The Next Time a Critic Gripes Re: Church's Business Interests . . . Quote Quinn

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

And many countries do not have such laws.  

And some do.

"Because other people do it" is not very persuasive.

I have no idea what you mean by "greater transparency."  You won't define the term.  You won't explain what it is you are looking for.  Without limiting principles (which you haven't provided), yes, what you are calling for is "morally equivalent with wanting to see into President Monson's home."

So what sort of improved "transparency" are you calling for?

Nope.  Not worried about the Church.  I am, however, concerned about critics calling for "transparency" as a pretext for . . . something else.  I've explained that several times now.

And there it is (again).  You aren't looking for "transparency."  You are looking for . . . dirt.  You are looking for grist.  You are looking for data points to be deployed against the Church.

By the way, what is "philanthropic work?"  What would be included in that?  I suspect it wouldn't matter.  The critics aren't interested in the welfare of those the Church helps.  The critics are only interested in data points for use in attacking the Church. It's an exercise in futility to try to placate faultfinders, because they will always be able to succeed in that exercise.  Always.

And your admission that you are not concerned about "scandals," and instead hoping for data points to weaponize against the Church pretty much confirms what I surmised.  I appreciate you at least being up-front about that.

"Lots of other things" = Endless demands for more disclosures.  And more after that.  And more after that.

Yep, you're pretty much confirming my previous surmise.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're not worried about the optics or the church, yet all your answers show me that's exactly what you're worried about.   Its a slippery slope paranoia. 

If playing by the same rules as many other public institutions do with respect to financial transparency will lead to all the doom and gloom that you're professing, then perhaps we do have something to worry about with respect to the church's dealings.  You seem to be overly worried about something that most other large institutions are already successfully navigating.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not at all clear why having an interest in something entails one should have any voice in the matter. In a government by the people for the people one can make a case we all have a voice. Ditto formal shareholders in a public corporation. But if I'm curious of my neighbor's business that should not in any way shape or form entail I have a right to know.

Your analogy is poor.  The basic rational is that because of the subsidy in the form of tax exempt status is provided for religious institutions for the public good, that the public also has an interest in the performance of these institutions.  In addition there is an interest of all the members of the religious institution, especially those contributing financially to the institution.  

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's certainly the argument of some. Take Wikileaks' claim that information wants to be free. I think that's a horrible argument. It'd basically mean if I have a security camera I password protect you ought to be able to see it since security can be cracked.

As to the masses, you have faith education will do such things while neglecting the limits of education - not all have the skills to be educated nor the time/skill to become sufficiently educated in order to have an opinion that's sufficiently educated. I recognize that right now culturally there's deep skepticism and outright hostility towards experts. Trump is one manifestation of that populism besetting the country right now. I think the evidence is pretty strong that the masses are uneducated about most matters and that their judgments are poor. The idea this would change with education seems more a faith than a position with much demonstrable evidence. In any case I'd certainly change my view if the masses did become educated in that way. The reality is that right now they are ridiculously far from such educated views.

I certainly don't mind efforts to attempt to educate the populace. I think a more educated populace is a good thing. The question is more whether the can become educated enough to make transparency the good you think it is. Until we have evidence that the populace is so educated why don't we ease back on the transparency a little given that the public is making so many bad decisions in their current state.

This is another poor analogy, no-one is arguing for the ability to see into the homes of private citizens.  The number of slippery slope and straw-man arguments being used in this message thread to support the status quo is difficult for me to comprehend.  

I have faith for two reasons, one is that I'm wired that way as an optimistic person, but two is that I find the alternative option of control of information by the elites to be distasteful and I'm opposed to it on moral and historical grounds.  We either make freedom and transparency work as a society, or we will be ruled by the baser instincts of human nature.  The populism of Trump is disturbing, but the counter to this trend is better information, more persuasion, not more control and power in the hands of the few.    

