Jump to content

Harry T. Clark

Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Harry T. Clark's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

38

Reputation

  1. Why the appeal to the silly case? Obviously, that isn't an issue. Crackpots will always exist, but, does that mean that most are? I don't think so. This is simply an issue of should a church be accountable to explain what it does with the funds the members trust to it. I think it should be. On another note, do you think tithing receipts would go down if the church disclosed the true amount of its wealth? There was that insider for Ensign Peak that said so to the Wall Street Journal. Do you think this is why there is resistance? If the church disclosed its finances every year, I am sure most would still faithfully pay. Establishing a kingdom of God on earth would be pretty expensive and I think the brethren could sell that as a reason to keep paying as well as the commandment aspect to tithing. Anyway, at a certain point, does the church have too much for its needs? What if the church investment wizards had $3 Trillion under management in 100 years or so, is that too much? What about $150 Billion?
  2. Great deflecting response. I think the public would understand just fine. I also think you know this and this is why you are having a little heartburn over the issue. Fallible leaders make mistakes and perhaps we are seeing one right now. Disclosure would certainly stop the critics as I am guessing that there isn't much other than perhaps an outsized devotion to investments. Good for them. They are supposedly wise with their money. Let's see it. Once the disclosures start, there might be some initial explaining to do and then the story would subside as most do.
  3. I do, that's why I proposed to disclose only once a year. It is really just a deflection you are doing anyway. Wall Street has quarterly disclosures and seem to still make investment decisions without being front run. Front running is what the big wall street investors do but that is another story. How about once every two years? 5 years? Would you agree to any disclosure? If they disclose what they did 1 year ago, how would there be any front running? ETA: you know if Warren Buffett discloses trades he has made after they are made, a lot of investors will pile into those investments, pumping up the stock. Timing is everything and disclosure could allow investment gains if done after the trading positions are made.
  4. I'm sure the church is spending its money wisely. So, why hide it from public view? Why not let their light shine instead of hiding it under a bushel? Why not just get rid of the issue and let everyone know what the church is doing and it wouldn't have to be immediate daily disclosure either. How about yearly to start? How about making the yearly audit public?
  5. What? So, when do you think Caesar will force the Lord to disclose the Lord's investment income? Perhaps the Lord isn't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar? How does Caesar know if the Lord won't reveal it to him?
  6. Perhaps so, but there are experienced accountants and auditors that would understand the disclosures and would then be able to explain it to the regular members. Maybe this is one of the places where there needs to be a change? I have a friend who doesn't do so that much any more as I think he moved on, but, a few years ago he would periodically ask me to tell him where the fallible prophets were making mistakes and showing their fallibility. He wanted to show how we tend to only give lip-service to how our leaders are fallible. They are and perhaps disclosure is a wrong path taken that needs to be corrected.
  7. Prophets are fallible, correct? So, we should be able to take a look at what they are doing as a check. Disclosure, however, would almost assuredly be a positive thing as we would see how they are correctly handling the money and it could be an example to the rest of us. Also, I'd like to know what the point of saving billions is. What do they see? Why not put the money to use solving some of the world's problems?
  8. I'd like to see the church be transparent with their money. The tithe payers deserve to know where each dollar is going. And I agree that in exchange for not paying taxes, society at large deserves to know where the money is going. It might be a boon for missionary work if the church were to start disclosing its finances. More disclosure would probably mean more support for people centered projects. Just think of what good in terms of medical science that could be done with all the money the church has amassed over the years? People would see the church light shine and want to be a part of it.
  9. I bet 20 years from now it'll be obvious that the supposed UFO sightings were part of a pitch to get more military spending, aka, space force.
  10. How do you define a "defender" of Dehlin? Someone who thinks he shouldn't be forever burned at the stake? Anyone who pushes back on those who want his blood?
  11. In the sexual harassment arena, assuming your business has more than 15 employees, consensual relationships that end and then the employee party to the relationship is fired, doesn't automatically arise to a sexual harassment cause of action. It could, however, depending on the circumstances. Even so, it then goes to damages as in how much severance would you be entitled to in order to have you leave. This might be small or large depending on how much you were making and how hard it would be to find other employment and what emotional damages you could show. Also, in reality, your scenario would probably be decided in family court, an entirely different arena.
  12. I agree that this is the right way to handle it. Dehlin never said that Rosebud threw herself at him, as far as I know. I was just putting forth a hypothetical to make the point that the relationship was originally consensual and that factors into analyzing this. Yes, and this is why, imo, that companies have a no tolerance policy for relationships. Yes. I think what happened here, from what I have read, is that there was a sort of an affair and Dehlin told the board about it when he was done with the relationship. Rosebud still wanted to continue but Dehlin didn't. I believe that the board then decided, probably on advice of counsel, that both should quit the board and ask to be rehired as independent contractors. That would have protected the company from any future problems having independent contractors instead of employees. Rosebud didn't want to resign (I think because she wanted to gain control of OSF with Dehlin by her side) and so the board fired her. Of course, the board's actions have to be taken as probably Dehlin's actions. He was the OSF and regardless of what his title was, he was in control. I think this is also why Rosebud refused to ask to be rehired because she probably thought it was pointless and that the actions were done to push her out.
  13. What if the boss is the company as in this case with Dehlin? Sure he could have been fired and that is probably why they concocted the scenario to have the both of them resign and get hired back as independent contractors. Sort of trying to punish both equally. However, if he hadn't been rehired, OSF probably would have been no more and OSF #2 or something similar would have been opened with Dehlin charge.
×
×
  • Create New...