MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Personally, I can promise you, this doesn't work.  The unresponsive parent is the hardest and often the cruelest way to sustain a prophet, a doctrine and all consuming promises that only hurt the family.

This is worth pursuing. Would you be interested in starting another thread with this as your premise?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The husband in question, who probably lived under similar circumstances as the author the book, seemed to.  His wife probably didn't!

 

I guess I'm more like the wife in that respect.

By the way, it wasn't the author who lived under those conditions, it was her grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins -- and her mother, who, as a young adult, escaped into West Germany at the peril of her life, then later married and settled in the United States. The author was oppressed in that she was cut off from contact with her extended family in East Germany through her childhood and much of her adult life.

Having grown up during the Cold War and having first learned about the Berlin Wall in elementary school -- and having been to Berlin last summer and seen the remnants of the wall -- I still found the conditions and circumstances recounted in the book appalling. It was as though I were hearing about them for the first time. We who live in freedom have so much to be grateful for, and we are too much inclined to take it for granted.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is worth pursuing. Would you be interested in starting another thread with this as your premise?

I would not..as I have mentioned other things before.  I can say that the relationship between my father and I was greatly hurt by what he deems as truth  At present, he and his second wife now have cancer and with the help of my son, I am trying to mend those fences made by those beliefs.  Other than this thread, I would like to give it rest..and a chance.I hope that you will give this apostate some hope and prayer.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Jeanne

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if i agree.  Criticism almost always leads to contention, which the scriptures teach is caused by the devil.  I think there is something to be said for making decisions that will help lead to less contention among members and also members and ex-members.

Indeed. Unfortunately, history shows contention is like a vampire.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We tend to forget that WE are the church. The church isn't a building or a leader, it's the membership. I think your analogy about a husband not sharing information with his wife is quite apt to a church not sharing information with its members. It's not merely a curiosity. Transparency can help us understand our church to which we've devoted so much trust, treasure, and time. Why would less understanding and knowledge be a good thing? People seem to be seeking continued ignorance for the sake of a counterfeit unity. Is the church unified now without transparency? I don't think so.

If the only benefit of church leaders not sharing info with church members is to reduce conflict then it would seem to be an ineffective and condescending strategy.

What fuels your suspicions that the Brethren may not be trustworthy?

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I would not..as I have mentioned other things before.  I can say that the relationship between my father and I was greatly hurt by what he deems as truth  At present, he and his second wife now have cancer and with the help of my son, I am trying to mend those fences made by those beliefs.  Other than this thread, I would like to give it rest..and a chance.I hope that you will give this apostate some hope and prayer.

Of course I will. A very close friend who I helped bring into the Church recently visited her abusive and long-estranged dying father. In his final hours she was able to reconcile, forgive, and receive great peace. I hope the best for you.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Well, when that's what you clearly stated, there was no misinterpretation.

As long as we agree that no one has done any "character assassinations" against general authorities here, I'll take that as a withdrawal of your earlier statement.  Thanks.

LOL I surely stated what i stated, and it surely remains on the post as stated, and it is surely not withdrawn, but it is surely not an accusation.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We tend to forget that WE are the church. The church isn't a building or a leader, it's the membership. I think your analogy about a husband not sharing information with his wife is quite apt to a church not sharing information with its members. It's not merely a curiosity. Transparency can help us understand our church to which we've devoted so much trust, treasure, and time. Why would less understanding and knowledge be a good thing? People seem to be seeking continued ignorance for the sake of a counterfeit unity. Is the church unified now without transparency? I don't think so.

If the only benefit of church leaders not sharing info with church members is to reduce conflict then it would seem to be an ineffective and condescending strategy.

My thinking is, it could be a good thing because it may be unreasonable to try to release enough information to paint what is released in an accurate light.

It's really common (as in, one of the flaws of our culture) for people to make loud, self-righteous judgments based on a tiny amount of information that often turn out to be completely unreasonable when the full story is known.  A small fact on a piece of paper released by the church would never be able to communicate everything that might be needed to actually understand the fact--such as prayer/revelation, past experiences, trial and error to determine best outcome, domestic and international law, individual personal needs/requests, etc.  

