Rainbow flags, urban centers, and LDS

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

My son Abogadissimo and I occasionally play with that group. Derailing...........

I think I've heard of this group. 

A little less than two years ago, my missionary son and his MTC group assigned to labor in Sweden were delayed in being granted visas so they had to be dispersed throughout the States for a couple of months. 

My boy was assigned to Vancouver, Washington. Curious,I researched the area a bit and found that an orchestra and chorus were to present a Christmas concert in a nearby city. The description made me think they were largely Mormon, some Wilberg arrangements on the program and what not. 

I suggested to my son that he attend the concert, but by then, his visa came through. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[MorningStar]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it, perchance, a symphony and chorus with a sizable Mormon membership?

 

It is! 

[MorningStar]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I've heard of this group. 

A little less than two years ago, when my missionary son and his group assigned to labor in Sweden were delayed in being granted visas so had to be dispersed throughout the States for a couple of months. 

My boy was assigned to Vancouver, Washington. Curious,I researched the area a bit and found that an orchestra and chorus were to present a Christmas concert in a nearby city. The description made me think they were largely Mormon, some Wilberg arrangements on the program and what not. 

I suggested to my son that he attend the concert, but by then, his visa came through. 

Oh, we could have met! 

[MorningStar]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it, perchance, a symphony and chorus with a sizable Mormon membership?

 

Also, Bernard and I were on stage together and didn't know it!  And Stargazer got engaged at our concert!  This is so awesome.   

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I've heard of this group. 

A little less than two years ago, when my missionary son and his group assigned to labor in Sweden were delayed in being granted visas so had to be dispersed throughout the States for a couple of months. 

My boy was assigned to Vancouver, Washington. Curious,I researched the area a bit and found that an orchestra and chorus were to present a Christmas concert in a nearby city. The description made me think they were largely Mormon, some Wilberg arrangements on the program and what not. 

I suggested to my son that he attend the concert, but by then, his visa came through. 

The Ensign Symphony and Chorus in the Seattle area. Quite an active group, mostly LDS members and guest artists. 

https://www.seattleensign.org/

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Also, Bernard and I were on stage together and didn't know it!  And Stargazer got engaged at our concert!  This is so awesome.   

Did Hermano Bernardo play his fiddle??!!!  

[MorningStar]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Ensign Symphony and Chorus in the Seattle area. Quite an active group, mostly LDS members and guest artists. 

https://www.seattleensign.org/

David Archuleta is singing with us next May! 😀

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

David Archuleta is singing with us next May! 😀

If the concert is free, better not overbook it. That led to problems when he sang with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square at Christmas time a few years ago. A lot of people who had tickets were turned away.

[MorningStar]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the concert is free, better not overbook it. That led to problems when he sang with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square at Christmas time a few years ago. A lot of people who had tickets were turned away.

I wish our concerts could be free!  There won't be any overbooking though.   

[Five Solas]

On 6/26/2017 at 10:48 AM, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure how you can really fault any organization for wishing to maintain control of their own data. 

And how does the University of Utah being a publicly funded institution enter into it?

One thing you may have missed it that the church is providing this information to the state, which the state then uses in planning.  How many millions of dollars would then state need to spend to collect the same information that has been provided to them by the state?  And this is being done by a church which, in your words, "reeks of leadership paranoia."

"Since at least 1940, the LDS Church has provided membership data to the state, which uses those statistics along with IRS figures, school enrollment, health information and building permits to build population estimates."

Only in Mormonism is a lack of Church transparency defended as a virtue--and with vigor!  If you'd read the article carefully, you'd see that planning responsibility has shifted to the U of U and that the non-disclosure agreement is new.  Also note that the LDS Church spokesman offered no explanation for it.  Of course, this hasn't deterred LDS on the forum for offering their several justifications...

;0)

Here is the relevant excerpt from the article, if you don't wish to click the link and read it all yourself--

___________

Since at least 1940, the LDS Church has provided membership data to the state, which uses those statistics along with IRS figures, school enrollment, health information and building permits to build population estimates.

That responsibility shifted to the University of Utah's Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute in 2016, and the LDS Church struck a deal with the U. that for the first time would have kept the data private.

The U. denied Tribune records requests and declined to talk about the data, citing an active confidentiality agreement. But when asked, the LDS Church gave The Tribune what a spokesman said was the exact set of numbers it gave to the U. That spokesman did not explain why the church has a confidentiality deal with the school.

____________

And no, it ain't about protecting privacy/personally identifiable information, unless the Church spokesman wasn't being truthful about data shared with the Tribune.  But the U of U can't verify it--so I suppose we can't completely eliminate the possibility.

--Erik

PS.  I'm only mildly disappointed no one offered the traditional "sacred-not-secret" defense of LDS secrecy...  

[halconero]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Only in Mormonism is a lack of Church transparency defended as a virtue--and with vigor!  If you'd read the article carefully, you'd see that planning responsibility has shifted to the U of U and that the non-disclosure agreement is new.  Also note that the LDS Church spokesman offered no explanation for it.  Of course, this hasn't deterred LDS on the forum for offering their several justifications...

