Church Finances---official source

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, it is an assumption in general on my part. I'm confident that I'm correct, in the main, but nobody else needs to be bound by that. 

I agree that it isn't unexpected. What I find interesting is the inordinate obsessing over it when they have already voted with their feet (or their wallet).

People who currently donate --- good point. I realize that many of the critics have donated at some point or used to donate. The point is that the obsessive critics on this point aren't actually donating (according to my assumption).

 

 

I'm not dismissing their concerns. I understand them. I think it would be a really good thing if the Church were transparent with finances, but it is also a complete non-issue for me, personally. 

I think that the reason the Church doesn't release financial information like it used to is because they don't want people to see salaries and sheer amount of money (or lack) with certain priorities compared to others. I'm not trying to shift blame or change the subject. But I also think it's a valid point that the loudest critics have voted with their feet/wallet, but they can't stand that other people don't make the same decision. That's interesting to me. 

Thank you for labeling it as an unsubstantiated assumption. While I'm sure there are many critics who no longer donate I'm equally sure that there are many critics who continue to donate. And as Faith suggests, a person who has donated thousands of dollars throughout his/her life don't suddenly lose interest or a forfeit their stake in the institutional church and its practices.

I pay tithing every month (not that it's anyone's business) yet I am still a critic. So your generalized point about critics and donations isn't correct. I would suggest you rethink your unsubstantiated over-generalizations.

[CA Steve]

In my view, since the church leaders are not infallible, financial disclosure is a good idea.

I have had the same financial guy handling my retirement accounts for years. He has done very well by me and it is in his interest to do so since what he makes is based on the size of my portfolio. I have a great deal of trust in him for a variety of reasons, like where he works, how long he has been doing this, how long we have been working together, reports from other people who use him and the fact his income is tied to how well he manages my accounts. 

 

Regardless of how well he is doing, I still expect him to explain to me where and how he is managing my accounts.

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I suppose we have different understandings about definitions for "threat" and "coercion".

I guess we do.  My definitions come from the dictionary.  Yours come from Whatever-Ad-Hoc-Definition-I-Can-Fabricate-That-Makes-The-LDS-Church-Look-Bad.com, or something.

"Threat": "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace."

"Coercion": "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance / force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force."

The LDS Church is a religious group predicated on voluntary association.  Nobody is "threatened" or "coerced" into joining, and it is a joke for you to imply otherwise.  Nobody is "threatened" or "coerced" into paying tithing, either, and that's a joke, too.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it coercive to teach that a person's salvation depends on whether or not they pay tithing donations to the church?

No.  I don't infantalize people.  I expect them to use their intellect and gifts of reasoning, and their agency, to make choices of what to believe or not to believe.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it not a threat to tell a person that they won't be able to qualify for a temple recommend and attend a child's wedding/sealing unless they make tithing donations to the church?

No.  Admission to the temple is an entirely voluntary thing.  

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

While I agree that tithing donations aren't enforced with physical force,

Or any other kind of "force."

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

that doesn't mean that there isn't coercion by implying threats for noncompliance.

Malarky.  There is no "coercion" or "threat" in any reasonable sense.

If you truly felt that, you would report the Church to law enforcement.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

IF the donations were totally voluntary with NO threats or coercion you might have a stronger point.

They are, and I do.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

But as it is, there are definite consequences for paying and not paying.

Which do not amount to any reasonable definition of "coercion" or "threats."

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

The threat of those consequences can very easily be seen as coercion.

That is profoundly, absurdly contrived and wrong.  I reject it.

Have you reported the LDS Church to law enforcement for "threatening" and "coercing" financial contributions?  If so, then CFR.  If not, then your argument here is fatuous and absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I pay tithing every month (not that it's anyone's business) yet I am still a critic. So your generalized point about critics and donations isn't correct. I would suggest you rethink your unsubstantiated over-generalizations.

I made it clear that it isn't an absolute; exceptions will always prove the rule (as in test).  

Do you disagree that probably most of these financial critics aren't donating. Purely in your non-binding opinion.

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, when you make ridiculous comments, you shouldn't be surprised when people point out how ridiculous they sound.

 

I used to think it was ridiculous to question the church too. I always used to think it was a violation of a covenant. However, it gets easier the more I do it. 😃

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

In my view, since the church leaders are not infallible, financial disclosure is a good idea.

I have had the same financial guy handling my retirement accounts for years. He has done very well by me and it is in his interest to do so since what he makes is based on the size of my portfolio. I have a great deal of trust in him for a variety of reasons, like where he works, how long he has been doing this, how long we have been working together, reports from other people who use him and the fact his income is tied to how well he manages my accounts. 

