Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Hype for April 2019 Conference

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.

From the Wikipedia page on Church finances:

“During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the church greatly increased spending on buildings under the leadership of Henry Moyle. Moyle's reasoning was that by building larger meetinghouses the church would attract more converts. The accelerated building program led to a $32 million deficit in 1962. It was Moyle who convinced David O. McKay to discontinue publishing an annual financial statement in order to hide the extent of the spending.[15]Eventually, McKay relieved Moyle from his administrative responsibilities and spending was reined in.[16]”

I haven’t read Quinn’s article (reference 15) so I can’t speak to how accurately that Wikipedia statement is. But I think the evidence points to disclosure of finances becoming unfavorable, so the practice stopped. 

Many members defend that ongoing decision. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Love the implied dishonesty

Not dishonesty. Just the belief in the church's motives as being open and transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not dishonesty. Just the belief in the church's motives as being open and transparent.

You said "excuses". Not the same thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From the Wikipedia page on Church finances:

“During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the church greatly increased spending on buildings under the leadership of Henry Moyle. Moyle's reasoning was that by building larger meetinghouses the church would attract more converts. The accelerated building program led to a $32 million deficit in 1962. It was Moyle who convinced David O. McKay to discontinue publishing an annual financial statement in order to hide the extent of the spending.[15]Eventually, McKay relieved Moyle from his administrative responsibilities and spending was reined in.[16]”

I haven’t read Quinn’s article (reference 15) so I can’t speak to how accurately that Wikipedia statement is. But I think the evidence points to disclosure of finances becoming unfavorable, so the practice stopped. 

Many members defend that ongoing decision. 

It appears that the Baseball Baptism program was also Henry Moyles idea. Stands to reason that if Moyles realized he needed converts to fill those meetinghouses, he needed a way to create converts.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

It appears that the Baseball Baptism program was also Henry Moyles idea. Stands to reason that if Moyles realized he needed converts to fill those meetinghouses, he needed a way to create converts.

M.

Baseball baptisms wouldn't fill meetinghouses, just ward membership lists.

Nor would they bring in tithing.

Brother Moyle was not so naive surely that he would think baptism without conversion would result in anything but paperwork.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You said "excuses". Not the same thing.

ex·cuse

verb

3rd person present: excuses

/ikˈskyo͞oz/

1.

attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

"he did nothing to hide or excuse Jacob's cruelty"

synonyms:justify, defend, make excuses for, make a case for, explain (away), rationalize, condone, vindicate, warrant; More

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Love the implied dishonesty

It’s the old wouldn’t-put-it-past-‘em innuendo. A handy way to cast a cloud over one’s character without just cause. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s the old wouldn’t-put-it-past-‘em innuendo. A handy way to cast a cloud over one’s character without just cause. 

You and others have impeccable character, I have full trust in that. It's some things in the church that I don't have trust in.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

And, if your wife trusts you and doesn't see evidence to contradict what you say, then I'm not sure what the problem is.  I'd say a lot of people work that way in their relationships, otherwise, the relationships don't last.

In a marriage, there needs to be some kind of level of trust, or it's not going to work out very well for the couple.  The same with a religion.  If the members don't have some kind of level of trust, I don't think they are going to continue on in their faith. 

And, I think this is one reason some leave the faith--they have very little trust in the Church and this only gets worse over time.  But to say it's the church's fault, is not accurate, since plenty of other members have no trouble with exercising a level of trust--it comes down to individuals, their perceptions, what's important to them, and why they are in the 'relationship', whether in a marriage or a church etc.--and what they get out of it.

 

,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You and others have impeccable character, I have full trust in that. It's some things in the church that I don't have trust in.

Thanks Tacenda for helping me make my point.  You admit you don't offer the same level of trust to the church that I do.  Your remark which I interpreted as suggesting that eventually, us 'trusting' members will have to face the reality that the church is dishonest and not make 'excuses' for it, is an attitude which makes it difficult for you to have the same feelings of security and peace which other members enjoy within the church. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

And, if your wife trusts you and doesn't see evidence to contradict what you say, then I'm not sure what the problem is.  I'd say a lot of people work that way in their relationships, otherwise, the relationships don't last.

