Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah right.  You dont' feel that right at all. 

You are right.  I don't. 

Quote

You are being disingenuous. 

No, I'm speaking hypothetically ("And if I 'feel' that I have 'right to know about' your private data...").  Surely you understand the difference?

My point is that Mr. McKnight's personal opinions are not sufficient to justify theft from the LDS Church, just as my personal opinions are not sufficient to justify theft from you.

Quote

But it's a far cry for you to demand transparency from me and people who have donated money to an org to demand some form of transparency from the org. 

Meh.  This is just special pleading ("argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view").

Mr. McKnight's personal opinions about transparency are not sufficient to justify theft from the LDS Church, just as my personal opinions about transparency are not sufficient to justify theft from you.

Quote

I think you know that, youre just being silly, as you seemingly agreed above.  

It's not "silly."  It's argument by analogy.

If an individual or organization is, in my view, not sufficiently "transparent" about its finances, I have some options:

• I can choose to not contribute to that individual/organization; or
• I can ignore that individual/organization; or
• I can seek clarification as to the applicable disclosure requirements mandated by law and see if the individual/organization is complying with them; or
• I can write to state and/or federal legislators and urge them to pass laws requiring more transparency; or
• any of a number of things.

Notably absent from these options are for me to encourage others with access to that individual's/group's private data to steal said data and secretly and anonymously send it to me, and I then get to decide - based solely on my personal opinion - to publish it to the world.

If I were to do that to you, you would be upset.  And rightly so.

But when it's the Mormons in the crosshairs, such thievery is just fine and dandy?

Quote

Of course I'd be ok if people who were giving me money felt they needed to know what I was up to, being all supported by their moneys and all that. 

Nobody is asking you that.  The question is if you would "be okay" if people encouraged your family / friends / neighbors / co-workers, etc. to steal your private sensitive data and secretly and anonymously send such data to a third person for publication to the world, all without your consent.

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Quote

I'd hope I'd feel, without any questions from them, that I'd feel the need to be transparent, if I found myself in that situation. 

Red herring.

Quote

Even if none of them were concerned about what I was doing with their money I'd hope I'd tell them anyway. 

Red herring.

Quote

This is just a silly point you are going for, if you ask me. 

Easy for your to say.  It's not your private data that is subject to being stolen and published to the world without your consent.  If that were happening, I don't think you would call it "silly."

And you'd be right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

More to the point, it is the LDS Church, and hence a second-class citizen, not entitled to the same privacy rights that are afforded to other groups and individuals.

If we were talking about someone setting up a website specifically designed to encourage your friends / family / neighbors / co-workers to steal your private data and secretly and anonymously send it to someone who dislikes you, for the express purpose of that recipient publishing your private data to the world, we would not be having this discussion.

But since it's the Mormons in the crosshairs...

I know you want to equate a church, a charitable organization, to an individual.

I want them to be generally on the same legal footing, yes.  "Equate?"  Not really.

Quote

But they aren't the same thing. It seems obvious.

I agree.  But their differences aren't really relevant.  

The LDS Church is not breaking the law (and Mr. McKnight, much to his discredit, admits that he doesn't expect to find any evidence of such, which pretty much obliterates any claim he may have had about being a "whistleblower"), but Mr. McKnight is nevertheless encouraging its employees to steal from it and send the stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.

If I did that to you, I think you would be upset.  And you would be justified in being upset.

Quote

Also, other churches disclose their finances, so why not the LDS church? Disclosure probably would solve the mormonleaks issue since that's what Mr. McKnight wants.

So "what Mr. McKnight wants" somehow justifies the solicitation of theft from the LDS Church by its employees?

Let's say that a person, "Jack," "wants" you to come forward and publish your IRL identity, and your pay stubs, and your social security number.  Since Jack "wants" you to do these things, is Jack entitled to encourage other people to steal this information from you and send it to him so that he can publish it to the world?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I want them to be generally on the same legal footing, yes.  "Equate?"  Not really.