These impulses that you're articulating are scary for me to hear, especially because I typically find your arguments very reasoned and thought out.  I'm worried about the direction of our culture too, as it sounds that you are, but I'm not going down the road that we've seen from history has led to oppressive regimes and abuses of power on massive scales. 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're not worried about the optics or the church,

Nope.  Not really.

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

yet all your answers show me that's exactly what you're worried about.   

Tell you what.  I'll let you tell me what you think.  And I won't presume to tell you what you think.  And I'll ask that you reciprocate.

How's that?

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If playing by the same rules as many other public institutions do with respect to financial transparency

What "same rules" are you talking about here?  CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It is a vague, amorphous, ambiguous concept.

To the extent that "financial transparancy" means something, and to the extent you provided some indicia as to what "financial transparency" means, and to the extent the Church's behavior matches those indicia, yes.

Yes, I know what they say.  But "what they say" presupposes some coherent definitional standard of "financial transparency."  That phrase is very malleable, and can mean different things to different people.  And to the extent you provided resources that purport to quantify "financial transparency," it seems like the Church's financial and auditing and oversight practices seem to fall within them.

What they say is based upon this definition of "financial transparency", which is Principle 5 of being certified by their organization.

ECFA Standard 5: Transparency

"Every organization shall provide a copy of its current financial statements upon written request and shall provide other disclosures as the law may require. The financial statements required to comply with Standard 3 must be disclosed under this standard.

An organization must provide a report, upon written request, including financial information on any specific project for which it sought or is seeking gifts."

It goes on to say:

"The standard states that “every organization shall provide” its financial statements. A complete set of financial statements must be provided, including the auditor’s report, all financial statements, and notes to the financial statements. A management or comment letter is not included in the definition of financial statements.

"Under this standard, an organization has no authority to determine the parameters of meeting the requirement, unless an exception later described herein applies. Compliance with this standard is a condition of continued ECFA accreditation in good standing.

"The words “shall provide” clearly set forth the mandatory nature of this standard’s requirement. Its language is not permissive in scope and does not merely provide a “guide” for a form of public accountability. Rather, this standard requires the organization to provide its financial statements.

"The use of the word “provide” in the drafting of the standard is intentional. The sense of the word is “to supply,” “to furnish,” or “to give.” Merely making a current financial report available for inspection at the organization’s headquarters or financial office is not sufficient. Restricting availability or charging a fee before providing a report discourages access. These restrictive practices are inconsistent with the standard’s underlying policy and philosophy.

"ECFA Standard 3 requires each organization to submit complete and accurate financial statements.

"ECFA Standard 5 requires the disclosure of the current financial statements, complete with the CPA’s opinion and notes. Summaries of financial statements contained in newsletters, brochures, or promotional literature do not satisfy the requirement of Standard 5. However, if the financial report as defined under Standard 3 is part of a larger report, such as the organization’s annual report or a book of annual reports of affiliated or associated organizations, providing such a document puts the organization in compliance with Standard 5."

 -----------------------------------------------

Of course the LDS Church is not governed by the rules of the ECFA. However, the way they define transparency and their explanation for why it is important hits the bulls eye of what the broad principle of financial transparency is about.

 

Quote

The problem, however, is that some folks think that the Church is not sufficiently "financially transparent."  Hence my query about what that term means, about what sort of metrics are in play.

Why is publishing the particulars of these amounts the benchmark of "finanical transparency?"  Says who?

I didn't say merely publishing the balance sheet is the benchmark of "financial transparency". I said the items on the balance sheet are the details the church is most secretive about.

 

Quote

Your speculation is noted, and taken as such.

Also, CFR that "{n}ot even the apostles are allowed to see the church's balance sheet."

