Wishing for answers

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Asking how much money LDS leaders make is not questioning their intentions.

Frankly asking anyone about how much they make or do not make shows a distinct lack of class

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Frankly asking anyone about how much they make or do not make shows a distinct lack of class

Then, I'm sure you're first in line to petition the SEC to rescind its requirement that public company's disclose the compensation of its officers; right?  Because asking for that information is not classy, correct?

And, no charity should ever disclose the salaries of its officers either, right?  Because "class" is more important than transparency and accountability, right?

Edited April 8, 2016 by ttribe

[consiglieri]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think several of the "questions" in the OP are loaded.  I think that's the point.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think I see what you are saying, here.

My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).

My take is that he is juxtaposing questions that LDS leaders refuse to answer (or even acknowledge) with their recent pronouncement that "gone are the days" when any questions should be disregarded.

On the one hand, the LDS Church is making a big deal about the new transparency and how no questions are off the table and should all be answered.

On the other hand, Bill has provided a list of questions that the LDS Church considers off the table and refuses to answer.

How did I do, Bill?

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Frankly asking anyone about how much they make or do not make shows a distinct lack of class

Not when I'm paying their salary.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Asking how much money LDS leaders make is not questioning their intentions.

Insisting one will only be satisfied by them saying whether or not they signed a nondisclosure agreement---which would require them to break their word to speak of it if they did sign---is one of the problematic framing of his questions.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Then, I'm sure you're first in line to petition the SEC to rescind its requirement that public company's disclose the compensation of its officers; right?  Because asking for that information is not classy, correct?

And, no charity should ever disclose the salaries of its officers either, right?  Because "class" is more important than transparency and accountability, right?

Seriously?  Tell me you are not that obtuse.....

A company disclosing by law is NOT the same as asking a PERSON what they make.

You knew that...right?  Please tell me you knew that.  Please.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Not when I'm paying their salary.

Are you?

How?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

Seriously?  Tell me you are not that obtuse.....

A company disclosing by law is NOT the same as asking a PERSON what they make.

You knew that...right?  Please tell me you knew that.  Please.

Well, since the request being discussed is more akin to the former than the latter, it would seem (between the two of us) I'm not the one being "obtuse."

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Well, since the request being discussed is more akin to the former than the latter, it would seem (between the two of us) I'm not the one being "obtuse."

Not true.....so...yes...you are...again.

He asked what specific leaders make.....that is much different than a company disclosing BY LAW........geez.....you really are.  explains a lot

[ttribe]

Just now, CountryBoy said:

Not true.....so...yes...you are...again.

He asked what specific leaders make.....that is much different than a company disclosing BY LAW........geez.....you really are.  explains a lot

Why was it asked?  Compare that to why the law requires disclosure for public companies.  Other than the imposition by a regulator, please compare and contrast the reasons for the two requests in 100 words or less.

[UtahTexan]

You apparently need a ton of teaching.  I am not willing to do that much work for free.

I bill in excess of 500/hour.  How much can you afford?

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

You apparently need a ton of teaching.  I am not willing to do that much work for free.

I bill in excess of 500/hour.  How much can you afford?

Invoking a billable hour rate is a red herring.  You clearly aren't "charging" anyone else time for your responses around here, so it's obviously a diversionary tactic.

Nevertheless, I'll take your refusal as de facto admission of your inability to answer.

Carry on.

Edited April 8, 2016 by ttribe

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Asking how much money LDS leaders make is not questioning their intentions.

No?  He is not questioning their motives?  It is just a matter of curiosity for him?  It is strange, don't you think, that the answer to that question would, in the words of DBMormon, "go a long way to resolve my doubts".  What could he possibly be doubting, other than their motives for personal gain, aka "intentions"?

Edited April 8, 2016 by pogi

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Invoking a billable hour rate is a red herring.  You clearly aren't "charging" anyone else time for your responses around here, so it's obviously a diversionary tactic.

Nevertheless, I'll take your refusal as de facto admission of your inability to answer.

Carry on.

Nope....just with you....seeing your posts, I would have to take a more professional approach....you are just that far gone.  So....your comments are how you typically respond when bested.  I expected them.  You are what I thought.

No red herring...just how I treat people who act obtuse...or who are.....

 

anyway, for everyone else....those who understand the difference between a person and a company AND law requirements vs non-law requirements...my point stands.....