Besides that, I disagree that we are the church.  From my perspective, we are members of God's church, and it's His kingdom, not our's. 

And, I don't see how more transparency will unify the church (as this board proves with threads showing that the leaks have caused contention among some members that didn't exist before), so a quest for unity cannot be used as a valid reason either.

If the church decides to be more transparent then i'm fine with that.  There are some things i would be really interested in knowing.  But I think there could be valid reasons not to be.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I can see where you are coming from. From my long experience as a highly engaged Mormon, I have confidence that our General Authorities and their assistants are not only very competent and extraordinarily good-willed administrators, but are also impeccably honest when dealing with the funds I willingly donate to the Church. I have considerable experience with finances at the ward and stake levels. If the SLC brethren and sisters are as meticulously and religiously scrupulous as the local leaders are, I am comfortable trusting their direction. Sure, nothing is perfect. Certainly, there have been some local folks who have mistreated the tithes, but that is rare. It costs you your membership and probably involves legal action.

So, when the church financial department gives its summary report at General Conference, I believe them. I believe they are trustworthy. I have no reason to suspect malfeasance. If practices changes, I'll be quite happy with that, but I don't feel the need to pick through the details of mission president pay stubs looking for whatever juicy nit I can find with which I can besmirch the Church. Based on the mini-example of the discussion in this thread, it would be a furious and never-ending distraction from anti-Mormons and unfortunately some disaffected Mormons. 

This may sound hopelessly naive to you. I'm ok with that.

 

 

I am right there with you as far as the local level being honest and that they strive to follow all the guidelines. But as they send money to church headquarters it's hard to control where that goes. 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My thinking is, it could be a good thing because it may be unreasonable to try to release enough information to paint what is released in an accurate light.

To me it doesn't make sense to say that the church can't produce financial statements that show it in an accurate light.

Some time ago I worked for a global corporation which had an annual revenue of well over $40b. Each year they published a report that was available to all shareholders and detailed the company's finances.  And then we continued our work until the next year.

The financial information is already compiled and available.  If it doesn't present the church in an accurate light than that should be addressed by the annual audit that is performed and reported each year in general conference.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Dang! Have you mentioned where this was? Never had riots, but the Sandinistas were always shooting up the mountainous areas in Nicaragua. We heard the gunfire a couple of times but that was all.

I had six encounters with guns on my mission.

The first was at the Tegucigalpa airport when I first arrived in the mission. I had never seen real life machine-gun armed soldiers before, so I was a bit taken aback to see them patrolling the lobby. No threats, but I wondered what I had gotten myself into.

We were walking home at night In Tegucigalpa. Crossing the street to get closer to a bus stop, I stepped up on the sidewalk.  A soldier ran up out of nowhere, put his rifle in my stomach, and started shouting, "Fuera! Fuera!" I was pretty green and couldn't understand what he was shouting. Apparently we had entered a forbidden area next to a prison, but there were no warning signs....just a regular sidewalk in the city. We moved back and left quickly.

Also in Tegus we were teaching a teenaged boy the fifth discussion...the one with all the Plan of Salvation strips stuck on the felt board. A man (we later found out he was the boy's uncle and he beat the boy after we left) came in and said, "Get out!" and that he was getting his gun. We started pulling strips off. He came back and said,"I can't find my pistola, so I'm getting my machete." More strips coming down. He came back and said, "I can't find my machete, but I have this brick," and started swinging it at us. As we ran out the door, my companion paused and dusted his shoes.

In Managua, we stopped at a hotel restaurant to get something cold to drink. A man came over to our table, drew his pistola, and started shouting, "Johnson asesino! Johnson asesino!" (Johnson murderer). He was put out with LBJ and thought we were CIA. Fortunately, some of the other customers calmed him down and we left in one piece. It was not uncommon to have someone say, "CIA, CIA," as we walked around.

We did a lot of hitchhiking. Once on a trip from Managua to Masaya a man in a nice car stopped and picked us up on a country road. As we drove off, I looked at the floor and saw a 45m automatic pistola. A little concerned, I hesitantly asked him about it. He was a Nicaraguan Senator and carried the gun in case the Sandinistas tried to stop him. How Cool Is That! It occurred to me much later in life that an American hitchhiking in the war zone of a third world country was probably a really, really stupid idiot.