Please see Exhibit A on page 4 of the document Financial Standard 6230: Accessing and Securing Financial Information, signed June 3, 2013 by church controller Alan L. Bott. It says the Quorum of the Twelve do not have access to the following elements on the balance sheet: Cash, Investment securities, Investment properties, Other assets, Liabilities, or Net assets. The Twelve are granted access to things like "operations expenditures" and "project expenditures", but "Only for departments/areas under their stewardship. Documentation of stewardship is retained by the function that provides confidential information to evidence the appropriateness of the access granted."

So, all 7.6 billion people on the planet have access to the income statements and balance sheets of the thousands of organizations that are members of the ECFA. In contrast, there are only seven people who can see those records for the LDS Church: the Presiding Bishopric, the First Presidency, and the Church Controller.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Analytics

[Johnnie Cake]

So now Quinn is a believer hero? Talk about confirmation bias. If he’s a credible source on this ( which I believe he is) why would his other assertions not also be credible. Such as his assertion of priesthood power evolution and the non existence of an actual restoration of priesthood power

Edited October 18, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Tell you what.  I'll let you tell me what you think.  And I won't presume to tell you what you think.  And I'll ask that you reciprocate.

How's that?

Sounds fair. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What "same rules" are you talking about here?  CFR, please.

I'm talking about religions having the same rules for financial statements as other large corporations and charitable organizations, instead of having a religious exemption.  

[Danzo]

23 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Your citation does not apply to religions.  Charities in each state are governed by the state attorney general's office.  In order to obtain charitable 501(c)(3) status, a charity must have a letter of authorization from the attorney general.  So, in such case, specific law requires charities to make certain returns public.  . . .

Actually, for an organization to be tax exempt (under 501(c)(3) or  any of the 501(c) needs to file a form 1023 or 1024  see https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf

The last page includes a checklist of things required. (I am only responding because I have filled these forms out for clients and try to keep up on what is required. )

[Five Solas]

On 10/15/2017 at 9:45 AM, smac97 said:

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

If I were LDS, this would cause considerably more alarm than an instance or two of an LDS leader enriching himself through the power of his position.  A little discipline, and that's a relatively easy fix.  But if the LDS Church in the UK is unsustainable - well, now we've got the Titanic meeting the iceberg & its only a matter of time before global pretense must be discarded. 

Perhaps the author is more subtle in his work than some of you suspect. 

;0)

--Erik 

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If I were LDS, this would cause considerably more alarm than an instance or two of an LDS leader enriching himself through the power of his position.

Happy to let you be alarmed on my behalf, Erik! 

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

If I were LDS, this would cause considerably more alarm than an instance or two of an LDS leader enriching himself through the power of his position.  A little discipline, and that's a relatively easy fix.  But if the LDS Church in the UK is unsustainable - well, now we've got the Titanic meeting the iceberg & its only a matter of time before global pretense must be discarded. 

Perhaps the author is more subtle in his work than some of you suspect. 

;0)

--Erik 

The Church in the UK is required to publish its financial accounts and they are a matter of public record. Converted into dollars at current exchange rates, these are the historical subsidies received from SLC by year:

2016 - $4.22 million
2015 - $48.56 million
2014 - $10.95 million
2013 - $17.55 million
2012 - $23.75 million
2011 - $6.33 million
2010 - $1.58 million
2009 - $4.22 million
2008 - $0
2007 - $5.54 million

 

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

If I were LDS, this would cause considerably more alarm than an instance or two of an LDS leader enriching himself through the power of his position.  A little discipline, and that's a relatively easy fix.  But if the LDS Church in the UK is unsustainable - well, now we've got the Titanic meeting the iceberg & its only a matter of time before global pretense must be discarded. 

Perhaps the author is more subtle in his work than some of you suspect. 

;0)

--Erik 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  What is it that in your view should "cause considerably more alarm?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Regarding the Church's for-profit enterprises, D&C 42:30-39 speaks about the "Law of Consecration," as follows:

Quote

30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

Consecration of substance is an interesting concept.  In the 19th century, "substance" probably pertained more to things like foodstuffs, farm animals, etc.  These things would be "consecrated" ("laid before the bishop") because the early Saints literally had very little actual cash (gold, notes, etc.).  These days "substance" for most of us means . . . money.  That is generally the "fruit" of our labor.

