carbon dioxide Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 The big deal is you really don't know where any of the church money goes..I don't either of course. But all the money I gave to the church does not show on any statement where it has gone..that should at least be a requirement at tithing settlement.Are you expecting the Church to keep track of every single dollar bill that each member gives from time of donation when it was spent and tell you exactly where your money was spent on. I am sure all the money goes to larger cash pools. Would you stop paying tithing if it spent the money on something that you personally felt was not important?
Glenn101 Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Are you expecting the Church to keep track of every single dollar bill that each member gives from time of donation when it was spent and tell you exactly where your money was spent on. I am sure all the money goes to larger cash pools. Would you stop paying tithing if it spent the money on something that you personally felt was not important? The last time I checked, tithing was a voluntary offering. I can look around at the meeting houses being built, the temples being built, the lights, etc. in those buildings to know where a good deal of the money goes. I do not see any of the General Authorities, etc. living lavish life styles. Then there is the Church welfare system and the charitable donations and relief aid that it makes. I don't need to know where every dollar is spent. Glenn 2
Ham Clam Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I wonder how D. Michael Quinn's new book will make people look at Church finances.
Tacenda Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I wonder how D. Michael Quinn's new book will make people look at Church finances.I thought his book was suppose to come out in 2014, guess not.
ERayR Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 So, you say that we should pay on the net, rather than the gross. That is not what I said. What I said is on the increase.
stemelbow Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 I don't know what to say about John's responses lately to everything. I'd use adjectives here, but I fear he'll take them the wrong way, as if he reads here. But what this amounts to for me is I feel very badly for him. I'm sure he'll move past all of this just fine. This thread about his financing was interesting to me. He said the article in the trib was fair. So it seems he has received a spike in income and donations since excommunication announcements. To be clear, I personally am completely fine with that. I just think it's telling. Why a spike? Who is donating and does that indicate people see him and his work as a good way to get people out of the Church? It seems to me he's moving in that direction--he made some announcements lately suggesting he's interested in working with those who want to leave or who want to agree with him on certain aspects of the Church. Ah well...It's hard to comment on people. You want to be fair and balanced. But everyone has their biases and every one is pretty complicated when it comes to motivations and intentions. Not many of us are so pure that our hearts are completely directed to one thing. It's really weird to me that John and many of his supporters are trying their best to get out in front of any possible criticism of him. He's multi-intentioned just like the rest of us. We can't say he's pure like the driven snow and he's not the opposite. he's somewhere in between like the rest of us. One thing is sure. He's making these issues about him very public, moreso than anyone else. he should accept that. 1
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 John is the one using the "shame" word. As I said previously, If it didn't matter to him, he wouldn't have objected to Peggy Stack disclosing his salary. Dehlin didn't object to Stack disclosing his salary. John's salary has been disclosed on the OSF website for years for ALL to see. All along Dehlin has been very clear that he could only do the podcast if he was paid for his work. He has repeated that in his podcasts over and over and over again. And he has kept the financials statements of OSF (including his pay) available to anyone... contributors and critics alike.
stemelbow Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 Dehlin didn't object to Stack disclosing his salary. John's salary has been disclosed on the OSF website for years for ALL to see. All along Dehlin has been very clear that he could only do the podcast if he was paid for his work. He has repeated that in his podcasts over and over and over again. And he has kept the financials statements of OSF (including his pay) available to anyone... contributors and critics alike. mmm...I don't know, most didn't realize I'm sure, that the financials were out there. He seems to have made a big stink to me, getting quite defensive even suggesting he's better than the 90,000 salary, knowing full-well many of his donators and others who are following it don't make money like that (this the typeof stuff that really makes me sad for him). I think he tried his best to remain open and all that, but he did seem to offer objections, even though he admits it was fair reporting. I maintain it is interesting that he got a big ol' spike in moneys when possible excommunication was put on the table (so mid-2014 even till now? perhaps). I'm curious what that means. No one seems to fault him for getting paid though. Says Dehlin: I can also imagine how many active, faithful LDS Church members will respond to an article written primarily about my compensation(???) on the eve of my disciplinary council. Within the active, believing LDS context (Peggy’s context, frankly), it could easily be interpreted as an attempt to elicit shame and ill-will, given our tendency as a church to condemn those who profit from religious endeavors (i.e., “priestcraft”). Again, I do not necessarily believe that this was Peggy’s intent, only that this will likely be the reaction for many, which (again) raises questions about the timing of the article. Seems like an objection overall. I don't know why he's raising a reporters intentions as a point of concern. Reporters report, he's being very public. What's she to do? 1
Buckeye Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Dehlin didn't object to Stack disclosing his salary. John's salary has been disclosed on the OSF website for years for ALL to see. All along Dehlin has been very clear that he could only do the podcast if he was paid for his work. He has repeated that in his podcasts over and over and over again. And he has kept the financials statements of OSF (including his pay) available to anyone... contributors and critics alike. Actually, he did get a little defensive about it, tough I tend to agree with many of his points: http://mormonstories.org/a-response-to-peggy-fletcher-stack-about-osf-finances/
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 mmm...I don't know, most didn't realize I'm sure, that the financials were out there. He seems to have made a big stink to me, getting quite defensive even suggesting he's better than the 90,000 salary, knowing full-well many of his donators and others who are following it don't make money like that (this the typeof stuff that really makes me sad for him). I think he tried his best to remain open and all that, but he did seem to offer objections, even though he admits it was fair reporting.I maintain it is interesting that he got a big ol' spike in moneys when possible excommunication was put on the table (so mid-2014 even till now? perhaps). I'm curious what that means.No one seems to fault him for getting paid though.Says Dehlin:Seems like an objection overall. I don't know why he's raising a reporters intentions as a point of concern. Reporters report, he's being very public. What's she to do? Oh yeah... I think he objected to the article for all of the reasons that he listed out in his response. I was just saying to Juliann that he couldn't have objected to the disclosing of his salary because it has never been a secret.
