May Ensign. Since I always read GC from that conference report, I haven't given much thought to the May edition of the Ensign. And I believe that I thanked whomever it was that pointed out my error to me (I believe it was @bluebell but I could be mistaken. I wouldn't expect it to be artificially nestled among the Saturday conference talks. That would be odd. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Definitely. The point wasn’t that the church couldn’t have saved it if they had wanted to, only that they left it in the hands of the DN to keep it if they wanted. Those aren’t the actions of a group of people trying to stop the almanac from being printed in the DN. Every indication seems to be that church leadership was neutral. They did not do anything to keep the almanac in print but they also didn’t do anything to stop it from being printed. I wonder what you and others would say if the numbers were hidden one day like the churche's finances. I can see it now...the excuses. Link to comment
Recommended Posts