Moving on...

Quote

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

Much emphasis on the "poor and the needy."  I think that is wonderful.  Also wonderful is the limiting principle in verse 32 ("as much as is sufficient for himself and family").  I don't think the idea here is to instill in the Saints a feeling of dependence on the Church.  To the contrary, the system would not work if that were the case.  The long-term goal then was (and remains now) self-reliance.

Quote

35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed—

Hmm.  So "purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church" is what the Church has been doing for a very, very long time.  Real estate is among the Church's principal for-profit endeavors.  And that real estate is not used to build lavishly landscaped mansions for the General Authorities, but rather for "building houses of worship," and also for agricultural purposes.  The Church also buys and sells land for development purposes, with the monies being fed back into the Church's efforts to care for its people and for others.

I have long known about the Church's practice of acquiring real estate holdings, but I had not tied that practice to this verse (and, hence, to the Law of Consecration).

Quote

36 That my covenant people may be gathered in one in that day when I shall come to my temple. And this I do for the salvation of my people.

37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me—

38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.

Verse 37 may actually have some real legal significance, as it clarifies that contributions to the Church are some sort of "investment," for which a church member becomes a "stakeholder," and on which he expects a "return."

This last bit is interesting:

Quote

39 For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.

What do you think this means?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Five Solas]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.  What is it that in your view should "cause considerably more alarm?"

Thanks,

-Smac

The bit I quoted from your post, Smac--

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

That the LDS Church in the UK is on a unsustainable trajectory and cannot support its own infrastructure requirements without subsidy from Salt Lake--well, that's a bit startling, isn't it?  After what, the better part of two centuries since it was first established over there?  With such maturity, one might reasonably expect to see a healthy surplus that could be put to use elsewhere, perhaps in the developing world, but certainly not expect to see ongoing loss requiring subsidy. 

Correct me if I've missed something. 

--Erik

 

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

[Smac97] Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

Quote

 

[Five Solas] That the LDS Church in the UK is on a unsustainable trajectory and cannot support its own infrastructure requirements without subsidy from Salt Lake--well, that's a bit startling, isn't it?  After what, the better part of two centuries since it was first established over there?  With such maturity, one might reasonably expect to see a healthy surplus that could be put to use elsewhere, perhaps in the developing world, but certainly not expect to see ongoing loss requiring subsidy. 

Correct me if I've missed something. 

--Erik

 

You've missed something, and you're about to be corrected.

Contributions from areas where membership concentration is highest go to support Latter-day Saint operations in most of the rest of the world, wherever that might be.  The "unsustainable trajectory" bit is your gloss.  (Wishful thinking, perhaps? ) 

Your problem is that you think (wish?  hope? ) that "the Titanic is meeting the iceberg" everywhere in the world, but, thanks to areas where contributions are most generous, it's not.  That's not something you're worried about, so much as it's something that sticks in your craw.

I'm sure you appreciate my correction.  You're welcome.  I'm glad I could clear up the misconception.  Anything else?  

Edited October 23, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

The bit I quoted from your post, Smac--

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

That the LDS Church in the UK is on a unsustainable trajectory and cannot support its own infrastructure requirements without subsidy from Salt Lake--well, that's a bit startling, isn't it?

Well, not really.  The secularization of Europe has weakened organized religion throughout that region.  And the birthrate is very low (well below replacement levels).  And missionary work is, as I understand it, not doing very well.  More secularization + fewer babies + fewer converts = the UK Saints struggling to be self-sustaining.

So we have work to do there.  We also have work to do in lots of other places.  And the "work" involves a lot more than financial health.  As I understand it, Utah is probably hands-down the "center of strength" of the Church in terms of sheer numbers of observant members, missionaries, contributions, temple work, so on.  And yet there are plenty of ways in which the Saints in Utah are struggling.  Plenty.