While working in San Jose, Costa Rica, my companion and I drove the office VW bus downtown for some business. On the way back, a guy came up behind us in a black Mercedes. He tailgated us for a while and then sped past, causing me to swerve and a car driven by a woman with kids coming the other direction to leave the road. I foolishly followed and came up beside him when he stopped at an intersection. "Donde aprendistes a manejar? En Nicaragua?" "Where did you learn to drive? In Nicaragua?" I asked. A stupid insult and a Really Bad Move. He followed us all the way to the mission office. On arrival, he shouted he was getting his pistola out of the trunk. My companion, Elder Michael Callahan, got out first and put his knee against the man's door. Michael was 6'8" and weighed almost 300 pounds. The kids called him "El Gigante." The guy couldn't budge the door, but out of the other side stepped a muscular black man almost as big as Michael. Que caramba! I thought. We are in deep caca. There were other elders coming out of the office, so we had reinforcements. Fortunately the black fellow was the most cool headed of us all. He talked his friend down and they left. 

Those are my stories and I'm sticking to them. I never told my parents.

At the time it was exciting, adventurous, and, well, somewhat fun. They made for great bragging at district meetings, But looking back, that's the sign of a guy still climbing up Fool's Hill. I'm a little closer to the top now, but from this vantage point I see that I am just in the foothills. Fool's Mountains loom all around.

Note to self: some people can bring a brick to a machete fight after not finding a machete for a gun fight…

I love your stories. I’m glad you made it home to tell (but not your parents) about it. I have those kinds of stories as well. Nothing to rue about; I chalk all that kind of stuff up to a young adult’s undeveloped frontal lobe. Like “wild truck riding” – we’d hitchhike too and “surf’ on the truck bed going around sharp curves at high speeds. But here’s one rue-worthy incident: one missionary was standing next to his landlord when the landlord was shot to death in the doorway as they decided to spectate a skirmish, which was against mission rules of course.

I served in two (because one got closed) 3^rd world missions with great civil unrest/war and I’ll leave it at that until I decide to break my anonymity… The Church always moved us out of areas and country in time though, and we had no serious missionary casualties, though sadly many members, some of whom I knew, were killed. My circumstances allowed me pass on tips (we had all types of investigators, it turned out) to the mission office about upcoming dangers so missionaries could be told to stay inside, etc.

I lost my mission car privileges because, in an effort to praise my non-member parents for doing such a great job raising their son, my mission president shared that I was taking on a good deal of responsibility as zone leader in a very dangerous area… Well, they shot that idea down pretty quickly! Even though I was 22 years old at the time and on my own. So we hitchhiked…

My only other gun story, that I can recall, is a drive-by shooting outside our apartment. We did have a missionary build a bomb, set it off in field, and received thank-you notes and pamphlets from the opposition the next day. I also had a landlord (a police officer) who moonlighted “killing communists.” Another one (an elderly expatriate American) purportedly knew Frank James when he was a child. Lots of expatriates from lots of countries in my mission.

Edited January 26, 2017 by CV75

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To me it doesn't make sense to say that the church can't produce financial statements that show it in an accurate light.

Some time ago I worked for a global corporation which had an annual revenue of well over $40b. Each year they published a report that was available to all shareholders and detailed the company's finances.  And then we continued our work until the next year.

The financial information is already compiled and available.  If it doesn't present the church in an accurate light than that should be addressed by the annual audit that is performed and reported each year in general conference.

I think the difference is that, when it comes to the church, people aren't just interested in what is legal, they are almost more interested in what they believe to be moral.  That's why, a company can show that they have a upper level employee earning $90,000 a year and most people would say "wow, that's not very much money considering all that the company brings in and all that employee does" and, besides checking to see if everything was legal, that would pretty much end the conversation.

But with the church that small fact begins multiple debates about the semantics of modest verses immodest stipends, the morality of offering the money in the first place, google earth searches of people's homes and conversations about how much they paid for them, how much they improved upon them, and what they are currently worth.  It brings scrutiny on the tithing practices of the person in question, and extrapolation on what those practices might mean for other people paying tithing, including judgments on whether it's moral for the person to collect the money, how many kids they might be supporting and whether or not they are bringing in more money on the side.  Then we have debates about where the money comes from, how it's not considered tithing including historical business practices of the church being called into dispute.  Etc., etc., etc.