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Actually, he did get a little defensive about it, tough I tend to agree with many of his points: http://mormonstories.org/a-response-to-peggy-fletcher-stack-about-osf-finances/ I agree. Please see my clarification in post #160 above.
stemelbow Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Oh yeah... I think he objected to the article for all of the reasons that he listed out in his response. I was just saying to Juliann that he couldn't have objected to the disclosing of his salary because it has never been a secret. I think it's fair to say that there was objection to the article about his salary, so I'm not sure what you mean. he objected because he's worried about the backlash, it seems. He admitted it was a fair article. Not sure his requested additions make much sense from a reporting perspective, unless of course the reporting's point was to complain about LDS. Why in the world would Peggy talk about how much John could, theoretically, be making? Beats me. I guess that means something to him, but I don't know what. Is he thinking he can sell the notion that he should be making more and is worth more? that he's noble for taking less than what he had made before? Is he trying to calm any concerns from donors or perspective donors by saying, in essence, "well I realize I make more than you by hosting these episodes every week or two, and all the other wonderful things that Mormonstories is, but rest assured I'm well worth the moneys". Edited February 9, 2015 by stemelbow
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I think it's fair to say that there was objection to the article about his salary, so I'm not sure what you mean. he objected because he's worried about the backlash, it seems. He admitted it was a fair article. Not sure his requested additions make much sense from a reporting perspective, unless of course the reporting's point was to complain about LDS. Why in the world would Peggy talk about how much John could, theoretically, be making? Beats me. I guess that means something to him, but I don't know what. Is he thinking he can sell the notion that he should be making more and is worth more? that he's noble for taking less than what he had made before? Is he trying to calm any concerns from donors or perspective donors by saying, in essence, "well I realize I make more than you by hosting these episodes every week or two, and all the other wonderful things that Mormonstories is, but rest assured I'm well worth the moneys". Yeah, I thought that was a ridiculous post by him. I actually think it was lame to even write that response to PFS but I know he feels the need to respond to everything. The idea that he "could have made more" was a weak point to make because he chose to leave his profession and go back to school (a point he alluded to but downplayed). Ultimately, I think he felt like his true reasons for OSF were being ignored in favor of the compensation argument. I think that he really does have good altruistic reasons for the podcasts but his response to PFS didn't show that at all.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Yes, Peggy proved her mettle as a good journalist. It was neither pro nor anti-Mormon, Just good, fair-minded reportage. We need more of that.Especially from the Trib!
stemelbow Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 Yeah, I thought that was a ridiculous post by him. I actually think it was lame to even write that response to PFS but I know he feels the need to respond to everything. The idea that he "could have made more" was a weak point to make because he chose to leave his profession and go back to school (a point he alluded to but downplayed). Ultimately, I think he felt like his true reasons for OSF were being ignored in favor of the compensation argument. I think that he really does have good altruistic reasons for the podcasts but his response to PFS didn't show that at all. His response showed the complexity of his reasons. Sure there are altruistic reasons mixed in there, but there are more. I do think we're all a mixed bag in that regard.
why me Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 "The business of america is business". Of course, john is in it for the money. I don't think that he would be spending so much time in lds pursuits if there was no money involved. And john has created a cottege industry for himself. And even though his business is confined to mormonism, and he is depended on the lds church in a sort of love, hate relationship, he will still be gathering funds for his lds business happenings. However the question remains: how much will his business make if he is exed and how much will it make if he isn't exed? He will get a windfall if he is not exed. He will be a hero for standing up to the lds church and surviving. I predict a huge increase in funds if that is the case. Sidebar: if john is not exed, the church should give up its disciplinary councils because I cannot see some poor soul exed or disfellowshipped for having premarital sex while john is still considered a member who has escaped church discipline.