;0)

Here is the relevant excerpt from the article, if you don't wish to click the link and read it all yourself--

___________

Since at least 1940, the LDS Church has provided membership data to the state, which uses those statistics along with IRS figures, school enrollment, health information and building permits to build population estimates.

That responsibility shifted to the University of Utah's Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute in 2016, and the LDS Church struck a deal with the U. that for the first time would have kept the data private.

The U. denied Tribune records requests and declined to talk about the data, citing an active confidentiality agreement. But when asked, the LDS Church gave The Tribune what a spokesman said was the exact set of numbers it gave to the U. That spokesman did not explain why the church has a confidentiality deal with the school.

____________

And no, it ain't about protecting privacy/personally identifiable information, unless the Church spokesman wasn't being truthful about data shared with the Tribune.  But the U of U can't verify it--so I suppose we can't completely eliminate the possibility.

--Erik

PS.  I'm only mildly disappointed no one offered the traditional "sacred-not-secret" defense of LDS secrecy...  

Siri! Bible verses where Jesus says "tell no one."

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Only in Mormonism is a lack of Church transparency defended as a virtue--and with vigor!  If you'd read the article carefully, you'd see that planning responsibility has shifted to the U of U and that the non-disclosure agreement is new.  Also note that the LDS Church spokesman offered no explanation for it.  Of course, this hasn't deterred LDS on the forum for offering their several justifications...

;0)

Here is the relevant excerpt from the article, if you don't wish to click the link and read it all yourself--

___________

Since at least 1940, the LDS Church has provided membership data to the state, which uses those statistics along with IRS figures, school enrollment, health information and building permits to build population estimates.

That responsibility shifted to the University of Utah's Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute in 2016, and the LDS Church struck a deal with the U. that for the first time would have kept the data private.

The U. denied Tribune records requests and declined to talk about the data, citing an active confidentiality agreement. But when asked, the LDS Church gave The Tribune what a spokesman said was the exact set of numbers it gave to the U. That spokesman did not explain why the church has a confidentiality deal with the school.

____________

And no, it ain't about protecting privacy/personally identifiable information, unless the Church spokesman wasn't being truthful about data shared with the Tribune.  But the U of U can't verify it--so I suppose we can't completely eliminate the possibility.

--Erik

PS.  I'm only mildly disappointed no one offered the traditional "sacred-not-secret" defense of LDS secrecy...  

So you're wanting the church to tell you how many 6 year old males are attending sacrament meeting in Utah each month?  What would you do if it did?  Would that cause you to believe and attend yourself?  Our would you just find another reason to condemn the church?  

Edited June 30, 2017 by ksfisher
sp

[Five Solas]

On 6/29/2017 at 10:01 PM, ksfisher said:

So you're wanting the church to tell you how many 6 year old males are attending sacrament meeting in Utah each month?  What would you do if it did?  Would that cause you to believe and attend yourself?  Our would you just find another reason to condemn the church?  

That's not it at all, ksfisher.  Transparency isn't about assuaging or converting critics.  Transparency is about obligation--obligation the LDS Church owes to the broader public, which bestows upon churches certain benefits--particularly the benefit of not having revenues, income and/or property subject to tax, as many other entities are subjected.

The day is coming when things kept in darkness (e.g., revenues, assets, membership) will be brought to light.  And what will you say then, ksfisher?

--Erik

_________________________________

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

--The Clash "The Guns of Brixton"

Edited July 2, 2017 by Five Solas
extra word

[Jane_Doe]

33 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

That's not it at all, ksfisher.  Transparency isn't about assuaging or converting critics.  Transparency is about obligation--obligation the LDS Church owes to the broader public, which bestows upon churches certain benefits--particularly the benefit of not having revenues, income and/or property subject to tax, as many other entities are subjected.

Where's it say that in the Bible?

[Five Solas]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Where's it say that in the Bible?

That churches are entitled to special tax benefits and/or are entitled to keeping their revenues & membership a secret--it doesn't say that anywere, Jane_Doe.  Intentionally or not, you're making my point.

:0)

--Erik

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

That's not it at all, ksfisher.  Transparency isn't about assuaging or converting critics.  Transparency is about obligation--obligation the LDS Church owes to the broader public, which bestows upon churches certain benefits--particularly the benefit of not having revenues, income and/or property subject to tax, as many other entities are subjected.

The day is coming when things kept in darkness (e.g., revenues, assets, membership) will be brought to light.  And what will you say then, ksfisher?

--Erik

_________________________________

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

--The Clash "The Guns of Brixton"

So you are saying that the membership statistics of private organizations should be public property?  And that the LDS church "owes" this to the public?  Why?  I'm not really sure where you would get that idea from.

I work for a private non-profit that receives certain benefits and assistance from state and federal governmnet.  In addition my employer does not pay taxes on its revenue or property.  Should the terms of my employment be public knowledge?  Is this something that is "owed" to the taxpayer in return for the asistance  and tax exemption my employer receives?