 

Regardless of how well he is doing, I still expect him to explain to me where and how he is managing my accounts.

Tithed funds are your money?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Question: 

For those who pop a blood vessel about City Creek, what do you think about the Church doing the same thing (on a smaller scale) around the Mesa temple? The Church has bought the property around it, and has razed/is razing homes and businesses (prominently, an iconic Dairy Queen that has been there forever). The goal is to beautify what has become rundown blight around the temple, and to expand the grounds and build a new visitor's center.

I would imagine that City Creek critics also think that this is a bad and inappropriate use of tithing money. I also think that the price tag, while not as big as City Creek, is eye-popping. I could see people having unfettered access to financials raising no end of objections to unending things. 

I totally agree. I have no doubt there would be criticism, but is the church so afraid of criticism that they feel they must hide information? Sounds weak to me.

Some objections may be frivolous but some will be valid. An institution that is fearful about their ability to make a case for how they spend their money really does throw up some red flags. These things should be open for discussion. Have you considered that open, honest conversation about these things might help critics gain understanding and appreciation for what the church is doing? Perhaps I am too accustomed to the transparency of our government and the expectation that leaders should be accountable to the people they serve, that I expect something similar for the church. Whether it is a fair expectation or not, it's the expectation I have. I think anyone who reads/studies a little about institutional/organizational change will recognize that in todays world customers, agents, employees, and any interested party has a growing expectation for transparency. That trend isn't likely to change any time soon which means the church will be at increasingly greater odds with individuals who expect transparency and accountability, especially in the US.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I made it clear that it isn't an absolute; exceptions will always prove the rule (as in test).  

Do you disagree that probably most of these financial critics aren't donating. Purely in your non-binding opinion.

I have no idea. There is no way of knowing...which is my point and why I think you're overreaching.

[cinepro]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we do.  My definitions come from the dictionary.  Yours come from Whatever-Ad-Hoc-Definition-I-Can-Fabricate-That-Makes-The-LDS-Church-Look-Bad.com, or something.

"Threat": "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace."

"Coercion": "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance / force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force."

 

So if someone doesn't pay their tithing, what happens (both in this life and the next)?

 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What about tax laws?  Are you suggesting that the church is mixing all revenue together between for profit businesses and tax exempt donations? 

Also, you may find some of the recent interviews that Mormon Stories did with Roger Hendrix.  He was asked about the tithing funds mixing with other revenue and he rejected that idea from his perspective.   

I'm simply taking what they say at face value. Tithing is their primary source of revenue. They save some of it for a rainy day. The money they save is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. They pay taxes.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I think fidelity to the principle of honesty in dealings with your fellow man includes you uploading your last five years of tax statements.  And your bank statements going back at least one year (three would be better).  And documentation for each and every exemption you have claimed on your taxes.  And all available paperwork about your investments and business interests.

Golly!  Fabricating arbitrary and ad hoc definitions of "honesty" is fun!

I already explained my reasoning for institutional transparency, which ironically you probably support for most public institutions, but you're arguing for an exemption for the church for no seemingly coherent reason other than your allegiance to the status quo.  

Then you come up with an absurd comparison that doesn't make any sense.  I know from past discussions that have very different perspectives ideologically, but this seems to be a stretch of the reasoning far past where you typically argue.  

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it's your job to publicly "reprove" the General Authorities of the Church?  While hiding behind a pseudonym?  And while refusing to disclose your own finances?

I thought we were supposed to apply the scriptures to ourselves?  The way I read D&C 121 is these are principles that apply to everyone.   Please try not to devolve into your hobby horse contention about pseudonyms, that is so tired and distracting from the point in the thread.  

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we do.  My definitions come from the dictionary.  Yours come from Whatever-Ad-Hoc-Definition-I-Can-Fabricate-That-Makes-The-LDS-Church-Look-Bad.com, or something.

"Threat": "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace."

"Coercion": "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance / force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force."

The LDS Church is a religious group predicated on voluntary association.  Nobody is "threatened" or "coerced" into joining, and it is a joke for you to imply otherwise.  Nobody is "threatened" or "coerced" into paying tithing, either, and that's a joke, too.

No.  I don't infantalize people.  I expect them to use their intellect and gifts of reasoning, and their agency, to make choices of what to believe or not to believe.

No.  Admission to the temple is an entirely voluntary thing.  

Or any other kind of "force."

Malarky.  There is no "coercion" or "threat" in any reasonable sense.