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) "The business of america is business". Of course, john is in it for the money. I don't think that he would be spending so much time in lds pursuits if there was no money involved. And john has created a cottege industry for himself. And even though his business is confined to mormonism, and he is depended on the lds church in a sort of love, hate relationship, he will still be gathering funds for his lds business happenings. However the question remains: how much will his business make if he is exed and how much will it make if he isn't exed? He will get a windfall if he is not exed. He will be a hero for standing up to the lds church and surviving. I predict a huge increase in funds if that is the case. Sidebar: if john is not exed, the church should give up its disciplinary councils because I cannot see some poor soul exed or disfellowshipped for having premarital sex while john is still considered a member who has escaped church discipline. It is unfair to conclude that because John gets paid, he is only in it for the money. John has altruistic reasons for OSF. But has also stated that he needs to be paid to keep it going. If getting paid for something means that you are in it for the money, than you have to apply that same conclusion to our own GA's. Edited February 9, 2015 by rockpond 1
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Maurine Proctor implies that Dehlin is an antichrist. http://ldsmag.com/what-if-nehor-and-korihor-had-a-blog/ Edited February 9, 2015 by rockpond
Buckeye Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 It is unfair to conclude that because John gets paid, he is only in it for the money. John has altruistic reasons for OSF. But has also stated that he needs to be paid to keep it going. If getting paid for something means that you are in it for the money, than you have to apply that same conclusion to our own GA's. This is the key point. Whatever judgment gets applied to Dehlin has to also be applied to the Q12. 1
Buckeye Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Maurine Proctor calls Dehlin an antichrist. http://ldsmag.com/what-if-nehor-and-korihor-had-a-blog/ OW too. Talk about excessive proof-texting. 1
stemelbow Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 It is unfair to conclude that because John gets paid, he is only in it for the money. John has altruistic reasons for OSF. But has also stated that he needs to be paid to keep it going. If getting paid for something means that you are in it for the money, than you have to apply that same conclusion to our own GA's. He's multi-intentioned, just like the rest of us. To say he's in it for the money, does not mean he's only in it for the money. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned there is no money in podcasting. That's most likely true. But there is money. I look at median incomes in my area of living and it is less than what John made two years ago, and we can only guess he made more last year. If hosting a podcast that comes out with interviews every week or two gets someone 90,000 a year that is pretty impressive. What else about OSF is a money generator? It seems like when people talk about how they love him and support him they are talking about the podcast episodes.
ksfisher Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 It is unfair to conclude that because John gets paid, he is only in it for the money. John has altruistic reasons for OSF. But has also stated that he needs to be paid to keep it going. If getting paid for something means that you are in it for the money, than you have to apply that same conclusion to our own GA's. It would be great to hear President Monson in his next talk mention how paying tithing allows him to continue to serve as President of the Church. Or how making a donation now will keep general conference on the air. Perhaps a PO Box number could even flash up on our TV screens at the same time. 1
rockpond Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 He's multi-intentioned, just like the rest of us. To say he's in it for the money, does not mean he's only in it for the money.Someone earlier in the thread mentioned there is no money in podcasting. That's most likely true. But there is money. I look at median incomes in my area of living and it is less than what John made two years ago, and we can only guess he made more last year. If hosting a podcast that comes out with interviews every week or two gets someone 90,000 a year that is pretty impressive. What else about OSF is a money generator? It seems like when people talk about how they love him and support him they are talking about the podcast episodes. I agree people are multi-intentioned. Are you willing to take the same sentence but instead of Dehlin insert the name of one of the 15? If Why Me can't write it about one of our prophets/seers/apostles who likely make more than Dehlin, he shouldn't be saying it about Dehlin without something to back up the statement.
stemelbow Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 Maurine Proctor calls Dehlin an antichrist. http://ldsmag.com/what-if-nehor-and-korihor-had-a-blog/ She what? I don't even see Dehlin referenced. I see Kate Kelly referenced: "Please be clear that I am not calling Kate Kelly a Korihor, nor would I..." Where does she call Dehlin an antichrist?
Buckeye Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 It would be great to hear President Monson in his next talk mention how paying tithing allows him to continue to serve as President of the Church. Or how making a donation now will keep general conference on the air. Perhaps a PO Box number could even flash up on our TV screens at the same time. Or that church magazines contained advertising for travel agents, insurance companies, and condensed milk ... ... oh wait! https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct6410geor
Recommended Posts