Where does your idea that any church is obliged to turn over its private membership information to the public come from?

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by ksfisher

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So you are saying that the membership statistics of private organizations should be public property?  And that the LDS church "owes" this to the public?  Why?  I'm not really sure where you would get that idea from.

I work for a private non-profit that receives certain benefits and assistance from state and federal governmnet.  In addition my employer does not pay taxes on its revenue or property.  Should the terms of my employment be public knowledge?  Is this something that is "owed" to the taxpayer in return for the asistance  and tax exemption my employer receives?

Where does your idea that any church is obliged to turn over its private membership information to the public come from?

 

I'm saying that non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose so that we can understand what we're paying for.  Here's an example of the disclosure & level of detail mandated for public companies (link to Amazon's investor relations SEC filings page).  Take the first document you find.  Note that in addition to financial disclosure, the number of employees, executive compensation and many other statistics are provided. That's pretty good, isn't it?  You just learned quite a lot about Amazon. 

Should organizations that receive direct public benefits (e.g., tax relief) not be required to provide similar information?  By what logic, ksfisher?

--Erik

PS.  Of course, many do: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Financials

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

That churches are entitled to special tax benefits and/or are entitled to keeping their revenues & membership a secret--it doesn't say that anywere, Jane_Doe.  Intentionally or not, you're making my point.

:0)

--Erik

You're posting to legal obligation, not actual divine obligation.  

[Five Solas]

I'm saying it's the right and reasonable thing to do, Jane_Doe.  Where there's public benefits there should be public disclosure.  And they should do it voluntarily, much like previous links I shared (Gates Foundation, Downtown Cornerstone Church).   

Out of genuine curiosity - why do LDS think greater openness and transparency would be toxic to their church's agenda? 

--Erik

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm saying that non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose so that we can understand what we're paying for. 

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse as to the nature of this "responsibility."  Is it a legal one?  Apparently so, since you are characterizing the Church in terms of its legal status ("non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us").  So . . . what part of the U.S. Code, or the C.F.R., or IRS regulations, or whatever, mandates the types of disclosures you are asserting?

I suspect you're just making this stuff up as you go along, but I am certainly open to correction.

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Here's an example of the disclosure & level of detail mandated for public companies (link to Amazon's investor relations SEC filings page).  Take the first document you find.  Note that in addition to financial disclosure, the number of employees, executive compensation and many other statistics are provided. That's pretty good, isn't it?  You just learned quite a lot about Amazon. 

The LDS Church is not a public company.  So disclosure requirements imposed on them are irrelevant.

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Should organizations that receive direct public benefits (e.g., tax relief) not be required to provide similar information? 

Whoa, now.  Let's not change horses mid-stream.  You have asserted that "non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose [information about their finances]," but now you are suggesting that they should be required.  So which is it?

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

By what logic, ksfisher?

Right back atcha.  What is the factual/legal basis for your assertion that "non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose [information about their finances]?"

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

PS.  Of course, many do: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Financials

Again, you have asserted that "non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose [information about their finances]?"

CFR, please, as to the source of this "responsibility."

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Not toxic to our agenda, but the harangue of constant of "Why do you spend your money on things I don't approve of?".

[Five Solas]

On 7/2/2017 at 10:47 AM, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse as to the nature of this "responsibility."  Is it a legal one?  Apparently so, since you are characterizing the Church in terms of its legal status ("non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us").  So . . . what part of the U.S. Code, or the C.F.R., or IRS regulations, or whatever, mandates the types of disclosures you are asserting?

I suspect you're just making this stuff up as you go along, but I am certainly open to correction.

The LDS Church is not a public company.  So disclosure requirements imposed on them are irrelevant.

Whoa, now.  Let's not change horses mid-stream.  You have asserted that "non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose [information about their finances]," but now you are suggesting that they should be required.  So which is it?

Right back atcha.  What is the factual/legal basis for your assertion that "non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose [information about their finances]?"

Again, you have asserted that "non-profits which receive tax benefits from the rest of us have a responsibility to disclose [information about their finances]?"

CFR, please, as to the source of this "responsibility."

Thanks,

-Smac

You've really labored to make my assertion seem foolish, smac97.

It's a matter of ethics, not of law or divine decree (although some day I expect stronger public disclosure requirements will be a matter of law).  When you receive a good thing, you have some responsibility--to be a good steward, and to be accountable for that stewardship.  Think of it as a dictate of conscience.  And the LDS Church (and many other churches and non-profits) receives much good from all levels of government, starting with tax relief.  

I've probably derailed my own poor thread long enough (although that Tribune article was certainly insightful & worth some discussion).  Time permitting, I'll start a thread about the LDS Church and notions of openness and transparency (and why LDS leaders seem to be about as fond of them as the vampire is for daylight). 

--Erik

_______________________________

Sing your life
Walk right up to the microphone
And name
All the things you love
All the things that you loathe
Oh, sing your life

--Morrissey, 1991