If you truly felt that, you would report the Church to law enforcement.

They are, and I do.

Which do not amount to any reasonable definition of "coercion" or "threats."

That is profoundly, absurdly contrived and wrong.  I reject it.

Have you reported the LDS Church to law enforcement for "threatening" and "coercing" financial contributions?  If so, then CFR.  If not, then your argument here is fatuous and absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just to be clear, from the definition of coercion you used, which is different than the one I provided, you are stating that something is only coercive if there is a physical threat?

If we can't agree that there is a stated ecclesiastical consequence for paying or not paying tithing, and that stated consequence could be viewed as a threat and therefore coercive then there's not much use in continuing this conversation. If you can't even accept the possibility that some people donate because of what it gets them, or out of fear of what will happen if they don't pay, then you are choosing willful blindness.

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How do you define people that "donate" to the church?  What if I've donated twice as much money as you have over my lifetime, but I stopped donating in the past 2 years.  Are my concerns about financial transparency all the sudden null and void?

People who currently donate --- good point. I realize that many of the critics have donated at some point or used to donate. The point is that the obsessive critics on this point aren't actually donating (according to my assumption).

How do you define currently donate?  Is there a statute of limitations for donations?  Isn't this really just an attempt to dismiss the arguments of certain people by painting them as not part of the insiders club?  

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I predict that when it does happen in the USA that people like yourself will consider it a non-issue and not even remember when you opposed the idea in the first place.  

Is this just a backhanded way of saying  you don't think my opinions are principled?

No, I was actually thinking of a recent podcast I listened to about how when people change their mind on an issue they often reconstruct their memories about their earlier position so that they now align those prior memories with their newly changed position.  In case you're interested.  

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/03/26/yanss-124-belief-change-blindness/

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

In my view, since the church leaders are not infallible, financial disclosure is a good idea.

I have had the same financial guy handling my retirement accounts for years. He has done very well by me and it is in his interest to do so since what he makes is based on the size of my portfolio. I have a great deal of trust in him for a variety of reasons, like where he works, how long he has been doing this, how long we have been working together, reports from other people who use him and the fact his income is tied to how well he manages my accounts. 

 

Regardless of how well he is doing, I still expect him to explain to me where and how he is managing my accounts.

I think President Reagan is famous for the statement to "trust, but verify."  Its a good practice.  Apparently it's a Russian proverb, but I first heard it from Reagan.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How do you define currently donate?  Is there a statute of limitations for donations?  Isn't this really just an attempt to dismiss the arguments of certain people by painting them as not part of the insiders club?  

Perhaps if you donated $5 in tithing this month your opinion would matter more...but probably not  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm simply taking what they say at face value. Tithing is their primary source of revenue. They save some of it for a rainy day. The money they save is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. They pay taxes.

But they only pay taxes on the revenue that they are required to pay taxes on, or are you suggesting the church is also paying taxes on the tithing donations?   

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So if someone doesn't pay their tithing, what happens (both in this life and the next)?

 

Good question.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps if you donated $5 in tithing this month your opinion would matter more...but probably not  

I could donate a million dollars in tithing tomorrow and certain people would still dismiss my opinion.  I don't have that kind of money anyway.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I pay tithing every month (not that it's anyone's business) yet I am still a critic. So your generalized point about critics and donations isn't correct. I would suggest you rethink your unsubstantiated over-generalizations.

I know there are academic arguments for transparency, but would you mind sharing your #1 (or top 2-3) personal reason(s) for wanting the Church to be more explicit in reporting her financial details?

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think President Reagan is famous for the statement to "trust, but verify."  Its a good practice.  Apparently it's a Russian proverb, but I first heard it from Reagan.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

I know there are academic arguments for transparency, but would you mind sharing your #1 (or top 2-3) personal reason(s) for wanting the Church to be more explicit in reporting her financial details?

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm guessing you don't know very much about the Church's history with finances.

I’m not sure how that enters into it. 

[Amulek]

42 minutes ago, Exiled said:

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Well, when you make ridiculous comments, you shouldn't be surprised when people point out how ridiculous they sound.

I used to think it was ridiculous to question the church too.

I didn't say anything about 'question[ing] the church.' I was talking about your ridiculous comments about the church gaining enough financial wealth to become a major influence in society.

I'm sorry, but that's just laughably absurd. 

 

Quote

I always used to think [questioning the church] was a violation of a covenant.

Weird. I was always taught that there's nothing wrong with questioning anything. There's nothing inherently sinful about questioning something. 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just to be clear, from the definition of coercion you used, which is different than the one I provided, you are stating that something is only coercive if there is a physical threat?