That's what i mean about how it would be really hard for the church to provide any level of financial transparency which would resolve the issues that the normal 'business' levels of transparency bring up.

Edited January 26, 2017 by bluebell

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To me it doesn't make sense to say that the church can't produce financial statements that show it in an accurate light.

Some time ago I worked for a global corporation which had an annual revenue of well over $40b. Each year they published a report that was available to all shareholders and detailed the company's finances.  And then we continued our work until the next year.

The financial information is already compiled and available.  If it doesn't present the church in an accurate light than that should be addressed by the annual audit that is performed and reported each year in general conference.

This.  It should be simple for the church to release a year end report.  That they won't or don't, does lead to suspicions or speculations that could be squashed if they'd just release an honest report (if nothing is there confirming the suspicions).  It's like Trump refusing to release his tax returns.  Secrecy leads to suspicions, valid or not.

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the difference is that, when it comes to the church, people aren't just interested in what is legal, they are almost more interested in what they believe to be moral.  That's why, a company can show that they have a upper level employee earning $90,000 a year and most people would say "wow, that's not very much money considering all that the company brings in and all that employee does" and, besides checking to see if everything was legal, that would pretty much end the conversation.

But with the church that small fact begins multiple debates about the semantics of modest verses immodest stipends, the morality of offering the money in the first place, google earth searches of people's homes and conversations about how much they paid for them, how much they improved upon them, and what they are currently worth.  It brings scrutiny on the tithing practices of the person in question, and extrapolation on what those practices might mean for other people paying tithing, including judgments on whether it's moral for the person to collect the money, how many kids they might be supporting and whether or not they are bringing in more money on the side.  Then we have debates about where the money comes from, how it's not considered tithing including historical business practices of the church being called into dispute.  Etc., etc., etc.

That's what i mean about how it would be really hard for the church to provide any level of financial transparency which would resolve the issues that the normal 'business' levels of transparency bring up.

Having worked for the company and also being a shareholder, I can assure you that people are interested in far more than just what was legal.

The debates you reference are happening even without financial disclosure.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Having worked for the company and also being a shareholder, I can assure you that people are interested in far more than just what was legal.

The debates you reference are happening even without financial disclosure.

Do you believe the interest, arguments, and judgment brought up by business financial records is the same level and type as the interest, arguments, and judgments brought up by mormon church financial records? 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe the interest, arguments, and judgment brought up by business financial records is the same level and type as the interest, arguments, and judgments brought up by mormon church financial records? 

I believe they would be if the Church had done it continuously (i.e. not stopped in 1959).  Doing it right now will bring up a lot of interest, arguments, and judgments because they've been kept secret for over a half century.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I believe they would be if the Church had done it continuously (i.e. not stopped in 1959).  Doing it right now will bring up a lot of interest, arguments, and judgments because they've been kept secret for over a half century.

You believe that if we had always known how much the stipend was, for example, that we wouldn't have arguments about the morality of providing a stipend, discussions about whether or not it's modest, and members and ex members looking up how much tithing the person paid and whether or not it was gross or net?

The church releases information in Canada (though i have no idea how long it's been releasing it), and people still have doubts about how things are done up there.  They want more information because what has been released hasn't been enough to stop them questioning the financial morality or decisions of church leaders.

I just don't see that there is any reasonable level of transparency that the church could adopt that would stop any of that.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe they would be if the Church had done it continuously (i.e. not stopped in 1959).  Doing it right now will bring up a lot of interest, arguments, and judgments because they've been kept secret for over a half century.

From a PR standpoint (two of my sisters graduated from BYU in public relations; my oldest was the national PRSSA president while at BYU), sometimes you have to bite the bullet, and put things behind you with short-term pain that will fade with time. It's possible that this may have to happen with these leaks, if momentum --- such as JulieM described with other active sisters whose view of the Brethren has changed knowing that they are paid far above a living allowance --- continues to build. And the overly-high interest in the details disclosed by the leaks is precisely because so much effort went into keeping these details secret. So some of these things are unforced errors of our own making.