So no, I'm not startled that the Church in the UK is struggling financially.  I don't really parse things out that way.  The Saints in the UK are as important and worthwhile as the Saints anywhere else.  We are all in this together.

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

 After what, the better part of two centuries since it was first established over there?  With such maturity, one might reasonably expect to see a healthy surplus that could be put to use elsewhere, perhaps in the developing world, but certainly not expect to see ongoing loss requiring subsidy. 

Correct me if I've missed something. 

--Erik

Yes, I suppose "one might reasonably expect" that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Danzo said:

Actually, for an organization to be tax exempt (under 501(c)(3) or  any of the 501(c) needs to file a form 1023 or 1024  see https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf

The last page includes a checklist of things required. (I am only responding because I have filled these forms out for clients and try to keep up on what is required. )

I haven't been following the thread completely either, but that seems to be a component that some appear to be ignoring completely. The public does have an interest in ensuring that tax exempt organizations are operating within the scope of what has been defined by law, and the public agency responsible for ensuring that happens is the IRS. It's not like the IRS is ignorant about the LDS church. If they had any reason to believe that we weren't operating within the scope of a tax exempt organization you can bet there would be an audit.

[sheilauk]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not startled that the Church in the UK is struggling financially.  I don't really parse things out that way.  The Saints in the UK are as important and worthwhile as the Saints anywhere else.  We are all in this together. 

Thanks,

-Smac

As well as trying to cope with secularism and falling congregations, the UK has low wages, which are almost stagnating, and high prices, particularly in housing costs.  Its one of the most expensive missions to be called to.   I imagine a lot of UK saints are not well paid,  meaning low tithe receipts and probably a lot of need for assistance from the church.  I'm grateful the church is able to assist us keep our chapels and temples open. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

44 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

 I'm grateful the church is able to assist us keep our chapels and temples open. 

It's consecration in action.

[kiwi57]

21 hours ago, Five Solas said:

If I were LDS, this would cause considerably more alarm than an instance or two of an LDS leader enriching himself through the power of his position.  A little discipline, and that's a relatively easy fix.  But if the LDS Church in the UK is unsustainable - well, now we've got the Titanic meeting the iceberg & its only a matter of time before global pretense must be discarded. 

Oh, don't you just wish that were the case!

"Global pretense?" What does that mean, exactly?

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by kiwi57

[smac97]

Some thoughts on this topic from Daniel Peterson:

Quote

Detractors of Mormonism who might have been expecting his new book to be hostile to the Church and its leaders will, I think, be deeply disappointed.  (Very possibly, they’ll simply pretend that he’s said nothing at all.)

In this interview, Dr. Quinn expresses frank admiration for the Church’s management of its finances, which he sees as essential to the global expansion of Mormonism.  Moreover, although some enemies of the Church have been denouncing it for un-Christian corporate greed and, as is sometimes said, for giving only 40 million dollars to “charity” each year out of 15 billion in annual “profits” — see, on this, my recent blog entry “A church run by greedy and rapacious robber barons?” — Dr. Quinn points out that this claim grossly distorts the reality:  Those 40 million dollars represent only the cash that the Church devotes to humanitarian efforts.  The food and clothing and medicines and other goods that it gives, as well as the service that it coordinates and sponsors and provides — in other words, its non-cash humanitarian and welfare assistance — represent contributions many times the size of that $40m cash sum.

"Frank admiration for the Church's management of its finances."

"Dr. Quinn points out that this claim {of the Church being miserly with its humanitarian endeavors} grossly distorts the reality."

I'll be curious as to how "Detractors of Mormonism" will respond to this book.  I suspect not much attention will be paid.  It'll be something like this:

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 9:49 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

You've missed something, and you're about to be corrected.