No.  But stretching "coercion" to include voluntary donations to a private religious group is absurd.j

From Wikipedia:

Quote

In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat, or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act they ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law. In criminal law, duress and necessity are different defenses.

Duress has two aspects. One is that it negates the person's consent to an act, such as sexual activity or the entering into a contract; or, secondly, as a possible legal defense or justification to an otherwise unlawful act.

The LDS Church teaching its members something like "God asks us to tithe 10 percent of our income" cannot, by any reasonable interpretation, be construed as the negation of a person's consent to act.  

Can you point to any case law supporting the notion that donations to the LDS Church have been obtained through coercion?  If so, I'd really like to see those cases.  Surely, if you are correct, then someone who has been "coerced" by those nasty Mormons must have been able to persuade an objective judge of that "coercion." 

Here's an example relating to another church: In Hawthorne v. Couch, 911 So.2d 907 (La. App. 2 Cir.9/21/05), the Court of Appeals in Louisiana made the following observations:

Quote

This case is solely one regarding tithes paid by Hawthorne to the Apostolic Tabernacle, Inc. In July 2004, Ivan Hawthorne filed suit against Michael R. Couch and the Apostolic Tabernacle, Inc. (the “Apostolic Tabernacle”). In his petition, Hawthorne sought repayment to him of tithes he paid the church, in addition to damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs of the proceedings. The petition alleged that Couch, the pastor of the Apostolic Tabernacle, obtained Hawthorne's tithe by exerting a powerful influence over members of his church, demanding total submission to his authority, and gaining complete control of the members' minds and money. Hawthorne further alleged that Couch involved himself in the day-to-day business of Healthworks International, LLC, “the business plaintiff shared with Sam Noble” (“Healthworks”). According to Hawthorne, Couch exerted “complete control over the minds of plaintiff and Noble and other executives in Healthworks International.”  In particular, Hawthorne alleged that Couch told him and Noble that they had to increase their tithes, and that Couch convinced them to pay tithes on the gross income of Healthworks;  Couch allegedly threatened Hawthorne with “judgment and hell” if he did not pay up.

Hawthorne stated in his petition that Couch knew his teaching was not biblical, but that Couch was “overwhelmed with greed and power” and at some point had the idea that he would take over Healthworks. Hawthorne alleged that the effort to comply with Couch's false teaching was bankrupting the company, and when Couch felt he had the owners and the company “on their knees,” he offered to purchase the business for a nominal sum.

Hawthorne indicated that he always intended to tithe on his income, as opposed to the gross receipts of Healthworks, that Hawthorne gave money to the appellees under duress, and that Hawthorne felt he did not have free will. Hawthorne also asserted that Couch's “misrepresentation of the Bible” was fraud, that Couch knew his teaching was false, and that Couch knew Hawthorne was relying upon that teaching in making excessive contributions to the appellees' enrichment. Finally, Hawthorne asserted that when Couch had “sucked [Hawthorne] dry,” he turned on Hawthorne and attempted to drive a wedge between Hawthorne and his wife who remained a member of the Apostolic Tabernacle.

I think it's fair to say that the above allegations are quite a bit more "high pressure" than what the LDS Church teaches.  So if there were to be a legal claim for "coercion," this guy would have a better chance of making tsuch a claim stick against the "Apostolic Tabernacle" as compared with John Q. Mormon and the comparatively milquetoast teachings of the LDS Church.

So how did the claims of duress/coercion pan out?  Let's see:

Quote

Hawthorne's allegations that relate to the validity of his consent are rooted in the religious teachings or beliefs of Couch and the Apostolic Tabernacle. Hawthorne alleged that Couch “threatened” him with “judgment and hell” if Hawthorne failed to make proper tithes. Although Hawthorne claimed not to have “free will” and his gifts were made under duress due to the fraud allegedly perpetrated by Couch, Hawthorne further characterized the pastor's position as “false teaching” based on his misinterpretation of the Bible.  At the hearing on the matter, Hawthorne explained his view regarding Couch's preaching on tithes as:

Quote

... he taught lengthy messages bringing in a lot of different scriptures, some Old Testament and some New, taught that you know, you had to tithe to be saved, it-your salvation hinged on it.