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by CountryBoy

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

If you are talking about Bill Reel, my experience has been that he is a reasonable sort who can be dealt with most effectively by engaging him honestly.

OK.

Like me, Bill has already been down the apologetic road.

Don't remember talking with him.

He knows the pat-answers and side-stepping that so frequently parade as "answers."

As I said, don't remember talking with him.

All he wants is honesty.

Did I mention that I don't remember talking with him?  Honesty can be rather brutal, and If he had spoken with me, he would remember.

The question is whether we will be able to be as honest with Bill as he is with us.

I'm sure he can make it appear so.
Considering this recent exchange, I see someone who has pretty much made up his mind. Unlikely to ever find this honesty unless they agree with him because... well, he is able to read thoughts  and minds, at least of those who are in church leadership positions.

But I could be wrong about him.  It certainly is possible....... but I don't engage with hysterical ranting and raving so I won't have a chance to find out.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by cdowis

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

I had to stop listening to his podcasts......they were not faith-promoting

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Jeanne,

Let me ask you a sincere question I want a sincere answer for:

At the time you left the Church, why didn't you simply resolve your sins with your bishop instead of letting your guild push you out?

Now, I don't believe you left because of any sins and in fact I am sure you were a good practicing Mormon at the time of your disaffection. But the above question is full of assumptions that should make it obvious to you I am not asking my question in good faith. Bill's questions are the exact same thing to those of us who don't think is underlying assumptions are true or correct on their face. Therefore, there is a presumption he is not acting in good faith and dialogue, or at least meaningful dialogue, is likely to be without Igood fruit.

I understand what you are saying.  And you did this very well in putting your point across.  That being said, I don't think he put those questions in the slant that you asked me.  However you take his questions (not in good faith) is up to you but I thought his questions were put across well and some have not been answered directly.  But I do understand your point and I thank you for not assuming that my disaffection was because of sin.  But neither should you assume that DBMormon's questions are not sincere.

I admire your honesty.

[cdowis]

3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I had to stop listening to his podcasts......they were not faith-promoting

You have learned a valuable lesson -->> don't quote me for at least 15 minutes.

[ttribe]

44 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Nope....just with you....seeing your posts, I would have to take a more professional approach....you are just that far gone.  So....your comments are how you typically respond when bested.  I expected them.  You are what I thought.

No red herring...just how I treat people who act obtuse...or who are.....

 

anyway, for everyone else....those who understand the difference between a person and a company AND law requirements vs non-law requirements...my point stands.....

 

 

Where I have a "gone" to?  What am I that you thought I was?  This should be interesting.

Look, I'll make this easy on the disclosure of compensation thing - I think you're hung up on the form of the request for information and ignoring the substantive reason why the request is made. 

So, let's go through some discussion.  If some random party with no vested interest in the organization were to ask one of its leaders what they made, that would likely be nothing more than morbid curiosity and, I agree, classless.  However, when a stakeholder in the entity is requesting that information, the assumption is that the stakeholder has the need to know in order to make informed decisions on the allocation of resources.  In the case of a publicly-traded company, the SEC has decided that this need rises to the level of a right and has chosen to enforce that requirement on all registered entities.  Why?  Well, in addition to the perceived need for the purpose of allocating resources, the SEC has determined that requiring the disclosure of said information creates a form of accountability between the shareholders and management that, too, is more important than any expectation of privacy on the matter.

Similarly, many jurisdictions (especially foreign ones) require the disclosure of similar information for charities operating in their areas.  Why? The same reasons - donors have a need to know certain information about the entity for the purpose of making informed decisions on the allocation of resources (e.g. donations) and for the underlying creation of a system of accountability between "management" of the charity and the donors (even potential ones).

Now, in this thread, Brother Reel has made a request for the disclosure of certain compensation information regarding Church leadership.  Why?  Well, some in this thread have chosen to speculate on Bro. Reel's intentions; implying malicious plans or desires.  In your case, you've simply written it off as the equivalent of a stranger (i.e. non-stakeholder) asking a CEO for information on his salary just for the fun of it.  In doing so, however, you've glossed over the possibility (probability?) that Bro. Reel is a long-time tithe-payer (i.e. a stakeholder in the organization) who, for whatever reason, has become concerned with the use of tithing funds by the organization and feels compelled to ask for that information.

