MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So you consider a Mission President to be a church employee?

 

I think you know what I mean. 

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yeah. The soldiers with the machine guns. One of them put his in my stomach on a street in Tegucigalpa.

 

Gracias por su servicio.

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think you know what I mean. 

I don't and wanted to clarify.  You called them an employee (the receiver of the instructions).  If that's how you think about Mission Presidents, ok.  Again just making certain of your meaning.

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

On a related issue, looks like Comcast will air Kargers ads after all

"Ads asking for documents and other information harmful to the tax status of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will run on Comcast after all, the ads' producer said Wednesday.
Fred Karger said he has continued negotiating with Philadelphia-based Comcast and it has agreed to broadcast the advertisements in the Salt Lake City market, provided Karger amends the script.
Karger said Comcast is requiring him to reword part of the ad and graphic alleging the LDS Church has more than $1 trillion in assets. Karger said that portion of the ad will say something to the effect that it is thought that the church has that much in assets. "I'm very excited about it," Karger said Wednesday.
Karger plans to reshoot and edit the 30-second ad on Monday and Tuesday and wants to give it to Comcast the next day.
Comcast issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying it had wanted substantiation for five claims made in the ad, and Karger had been unwilling to provide those.
Karger provided substantiation for four of those claims last week, the Comcast statement said.
"For the one unsubstantiated claim, they agreed to modify the statement/visual," the statement said. "We are waiting for them to send us a revised 30-second ad to review."
While Comcast had refused to broadcast the ad over what Karger said were concerns over statements about the LDS Church's holdings, Karger said a Provo cable company has been running the ad.
Karger said he has been receiving tips on a phone number and email published in the ads, but has not received any internal church documents yet."

Comcast to air ads pursuing Mormon church tax status after all, organizer says

That's unfortunate.  I didn't like it at all (the one I saw).  Hopefully they edited it to remove the offensive parts .

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

36 minutes ago, JAHS said:

On a related issue, looks like Comcast will air Kargers ads after all

"Ads asking for documents and other information harmful to the tax status of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will run on Comcast after all, the ads' producer said Wednesday.
Fred Karger said he has continued negotiating with Philadelphia-based Comcast and it has agreed to broadcast the advertisements in the Salt Lake City market, provided Karger amends the script.
Karger said Comcast is requiring him to reword part of the ad and graphic alleging the LDS Church has more than $1 trillion in assets. Karger said that portion of the ad will say something to the effect that it is thought that the church has that much in assets. "I'm very excited about it," Karger said Wednesday.
Karger plans to reshoot and edit the 30-second ad on Monday and Tuesday and wants to give it to Comcast the next day.
Comcast issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying it had wanted substantiation for five claims made in the ad, and Karger had been unwilling to provide those.
Karger provided substantiation for four of those claims last week, the Comcast statement said.
"For the one unsubstantiated claim, they agreed to modify the statement/visual," the statement said. "We are waiting for them to send us a revised 30-second ad to review."
While Comcast had refused to broadcast the ad over what Karger said were concerns over statements about the LDS Church's holdings, Karger said a Provo cable company has been running the ad.
Karger said he has been receiving tips on a phone number and email published in the ads, but has not received any internal church documents yet."

Comcast to air ads pursuing Mormon church tax status after all, organizer says

That's unfortunate.  I didn't like it at all (the one I saw).  Hopefully they edited it to remove the offensive parts .

Well a least it will prove that the church wasn't somehow forcing Comcast to not air the ads as some critics were claiming. It sounds like he doesn't really have anything yet anyway that would jeopardize the church tax exempt status, and I am certain he will never find anything. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't and wanted to clarify.  You called them an employee (the receiver of the instructions).  If that's how you think about Mission Presidents, ok.  Again just making certain of your meaning.