I'm with bluebell, though. Full disclosure and transparency won't make critics happy, and will provide people who don't mean us any good with things that they can spin in bad ways --- especially things that need complicated context. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You believe that if we had always known how much the stipend was, for example, that we wouldn't have arguments about the morality of providing a stipend, discussions about whether or not it's modest, and members and ex members looking up how much tithing the person paid and whether or not it was gross or net?

I think a lot of the fuel of speculation, or debates about morality, would already be spent by now if this stuff had been known for a long time. And, I think that the Brethren would no longer be paid any more than they need for living expenses (if they need living expenses paid by the Church).  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, I think that the Brethren would no longer be paid any more than they need for living expenses (if they need living expenses paid by the Church).  

I think a lot of people agree with you and believe that the brethren aren't using the money responsibility or fairly and that's why they are in favor of transparency.

 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe they would be if the Church had done it continuously (i.e. not stopped in 1959).  Doing it right now will bring up a lot of interest, arguments, and judgments because they've been kept secret for over a half century.

Fiscal transparency is not a spiritual principle and is not laid out in our scriptures.

The only way for anything to be made transparent is in the Lord's hands. To do so, He requires the saints "strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual." (D&C 67:10).

Elevated concerns over who-gets-what-and-how reminds me of D&C 105.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of people agree with you and believe that the brethren aren't using the money responsibility or fairly and that's why they are in favor of transparency.

Putting it that way sounds harsh! I don't think the Brethren aren't using money responsibly or fairly, with the exception of the general authority salary. I'm not even a City Creek critic!   It's just hard for me to wrap my head around when I wouldn't even need a dime from the Church on my retirement of between $3000 and $4000 (teacher pension + social security), and *ALL* of them are more comfortable in retirement financially than I will be. That's the thing that looks bad, I think.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of people agree with you and believe that the brethren aren't using the money responsibility or fairly and that's why they are in favor of transparency.

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Putting it that way sounds harsh! I don't think the Brethren aren't using money responsibly or fairly, with the exception of the general authority salary. I'm not even a City Creek critic!   It's just hard for me to wrap my head around when I wouldn't even need a dime from the Church on my retirement of between $3000 and $4000 (teacher pension + social security), and *ALL* of them are more comfortable in retirement financially than I will be. That's the thing that looks bad, I think.

I think the underlying problem leading to the criticism is a tendency to suffer disquiet without having all the facts on matters that do not change how the Lord blesses us individually. Having all the facts eradicates faith and other spiritual attributes that are far superior to comparing one with another materially and expecting control or involvement over how sacred funds are used outside of one’s calling and stewardship.

Edited January 26, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We tend to forget that WE are the church. The church isn't a building or a leader, it's the membership. I think your analogy about a husband not sharing information with his wife is quite apt to a church not sharing information with its members. It's not merely a curiosity. Transparency can help us understand our church to which we've devoted so much trust, treasure, and time. Why would less understanding and knowledge be a good thing? People seem to be seeking continued ignorance for the sake of a counterfeit unity. Is the church unified now without transparency? I don't think so.

If the only benefit of church leaders not sharing info with church members is to reduce conflict then it would seem to be an ineffective and condescending strategy.

In the Church, the Lord has established an order of sustained callings and stewardships, including those dealing with the use of sacred funds. Faith is required on all fronts, and this is the benefit of placing limits on what is shared out of callings and stewardships, both materially and factually.

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You believe that if we had always known how much the stipend was, for example, that we wouldn't have arguments about the morality of providing a stipend, discussions about whether or not it's modest, and members and ex members looking up how much tithing the person paid and whether or not it was gross or net?

The church releases information in Canada (though i have no idea how long it's been releasing it), and people still have doubts about how things are done up there.  They want more information because what has been released hasn't been enough to stop them questioning the financial morality or decisions of church leaders.

I just don't see that there is any reasonable level of transparency that the church could adopt that would stop any of that.  

The arguments you mention are all happening without financial disclosure.  So I don't see those as a reason for/against more transparency.

And yes, people are asking about the disclosed church finances in Canada because the church takes the majority of member offerings there and funnels them into BYU.