Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

No, this is not about idle curiosity nor distrust.  And you haven't established that it would cost thousands of dollars.

 

How many copies do you want distributed?  One per tithe payer?  One per family?

[rockpond]

Somehow I don't get the impression that cacophony would be silenced by a mere reading.  It never was in the past.

 

Can you enlighten us on the cacophony that was caused by the previous practice of disclosing our finances?  While you're at it, feel free to explain how it would cost $50,000.  And let us know how much it cost back in the 50's when they were doing it.

[rockpond]

How many copies do you want distributed?  One per tithe payer?  One per family?

 

General conference.  The way it was done in the past.

[ERayR]

General conference.  The way it was done in the past.

 

How are you going to pour over the numbers and satisfy your curiosity with a verbal report?  Don't get me wrong but color me skeptical a mere reading in conference will not be satisfactory. 

[Thinking]

For all who want financial statements are you willing to pay $100 to get a copy so as to offset an estimated (my estimation)$50,000 to $60,000 cost of producing them (probably twice that much)?  That is a lot of humanitarian aid to spend on your curiosity.

 

$100 per copy? Where did that number come from? I'll bet the Seventh Day Adventists paid much less just to post financial information on their website. Perhaps more detailed information could be accessed only by tithe-paying members who are given an access code.

[rockpond]

How are you going to pour over the numbers and satisfy your curiosity with a verbal report?  Don't get me wrong but color me skeptical a mere reading in conference will not be satisfactory. 

 

Do we not publish a report of general conference?  Both online and in print (copies that are purchased by members).

[ERayR]

Do we not publish a report of general conference?  Both online and in print (copies that are purchased by members).

 

Comprehensive financial report that would give you the information you say you want would be a publication much larger than the Ensign magazine for an entity the size of the Church. 

[cdowis]

Common consent is required in "all things" in the church.  That comes from the D&C, not me.  It doesn't just say that we consent to callings.  And we can't consent to the church's financial activities if we don't know what they are.

 

 

 

Ah, so we have consent on who does the carpet cleaning, how much to spend on landscaping, where we will build new temples, changing the age of missionaries.  I don't remember voting on each policy in the Handbook of Instructions.  Can you tell me when those policies were put up to a vote.

Edited August 15, 2014 by cdowis

[rockpond]

Comprehensive financial report that would give you the information you say you want would be a publication much larger than the Ensign magazine for an entity the size of the Church. 

 

I haven't actually said what information I would want in there.  But if it is too large, put it online.  I read every other church publication on my kindle and iPad anyway.

[rockpond]

Ah, so we have consent on who does the carpet cleaning, how much to spend on landscaping, where we will build new temples, changing the age of missionaries.  I don't remember voting on each policy in the Handbook of Instructions.  Can you tell me when those policies were put up to a vote.

 

Yeah - Most members aren't even given access to Handbook 1 so consenting to it would be difficult.

 

And no, I don't think we need to take it to the level of consenting to the next lawn mowing contract.

 

I haven't seen any policies recently put forward for a consenting vote.  You?

[Kenngo1969]

I wouldn't think that disclosing our finances would give the critics any "real bullets".

 

Which is why I said:

 

Maybe it doesn't matter to you whether the critics have blanks (a lack of information) or (at least from their perspective [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969]) real bullets (information), but it does to me, just as it matters whether you shoot at me with blanks or real bullets.

 

Could the critics do any real damage to the Church of Jesus Christ with the information disclosed in a financial report?  Did Tom Phillips do any real damage to the Church with his lawsuit?  Maybe not, in the long run.  But it still cost time, money, perhaps opportunity costs, resources, and so on, to fight it.  Could someone (or many someones) sue the Church on the basis of information contained in a financial report?  Would such suits do any real damage?  Maybe not in the long run.  But it would still cost time, money, perhaps opportunity costs, and so on, to fight such suits.

[rockpond]

 

Which is why I said:

 

Could the critics do any real damage to the Church of Jesus Christ with the information disclosed in a financial report?  Did Tom Phillips do any real damage to the Church with his lawsuit?  Maybe not, in the long run.  But it still cost time, money, perhaps opportunity costs, resources, and so on, to fight it.  Could someone (or many someones) sue the Church on the basis of information contained in a financial report?  Would such suits do any real damage?  Maybe not in the long run.  But it would still cost time, money, perhaps opportunity costs, and so on, to fight such suits.

 

Sorry, I know you don't interpret it this way, but I don't see the fear of frivolous lawsuits as a reason to the revealed counsel in the D&C.

[Kenngo1969]

Sorry, I know you don't interpret it this way, but I don't see the fear of frivolous lawsuits as a reason to the revealed counsel in the D&C.

Even frivolous lawsuits cost real time, money, resources, opportunity costs, et cetera, to defend.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

Even frivolous lawsuits cost real time, money, resources, opportunity costs, et cetera, to defend.

 

I understand.  But if you interpreted the D&C (regarding common consent) the way that I do -- would frivolous lawsuits be a good enough reason to ignore the revealed counsel in the D&C?

[Erin15]

I wanted to run something by you guys that was in the anti video that I mentioned in another post about church history. I won't post the link here because it contains temple content, but I'm sure you have heard this all before. I noticed some contradictions the reasoning so I thought I would like to see what

Why in the world would you be watching something so blatantly evil?

[ERayR]

I understand.  But if you interpreted the D&C (regarding common consent) the way that I do -- would frivolous lawsuits be a good enough reason to ignore the revealed counsel in the D&C?

 

I don't know anybody else who interprets that the way you do.

[rockpond]

I don't know anybody else who interprets that the way you do.

 

Couldn't just answer a hypothetical question, eh?

 

Oh well.

[Erin15]

Personally I don't think the enemies of the church have the right to ask anything of us.

[ERayR]

Couldn't just answer a hypothetical question, eh?

 

Oh well.

 

In situations like this I find hypotheticals of little value but I will make you a deal.  I will answer your hypothetical question if you will answer mine>

 

I can see where one could think that no they would not.

 

Now my turn.  If you interpret the D&C (regarding common consent) the way that I do would you say that publicly published financials are unnecessary and are a possible impediment because of frivolous lawsuits?

[rockpond]

Now my turn.  If you interpret the D&C (regarding common consent) the way that I do would you say that publicly published financials are unnecessary and are a possible impediment because of frivolous lawsuits?

 

Yes.

[USU78]

Even frivolous lawsuits cost real time, money, resources, opportunity costs, et cetera, to defend.

 

Even if only in podunk Britain . . .

[AndyDnom]

what about this - I know many LDS that have become inactive or left the church in part because there is no financial disclosure.

 

We are told that one lost sheep is too many, etc.

 

Why allow this as a potential stumbling block? What reason is there to not disclose financials?

[Kenngo1969]

Even frivolous lawsuits cost real time, money, resources, opportunity costs, et cetera, to defend.

 

 

Even if only in podunk Britain . . .

Ahh, especially there, Sir!  Especially there!  Which, I gather, was rather the whole point of your "even if only in Podunk Britain" phraseology!

[Erin15]

what about this - I know many LDS that have become inactive or left the church in part because there is no financial disclosure.

I agree that souls are important, but if we start changing things just so that people will stay, we are going down the same path that lead to the great apostasy.

[ERayR]

what about this - I know many LDS that have become inactive or left the church in part because there is no financial disclosure.

 

We are told that one lost sheep is too many, etc.

 

Why allow this as a potential stumbling block? What reason is there to not disclose financials?

 

Jesus had an apostle that was fixated on the money.  Look what happened to him.  I didn't notice that Jesus changed anything just for him.