I agree.  But their differences aren't really relevant.  

The LDS Church is not breaking the law (and Mr. McKnight, much to his discredit, admits that he doesn't expect to find any evidence of such, which pretty much obliterates any claim he may have had about being a "whistleblower"), but Mr. McKnight is nevertheless encouraging its employees to steal from it and send the stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.

If I did that to you, I think you would be upset.  And you would be justified in being upset.

So "what Mr. McKnight wants" somehow justifies the solicitation of theft from the LDS Church by its employees?

Let's say that a person, "Jack," "wants" you to come forward and publish your IRL identity, and your pay stubs, and your social security number.  Since Jack "wants" you to do these things, is Jack entitled to encourage other people to steal this information from you and send it to him so that he can publish it to the world?

Thanks,

-Smac

But I don't ask for and receive tax exempt status from the govt. Therein lies an important distinction. My argument would be less if it weren't for the tax exempt status. I still think churches should be open as they supposedly are the servant of all, like we read in scripture. As for ordinary corporations and individuals it is different.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No.  He did not access the network.  Also, I have said in many interviews that we don't concern ourselves with how the documents were obtained. Sources are fully responsible for that and must take whatever precautions they need to in that regard. This is no different than any other media outlet

 

It’s still plausible deniability on your part in the event he did access it. It’s the equivalent of saying, “If you say I told you to go ahead and do it, I’ll deny it.” 

The fact you have said you don’t concern yourself is tantamount to saying you don’t disapprove if they do steal the intellectual property, and you know all along that in all but the tiniest fraction of cases that his how they are going to come by it. Smac was right: As a practical matter, you do encourage the theft, your coy non-denial denials notwithstanding. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

I want them to be generally on the same legal footing, yes.  "Equate?"  Not really.

I agree.  But their differences aren't really relevant.  

The LDS Church is not breaking the law (and Mr. McKnight, much to his discredit, admits that he doesn't expect to find any evidence of such, which pretty much obliterates any claim he may have had about being a "whistleblower"), but Mr. McKnight is nevertheless encouraging its employees to steal from it and send the stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.

If I did that to you, I think you would be upset.  And you would be justified in being upset.

So "what Mr. McKnight wants" somehow justifies the solicitation of theft from the LDS Church by its employees?

Let's say that a person, "Jack," "wants" you to come forward and publish your IRL identity, and your pay stubs, and your social security number.  Since Jack "wants" you to do these things, is Jack entitled to encourage other people to steal this information from you and send it to him so that he can publish it to the world?

But I don't ask for and receive tax exempt status from the govt.

Even more special pleading.

Do you itemize your taxes?  Do you take deductions on payment of taxes that are allowed by law?  If so, you are using the law to avoid payment of taxes that you otherwise would be obligated to pay, which is what tax exempt entities do.  So Jack will use that as a justification to "want" you to come forward and publish your IRL identity, and your pay stubs, and your social security number.  And if you choose to not come forward with this information, then Jack is justified in encouraging your family members, friends, etc. to steal this information from you and send it to him so he can publish it to the world without your consent.

Does Jack's reasoning work?  Sure!  Why not?  If Mr. McKnight (and you) can arbitrarily fabricate justifications for encouraging theft from the LDS Church, then Jack can arbitrarily fabricate justifications for encouraging theft from you.  See how easy it is?

Quote

Therein lies an important distinction.

With respect, that's malarky.  Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Jack feels that your taking of tax deductions eliminates any potential distinction.  If Mr. McKnight gets to fabricate justifications, then so does Jack.

If there were ever a real "Jack" who really did set himself up as the arbiter of how "transparent" you should be about your personal data, and if he were to use his I'm-just-makin'-things-up-as-I-go-along justifications for encouraging your family members / friends / co-workers, etc. to steal your personal data and send it to him for publication to the world, I think you would be upset about that. 

And you'd be justified in being upset.