I mentioned earlier that my 2 mission president's brought large families with them, we're not financially well off, and both had babies while on their missions. I observed them and their families up close and personally for 6 months as a financial secretary and assistant. Neither profited in the material sense from their service. Neither went home with silver jingling in their pockets. So in a real sense of the word, they were full-time employees (paid by the Church for services rendered) of the Church. Saying that does not give me heartburn.  I can't imagine another way to do that except perhaps the Church follow the Franciscan order. I have no issues with full-time Priesthood leaders receiving compensation/salary/allowances, whatever. I have confidence born from my own observations that they do not live extravagantly on the Lord's dime. They have sufficient for their needs.

[Bernard Gui]

Seeing these 8 pages of nits being picked over just two old leaked pay stubs, imagine the fun time many would have with fine-toothed combs searching for other juicy nits in the Church financial records if they had access to them. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Thinking]

I wonder if somebody can answer Duncan's question.

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

isn't leaking people's personal financial info against the law? like couldn't these no good deed doers be looking at criminal charges?

What say ye legal experts?

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

isn't leaking people's personal financial info against the law? like couldn't these no good deed doers be looking at criminal charges?

 

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

I wonder if somebody can answer Duncan's question.

What say ye legal experts?

I'm not a legal expert, but assuming, arguendo, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a legal cause of action against the leaker(s), such an action very well could turn into a case of "winning the legal battle" only to "lose the public relations war."  As much as it might prefer to not have some of the items that now are in the public domain out there, the Church of Jesus Christ is danged if it does, and danged if it don't.  Whaddaya gonna do?    Best in this case, I think, to offer one's cloak, go the second mile, and so on.  

In fact, forget pursuing legal action: I haven't seen much of any of a response from the Church of Jesus Christ.  Playing it very low-key very probably is just the right thing to do.  The Church's most ardent detractors might hyperventilate over each new release/juicy "revelation," but the law of diminishing returns applies: It won't take very many such "revelations" before even many of the skeptics/disaffected/fence-sitters start to doubt how much "there" really is "there," and before our "heroic whistleblowers" come to be seen simply as "the boy(s) who cried 'Wolf!'"

Edited January 26, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seeing these 8 pages of nits being picked here over just two old leaked pay stubs, imagine the fun time many would have with fine-toothed combs searching for other juicy nits in the Church financial records if they had access to them. 

That's why I say this thread and the prior one like it have made it more than obvious that the Church is wise not to make its financials accessible to antagonists. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yeah. The soldiers with the machine guns. One of them put his in my stomach on a street in Tegucigalpa.

I never had physical contact with the guns, but was searched spread-eagle against a bus once, and with arms raised on another occasion, both at machine-gun point. An angry gentleman pointed a pistol at me from a vehicle on the outskirts of a riot but sped off before I had much time to react. Hmm, what else... then there was the missionary who carried a pistol in a book...

So you almost lost-a you scalp-a in Tegucigalpa?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

Where was "family support" listed?

Are you referring to this?

"Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many)"

Family support is one of the items found in the link from the OP in the document dealing with support of mission presidents, and which I commented on a couple of times.

The "stipend" issue must be a holdover from another thread, where it generated mostly petty gossip and no facts worth commenting on. It seems that a combination of excessive expectations for financial transparency and suspicion fuel each other (hard to say which comes first) easily degenerates, for example, when pettiness over Church business decisions descends into character assassination over presumed financial privileges enjoyed by the general authorities.

It seems that since there are no crisis-inducing "hits" in this thread, a holdover from another one had to be injected.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Considering the sacrifice God required of his only begotten Son I think perhaps your understanding of a loving parent might be where the flaw lies.

That's certainly possible. My understanding of parenting is based on my time and culture and I like the positive attributes of parenting that are lauded in the modern world. If parents were all acting like an old testament god this would be a pretty miserable world.

If you were studying parents in society and found parents that acted like the god being described, would you view them as a good, or bad parent? Loving or coercive? Compassionate or abusive?