In a marriage, there needs to be some kind of level of trust, or it's not going to work out very well for the couple.  The same with a religion.  If the members don't have some kind of level of trust, I don't think they are going to continue on in their faith. ,

The analogy wasn't about the trust between my wife and I.  It was making the point that my wife telling YOU that we follow our budgets doesn't actually tell you anything about how we spend our money.

Likewise, when the audit report tells members that the Church is following its own budgets -- it doesn't actually convey any information on how the Church is spending sacred funds.

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

And, I think this is one reason some leave the faith--they have very little trust in the Church and this only gets worse over time.  But to say it's the church's fault, is not accurate, since plenty of other members have no trouble with exercising a level of trust--it comes down to individuals, their perceptions, what's important to them, and why they are in the 'relationship', whether in a marriage or a church etc.--and what they get out of it.

As a tithe-paying member, I place a great deal of trust in our church leadership.

But that doesn't mean I can't disagree the decision that was made some 60 years ago and the pattern that it established of not sharing church financial reports with members.  Over those decades, the audit report seems to give an illusion of disclosure while not actually communicating any real information on how sacred funds are being used to build the kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Thanks Tacenda for helping me make my point.  You admit you don't offer the same level of trust to the church that I do.  Your remark which I interpreted as suggesting that eventually, us 'trusting' members will have to face the reality that the church is dishonest and not make 'excuses' for it, is an attitude which makes it difficult for you to have the same feelings of security and peace which other members enjoy within the church. 

 

I don't know if I did a good thing or a bad thing there, haha. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/19/2019 at 7:00 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I've always suspected that @Scott Lloyd was the equivalent of the Deep State in the LDS church...

Did you mean Deep Throat? Oh wait! We already have some of those types.

I always saw Scott as a reliable source who was forthright and never cowered behind anonymity - a straight shooter who was not afraid to share his faithful opinions and first-hand observations on the inner workings of the Church.

Over many  years I have never had occasion to suspect him of dishonesty. How often does someone that valuable come around? His connections are sorely missed by me, at least.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Such a charitable response to our bluebell.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hearserve said:

Such a charitable response to our bluebell.  

Always, and I get the most charitable comments to me, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/20/2019 at 10:52 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Did you mean Deep Throat? Oh wait! We already have some of those types.

I always saw Scott as a reliable source who was forethright and never cowered behind anonymity - a straight shooter who was not afraid to share his faithful opinions and first-hand observations on the inner workings of the Church.

Over many  years I have never had occasion to suspect him of dishonesty. How often does someone that valuable come around? His connections are sorely missed by me, at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Thanks! I’ve been a student of these things for a while. Neither Deep State nor Deep Throat are accurate descriptions of Scott.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks! I’ve been a student of these things for a while. Neither Deep State nor Deep Throat are accurate descriptions of Scott.

Very true, and I am pretty sure the comment was made tongue-in-cheek by Miserere

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/20/2019 at 10:52 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Did you mean Deep Throat? Oh wait! We already have some of those types.

I always saw Scott as a reliable source who was forthright and never cowered behind anonymity - a straight shooter who was not afraid to share his faithful opinions and first-hand observations on the inner workings of the Church.

Over many  years I have never had occasion to suspect him of dishonesty. How often does someone that valuable come around? His connections are sorely missed by me, at least.

Aw shucks, now I <am> embarrassed.

You probably already recognize this, but for those who might not, MiserereNobis is making jocular allusion to types such as the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page cabal and other anonymous figures who occupy positions of trust in the executive branch of government but who secretly strive to undermine the chief executive. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/22/2019 at 9:50 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Very true, and I am pretty sure the comment was made tongue-in-cheek by Miserere

 

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Aw shucks, now I <am> embarrassed.

You probably already recognize this, but for those who might not, MiserereNobis is making jocular allusion to types such as the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page cabal and other anonymous figures who occupy positions of trust in the executive branch of government but who secretly strive to undermine the chief executive. 

Yes, I was just joking around :) But if I were to write an LDS version of the Da Vinci Code, I'd probably put Scott in there somewhere (no doubt in the highly secure translation room in the SLC temple...)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...