I also think you would not accept Jack's because-I-say-so expectation about you needing to be more "transparent" about your personal data as a justification for him encouraging and facilitating the theft and publication of your personal data.

And you would be justified in not accepting such things.

Quote

My argument would be less if it weren't for the tax exempt status. 

It looks like you're just making things up as you go along.

In any case, if you itemize your deductions, then Jack - by your reckoning (which necessarily includes totally ad hoc, because-I-say-so reasoning) - is justified in encouraging your family and close acquaintances to steal your data and send it to him so he can publish it to the world.

Right?  I mean, if you get to make things up as you go along, then so does Jack. 😁

Quote

I still think churches should be open as they supposedly are the servant of all, like we read in scripture. As for ordinary corporations and individuals it is different.

"It is different."

Oh.  That explains everything.

Jack disagrees.  It's not different. Jack has as much authority to say that as you have to say the contrary.j

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

But I don't ask for and receive tax exempt status from the govt. Therein lies an important distinction. My argument would be less if it weren't for the tax exempt status. I still think churches should be open as they supposedly are the servant of all, like we read in scripture. As for ordinary corporations and individuals it is different.

But the government isn't asking for the transparency.  Plus what is being leaked often has nothing to do with financial info.

If you don't like the law, then work at changing it, don't encourage others to break it to satisfy your curiosity.

If you don't like other laws, do you think it excuses you breaking them or benefitting from others breaking it?

The Church isn't being given a choice to be transparent or not and possibly lose members/donations or whatever consequences come because of their choice.

Instead McKnight has made the choice of exposure based on what he wants.

Since when did individuals get the inherent right to dictate to organizations what they have to do? If it is not an inherent right, then what justification can there be to remove that choice from the Church or any other organization as a private citizen and not the government?

Edited August 14, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But the government isn't asking for the transparency.  Plus what is being leaked often has nothing to do with financial info.

If you don't like the law, then work at changing it, don't encourage others to break it to satisfy your curiosity.

If you don't like other laws, do you think it excuses you breaking them or benefitting from others breaking it?

The Church isn't being given a choice to be transparent or not and possibly lose members/donations or whatever consequences come because of their choice.

Instead McKnight has made the choice of exposure based on what he wants.

Since when did individuals get the inherent right to dictate to organizations what they have to do? If it is not an inherent right, then what justification can there be to remove that choice from the Church or any other organization as a private citizen and not the government?

My main issue is financial transparency and the church certainly can meaningfully disclose where the money goes and how much they get on a yearly basis regardless of what Mr. McKnight or anyone else does or says.  The power is with the church to decide to continue down the path of secrecy or chose transparency.  Should the church go to the light or stay in the dark?  Also, I don't understand how the church doesn't have a choice to be transparent because of Mr. McKnight.  Perhaps you can walk me through this statement: "[t]he Church isn't being given a choice to be transparent or not and possibly lose members/donations or whatever consequences come because of their choice."  It seems that the church, a multi-billion dollar entity, can do what it wants regardless of what some "intransigent" does.  Also, I think you are ascribing more power to Mr. McKnight than he has.  Regardless of what he does or discloses, the church still has the power to do whatever it wants.  Sure, there are consequences to actions but Mr. McKnight isn't stopping the church from acting however it wants.  Some erudite or some crazy can sit on the couch claiming to have some hidden knowledge and purport to tell the world how to act, but we still can chose to agree or not.

[Calm]

McKnight is choosing to reveal documents based on his own desires instead of allowing the Church to make its own choice, to give or withhold and deal with those chosen consequences.  If documents are taken from the Church and shared without regard to the Church's wishes, choice has been removed.

Or put another way, the documents are the property of the Church.  With the exception of requirements of law, because they are the Church's property it is their right to designate them private documents or public documents.  McKnight has stolen their right to determine that for their own property when he makes them public by putting them online.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are right.  I don't. 

No, I'm speaking hypothetically ("And if I 'feel' that I have 'right to know about' your private data...").  Surely you understand the difference?