Contributions from areas where membership concentration is highest go to support Latter-day Saint operations in most of the rest of the world, wherever that might be.  The "unsustainable trajectory" bit is your gloss.  (Wishful thinking, perhaps? ) 

Your problem is that you think (wish?  hope? ) that "the Titanic is meeting the iceberg" everywhere in the world, but, thanks to areas where contributions are most generous, it's not.  That's not something you're worried about, so much as it's something that sticks in your craw.

I'm sure you appreciate my correction.  You're welcome.  I'm glad I could clear up the misconception.  Anything else?  

Sometimes I'm surprised by the rudeness on this board. This is one of those times.

Five Solas stated that it is concerning that the church in the UK cannot sustain itself and is met by rude accusations. It is laughable that you state that the church seems to be unsustainable locally in "most of the rest of the world" as some kind of defense. I think that only makes five Solas point.

It should be concerning when the church cannot be sustained locally in well-developed areas. It may be understandable in newly organized or developing areas like Africa, but to act like it's no big deal that Europe is struggling to support itself is sipping on the Kool-Aid. People are citing the secularization of Europe as a way to brush the problem away, but even if that is true, it still shows the weakness. Is anyone aware of financial #'s for other churches in the UK? I'd be curious, for example, to see whether or not the catholic church is bailing out the UK diocese

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sometimes I'm surprised by the rudeness on this board. This is one of those times.

Okay.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Five Solas stated that it is concerning that the church in the UK cannot sustain itself and is met by rude accusations. It is laughable that you state that the church seems to be unsustainable locally in "most of the rest of the world" as some kind of defense. I think that only makes five Solas point.

I'm not sure this is a "defense."  It's an explanation.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It should be concerning when the church cannot be sustained locally in well-developed areas.

Agreed.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It may be understandable in newly organized or developing areas like Africa, but to act like it's no big deal that Europe is struggling to support itself is sipping on the Kool-Aid.

How about "Concerning, but not surprising."  Would that do?

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People are citing the secularization of Europe as a way to brush the problem away,

Not "brush ... away."  Explain.  Seeking to understand the problem does not mean we are ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but even if that is true, it still shows the weakness.

Yep.  We have work to do

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is anyone aware of financial #'s for other churches in the UK? I'd be curious, for example, to see whether or not the catholic church is bailing out the UK diocese

Here you go: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Governance-and-Contact/Catholic-Trust-CaTEW/Reports-and-Accounts

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

I'm not sure this is a "defense."  It's an explanation.

Agreed.

How about "Concerning, but not surprising."  Would that do?

Not "brush ... away."  Explain.  Seeking to understand the problem does not mean we are ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.

Yep.  We have work to do

Here you go: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Governance-and-Contact/Catholic-Trust-CaTEW/Reports-and-Accounts

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.

So how do you explain the snarkiness by other posters towards five solas for simply suggesting that it is concerning if the church cannot sustain itself locally?

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

So how do you explain the snarkiness by other posters towards five solas for simply suggesting that it is concerning if the church cannot sustain itself locally?

So when FS says things like:

On 10/20/2017 at 4:10 PM, kiwi57 said:

now we've got the Titanic meeting the iceberg & its only a matter of time before global pretense must be discarded. 

That's "simply suggesting that it is concerning," is it?

Why does your hypervigilance for "snarkiness" only appear to run one way?

Or does smug Schadenfreude not count as "snarkiness" in  your view?

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

So how do you explain the snarkiness by other posters towards five solas for simply suggesting that it is concerning if the church cannot sustain itself locally?

I'm not sure it's my place to explain such things.  "Snarkiness" may be genuine or in the eye of the beholder.  I haven't been paying attention much.

Sometimes "concern" for the Church from critics can come across as schadenfreude.  If so, then that' can put some people (including me) on the defensive.

Nevertheless, for myself, I acknowledge that I sometimes speak in the heat of the moment.  I'm working on the tone and content of my words here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 21, 2017 by smac97