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The "stipend" issue must be a holdover from another thread, where it generated mostly petty gossip and no facts worth commenting on. It seems that a combination of excessive expectations for financial transparency and suspicion fuel each other (hard to say which comes first) easily degenerates, for example, when pettiness over Church business decisions descends into character assassination over presumed financial privileges enjoyed by the general authories.

Can you quote the post where this was done? (A "character assassination" against a general authority.)

[mrmarklin]

On 1/24/2017 at 4:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Wow.  So thrilling.
Wake me up when one of these documents is an uncanonized revelation, or a record of a previously unknown ordinance, or secret proof the GA's are still practicing underground polygamy, or that President Monson is planning to run for President like Joseph Smith.

Meanwhile I'll go back to reading the Council of 50 minutes.  At least for boring minutes they are of some historical significance.

And where do they find all this 15 year old stuff anyway?

 

i don't have any personal records that go that far back. Most everyone, including businesses trash that junk.

 

oh wait .............................

 

[Five Solas]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This thread is the living example why the Church chooses not to disclose finances and personnel information such as salaries and benefits. 

Really, the LDS Church's near total absence of financial disclosure is working out great from your perspective?  You honestly can't see how a bit more transparency, perhaps along the lines public companies in the US are required to disclose (in their public SEC filings, etc.) would have prevented this whole thread?

It's a "living example"--I'll grant you that.

;0)

--Erik

Edited January 26, 2017 by Five Solas
clarity

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Can you quote the post where this was done? (A "character assassination" against a general authority.)

Not very conveniently, but it would be in another, closed thread as part of suggesting improprieties in their financial arrangements. My comment was my generalization of a dynamic I saw plying out there.

Edited January 26, 2017 by CV75

[Five Solas]

On 1/24/2017 at 5:59 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

Maybe there's more to the whole "Merry Smithmas" than we previously thought.

Looks like M. Russell Ballard really stuck his boot in Scott Lloyd's milk pail.  I remember a couple years back Scott leveraged the Christmas season to preempt the critics with his memorable, "Smithmas: A Perennial Anti-Mormon Lie."  

Let's hope he can forgive him for this...

;0)

--Erik

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I would agree with you.  Members are facing continual hits against their faith by learning things about the Church they didn't know.
It's almost like God wants their faith to be tried to its very core to see if they can stand.
It reminds one of all the trials of faith the early saints went through.  All the apostasy, all the doubts, all the persecutions.  Kind of like testing the faith is required.

Nah...that couldn't be it.  God doesn't like our faith tried.  He wants us to be happy, confident and perfectly content in all things.  Right?

Yes, I agree with the first part.  But it doesn't release the institutional church from the responsibility of correcting mistakes.  Nor does it release us from our responsibility to "mourn with those who mourn".

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seeing these 8 pages of nits being picked over just two old leaked pay stubs, imagine the fun time many would have with fine-toothed combs searching for other juicy nits in the Church financial records if they had access to them. 

Doing the right thing shouldn't be predicated on whether or not one will be criticized.

[rockpond]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

It would all depend on how the council went, and on their penitence. If defiant, I definitely think excommunication should be considered because:

--- They knowingly transmitted and publicized what they knew to be confidential institutional Church information.

--- I think the very existence of "MormonLeaks" (there was discussion on reddit over why they are trademarking it) is seditious and an act of rebellion against the Church. I consider that to be apostasy. That's a bold step that means you have crossed the Rubicon. 

--- This would come out in the council, in either direction, but I would want them to discuss their motives. Desire to harm members' faith would be crucial. I'm sure the claim would be that they just wanted to force transparency, they don't want to hurt anyone's faith, they believe in the Brethren, etc. But, it becomes pretty clear in such councils where people are at, and there are ways of talking for people whose primary consideration is remaining in the Church and remaining in decent standing. Hypothetically, of course, since these people are not under me and I don't know any of the above firsthand ---- I am confident that those behind WikiLeaks mean the Church ill-will, and want to see it suffer --- and people's faith in the restored gospel suffer. If that came out in spades in the council, then I would lean strongly towards ex- or dis-. Ultimately, the prayers for revelation are the key.