Where there is a clear difference between my SEC example, and the issue at hand is the matter of faith.  If your criticism had been that his request demonstrated a lack of faith and commitment on Bro. Reel's part, then I could at least understand it (whether or not I agree with it shall remain a mystery).  But, that's not what you did.  You dismissed it out of hand as "classless" based on an incorrect assumption that Bro. Reel is not a stakeholder in the organization and that there could be no possible reasonable justification for the request.

Get it now?

Edited April 9, 2016 by ttribe

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Where I have a "gone" to?  What am I that you thought I was?  This should be interesting.

Look, I'll make this easy on the disclosure of compensation thing - I think you're hung up on the form of the request for information and ignoring the substantive reason why the request is made. 

So, let's go through some discussion.  If some random party with no vested interest in the organization were to ask one of its leaders what they made, that would likely be nothing more than morbid curiosity and, I agree, classless.  However, when a stakeholder in the entity is requesting that information, the assumption is that the stakeholder has the need to know in order to make informed decisions on the allocation of resources.  In the case of a publicly-traded company, the SEC has decided that this need rises to the level of a right and has chosen to enforce that requirement on all registered entities.  Why?  Well, in addition to the perceived need for the purpose of allocating resources, the SEC has determined that requiring the disclosure of said information creates a form of accountability to between the shareholders and management that, too, is more important than any expectation of privacy on the matter.

Similarly, many jurisdictions (especially foreign ones) require the disclosure of similar information for charities operating in their areas.  Why? The same reasons - donors have a need to know certain information about the entity for the purpose of making informed decisions on the allocation of resources (e.g. donations) and for the underlying creation of a system of accountability between "management" of the charity and the donors (even potential ones).

Now, in this thread, Brother Reel has made a request for the disclosure of certain compensation information regarding Church leadership.  Why?  Well, some in this thread have chosen to speculate on Bro. Reel's intentions; implying malicious plans or desires.  In your case, you've simply written it off as the equivalent of a stranger (i.e. non-stakeholder) asking a CEO for information on his salary just for the fun of it.  In doing so, however, you've glossed over the possibility (probability?) that Bro. Reel is a long-time tithe-payer (i.e. a stakeholder in the organization) who, for whatever reason, has become concerned with the use of tithing funds by the organization and feels compelled to ask for that information.

Where there is a clear difference between my SEC example, and the issue at hand is the matter of faith.  If your criticism had been that his request belied a lack of faith and commitment on Bro. Reel's part, then I could at least understand it (whether or not I agree with it shall remain a mystery).  But, that's not what you did.  You dismissed it out of hand as "classless" based on an incorrect assumption that Bro. Reel is not a stakeholder in the organization and that there could be no possible reasonable justification for the request.

Get it now?

yawn....you still there?  When I realized what you are..and how you could not distnguish between a person and a company.....I stopped reading your posts.....reading the Wards Catalogue wastes less time

Edited April 9, 2016 by CountryBoy

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

yawn....you still there?  When I realized what you are..and how you could not distnguish between a person and a company.....I stopped reading your posts.....reading the Wards Catalogue wastes less time

Okay, well, I recommend Sunder's Theory of Accounting and Control for a good foundation on the interaction between contract theory, information, and disclosure. (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Accounting-Control-Shyam-Sunder/dp/0538866861)

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

Frankly asking anyone about how much they make or do not make shows a distinct lack of class

Not if one is contributing  a lifetime of dollars to an organization.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

And, no charity should ever disclose the salaries of its officers either, right?  Because "class" is more important than transparency and accountability, right?

You are losing me here, this is a private corporation, with a voluntary Membership.....What part of Church's bylaws enforce to disclose Chief Officers salary?                   They don't have to do anything to please anybody, since they get their authority from a higher order....(Even US Constitution).                                                                   

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are losing me here, this is a private corporation, with a voluntary Membership.....What part of Church's bylaws enforce to disclose Chief Officers salary?                   They don't have to do anything to please anybody, since they get their authority from a higher order....(Even US Constitution).                                                                   

I think I addressed this a couple of posts down.  Let me know if I didn't.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Asking how much money LDS leaders make is not questioning their intentions.

But does the answer really draw a person closer to Christ?  Does it really help them progress so they can stand before God at judgement and pass?  Perhaps they want answers to such questions to pacify and excuse themselves in the actions and decisions they are making in life.

Edited April 9, 2016 by carbon dioxide