We agree with the trial court's findings rejecting Hawthorne's claim that his consent to donate was vitiated by error, fraud, or duress. Whereas Hawthorne masks his claims with legal terms such as “consent,” “error,” “fraud,” and “duress,” this controversy is indeed purely religious. Any consideration of Hawthorne's claims would require a court to examine the interpretation of the Bible on the subject of tithing which was applied by Couch and then make a determination of whether that interpretation was or was not fraudulent. A civil court is in no position to make a judicial determination of what is and what is not a correct biblical interpretation. Furthermore, to consider whether Couch was attempting to substitute his volition for Hawthorne's would likewise require a court to consider the biblical basis of Couch's “threats” aimed at Hawthorne. A court would have to consider Couch's intent in directing such statements at Hawthorne, which again would require an interpretation of the basis for the comments, i.e., the Bible. For instance, in considering the allegation that Hawthorne was “threatened” with “judgment and hell” for failing to give sufficiently, a court would need to delve into the issue of whether such statement was an actual threat to coerce Hawthorne to donate money or rather a literal interpretation of the Bible as believed by Couch. Clearly, as discussed herein, such an analysis is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of a civil trial court.

So...not well.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we can't agree that there is a stated ecclesiastical consequence for paying or not paying tithing,

We can agree on that, but not that this "consequence" amounts to coercion.

The LDS Church is not big on coercion, you see.  It goes against our doctrines.  We're big into the "agency" concept.  Consider, for example, Alma 12:31:

Quote

Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—

And 2 Nephi10:23: 

Quote

Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

And Mosiah 2:21:

Quote

I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

And Helaman 14:30:

Quote

And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

And many, many more.

Words need to have some coherent meaning.  If we stretch them to absurd lengths, as you are doing, they lose their utility.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and that stated consequence could be viewed as a threat

If I tell my son "You can touch that hot stove if you really want to, but you will get burned and it will hurt a lot," then by your reckoning, I have "coerced" him into acting (or not acting).  I have - by your reasoning - "threatened" him.

If I tell my (now adult) daughter "You are an adult now, and can make your own decisions.  But going to school and getting a good education will make you happier than working minimum wage jobs or going on welfare," then by your reckconing I have "coerced" her.  I have - by your reasoning - "threatened" her.

Or not.  

My counsel to my son to not touch a hot stove is not a "threat."  My counsel to my daughter to go to school and get a good education is not a "threat."

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and therefore coercive then there's not much use in continuing this conversation.

Indeed.  If "coercion" is to be stretched to such absurd lengths, then this conversation is petering out.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you can't even accept the possibility that some people donate because of what it gets them, or out of fear of what will happen if they don't pay, then you are choosing willful blindness.

I am choosing the dictionary.

I am choosing to not infantalize adults by suggesting that their voluntary donations to a religious group are being "coerced."

I am choosing to not indulge in fantastical and absurd slanders of the LDS Church by accusing it of "coercion."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I know there are academic arguments for transparency, but would you mind sharing your #1 (or top 2-3) personal reason(s) for wanting the Church to be more explicit in reporting her financial details?

I mentioned two things earlier in the thread, tax exempt status gives churches a subsidy, and the stakeholders have a right to know how their donations are being spent.  Cinepro also posted a link to a great argument that has been put forward from a political/legal perspective.  

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I already explained my reasoning for institutional transparency, which ironically you probably support for most public institutions, but you're arguing for an exemption for the church for no seemingly coherent reason other than your allegiance to the status quo.  

I think there are differences between public institutions and private ones.

I have also liberally quoted from a pretty good blog entry (written by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Then you come up with an absurd comparison that doesn't make any sense. 

I know.  Absurdity and arbitrariness go hand in hand.  That was sort of my point.

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought we were supposed to apply the scriptures to ourselves? 

That's right.  So I am going to interpret scriptures and insist that you submit to my interpretation.  It's my way or the highway.

Or not.  I actually have no right to "apply the scriptures" and foist that interpretation on you.  You are not in my stewardship.  It is not part of the Plan for me to exceed the bounds of my stewardship.  So I do not foist my interpretation of things on you.  I do not publicly insist that you adopt my perspective on these things.  I do not publicly denigrate you if and when you fail to bend to my will.  And you know what?  I am glad of that.  I don't want self-appointed ark-steadiers to go around telling others what to do and how to do it.  That's not their job.  That's not their stewardship.  

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The way I read D&C 121 is these are principles that apply to everyone. 

Fine.  I insist that you upload the last five years of your tax returns in PDF format.  Since we are dispensing with any notion of stewardship or authority, and since you feel at liberty to instruct prophets and apostles as to how to discharge their responsibilities re: "honesty," I must suppose that this free-for-all applies to you also.  If you get to arbitrarily make up rules for those outside your stewardship, then surely others get to do the same to you, right?

So . . . where are your returns?  Do you need a few days to come up with them?

-Smac