--- What lengths are the people willing to go to try to repair the damage they have caused to people's faith and to the Church's good name? Or, are they unwilling to do much of anything to enact a Paul/Alma the Younger turnaround?

 

I understand the "rebellion" piece though it seems to follow church policy, you'd need to first let them know that you considered it apostasy and then give them the opportunity to stop.

As for damaging people's faith:  if the information leaked is all correct, there should be no reason that it damages people's faith.  If accurate information damages people's faith - that should be on the Church, not on those who leaked it.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Looks like M. Russell Ballard really stuck his boot in Scott Lloyd's milk pail.  I remember a couple years back Scott leveraged the Christmas season to preempt the critics with his memorable, "Smithmas: A Perennial Anti-Mormon Lie."  

Let's hope he can forgive him for this...

;0)

--Erik

If you think a snarky remark about a General Authority talk, or honor shown to the Prophet of the Restoration on or near his birthday is going to bring shame to me, you've totally misread me and anything I've said in the past.

And by the way, the whole made-up "Smithmas" meme is still anti-Mormon dishonesty.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As for damaging people's faith:  if the information leaked is all correct, there should be no reason that it damages people's faith.  If accurate information damages people's faith - that should be on the Church, not on those who leaked it.

I’m assuming that you hold that damaging an LDS person’s faith is something to be avoided, and when intentional is immoral, and when thoughtless, condemnable. Those officers charged with holding LDS information in behalf of the members are obligated to use, and when deemed appropriate, present it in a way consistent with Church practice, policy and procedure, which are designed to respect the members’ faith. When this information is presented as facts without guidance, in unauthorized ways, or with an insinuated negative context, it can certainly damage someone's faith. But it's not the data that is harmful; it's the person manipulating the data, even when someone finds something they aren't authorized to see by accident and draw biased, misinformed conclusions.

Edited January 26, 2017 by CV75

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understand the "rebellion" piece though it seems to follow church policy, you'd need to first let them know that you considered it apostasy and then give them the opportunity to stop.

Of course. That goes without saying. I wouldn't hold a council out of the blue, with no prior discussion. By policy, the council has to be authorized by the stake president, anyway, so the person would have had to have at least met with him. Prior to sending someone to the stake president, I always have met extensively with the people before (and, in fact, we have always both agreed on the course of action and that they are meeting with him to get the next step authorized).

I have always worked with repentant people, so I have to think hypothetically here. If a member of my ward were involved with MormonLeaks (supplier or distributor) and it came to my attention, I would meet with him and ask him about it. If he categorically denied any involvement, I would share what I knew and have to make a judgment call on whom I believe. If talking to the person led me to question my information, nothing further would be done. If I believed the information, or the person confirmed involvement, I would counsel with him about his attitude, motives, and contrition. If not penitent, or refusing to cease and desist and rectify where possible, I would explain that I would be referring the matter to the stake president because I felt that this matter requires formal Church discipline. Then, I would brief the stake president on my thoughts, and set up an appointment.

I definitely would give him an opportunity to repent first, and keep it from escalating to a DC.

As for damaging people's faith:  if the information leaked is all correct, there should be no reason that it damages people's faith.  If accurate information damages people's faith - that should be on the Church, not on those who leaked it.

Whether or not the embarrassing or troubling information is true is a separate matter from the rebellious action against the Church. I still think that Church disciplinary action should be taken, even if it were for a "greater good." 

Aside from all this, I think some good might come from these leaks, but I think the motives and modus operandi of the leakers are deplorable, and should be disciplined even if they have a point to an extent.

 

[JulieM]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not very conveniently, but it would be in another, closed thread as part of suggesting improprieties in their financial arrangements. My comment was my generalization of a dynamic I saw plying out there.

Yeah, I didn't think you could provide any quotes where anyone was doing a "character assassination" on a general authority.  Maybe you should withdraw that accusation if you can't back it up?

Edited January 26, 2017 by JulieM