My point is that Mr. McKnight's personal opinions are not sufficient to justify theft from the LDS Church, just as my personal opinions are not sufficient to justify theft from you.

Well, at least he has a reason for his position.  You have none.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  This is just special pleading ("argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view").

That's odd.  I thought you were the one engaging in special pleading.  For instance you continue to ignore the whole purpose of MormonLeaks--it's not that they are just wanting to steal stuff for stealing's sake, as it seems you keep trying to "hypothetically" posit when you say you want to steal my stuff.  I don't know if you can accurately state why they are doing what they are doing.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mr. McKnight's personal opinions about transparency are not sufficient to justify theft from the LDS Church, just as my personal opinions about transparency are not sufficient to justify theft from you.

It's not "silly."  It's argument by analogy.

If an individual or organization is, in my view, not sufficiently "transparent" about its finances, I have some options:

• I can choose to not contribute to that individual/organization; or
• I can ignore that individual/organization; or
• I can seek clarification as to the applicable disclosure requirements mandated by law and see if the individual/organization is complying with them; or
• I can write to state and/or federal legislators and urge them to pass laws requiring more transparency; or
• any of a number of things.

Yes, any number of things, like, try and put pressure on them, after they have not been transparent after all other avenues have been tread.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Notably absent from these options are for me to encourage others with access to that individual's/group's private data to steal said data and secretly and anonymously send it to me, and I then get to decide - based solely on my personal opinion - to publish it to the world.

You're kidding if you think there is no market for this.  People are interested.  That says something in regards to this whole thing.  You keep thinking that stealing info from me is somehow equivalent.  It's not.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I were to do that to you, you would be upset.  And rightly so.

Nah...You are completely misrepresenting me.  I've already told you a couple of times now that I would not be upset.  I'd welcome it.  You are absolutely grasping at straws to recreate this discussion into something it is not.  Nice try, smac.  you are being silly.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

But when it's the Mormons in the crosshairs, such thievery is just fine and dandy?

Stop with this nonsense, please.  This is getting out of hand.   I've already said, if I were in a position like the church I'd be open and transparent.  If I weren't I'd hope someone would pressure me to do so.  I find this deceitful, smac.  I've said absolutely nothing about "the Mormons" or the Church being in the crosshairs.  You keep trying to reframe this and have continued to misrepresent me.  I've said nothing about putting the Mormons in the crosshairs.  In fact, I've expressed how I've not even concluded that I'm behind the actions of MormonLeaks--a couple of times.  You are not only being silly butyou are being ridiculous.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is asking you that.  The question is if you would "be okay" if people encouraged your family / friends / neighbors / co-workers, etc. to steal your private sensitive data and secretly and anonymously send such data to a third person for publication to the world, all without your consent.

I've already answered.  I'd welcome it if I were in the position of getting donations from people.  For some reason in your special pleading you keep leaving that requirement out.  There's no comparison to some random individual here, smac.  I'm not receiving donations from anyone.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Red herring.

Red herring.

Easy for your to say.  It's not your private data that is subject to being stolen and published to the world without your consent.  If that were happening, I don't think you would call it "silly."

And you'd be right.

Thanks,

-Smac

I sure would and have.  Stop trying to speak for me.  That's about all you've done here.  It's ridiculous for you to do so.  

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

McKnight is choosing to reveal documents based on his own desires instead of allowing the Church to make its own choice, to give or withhold and deal with those chosen consequences.  If documents are taken from the Church and shared without regard to the Church's wishes, choice has been removed.

Or put another way, the documents are the property of the Church.  With the exception of requirements of law, because they are the Church's property it is their right to designate them private documents or public documents.  McKnight has stolen their right to determine that for their own property when he makes them public by putting them online.

Obviously he's weighing things in the balance and has come to a different conclusion than you.  To him it is less ethical for an org that receives donations to hide much of it's operations and finances than for people, not just him of course, to try and force this org's hand to transparency.    

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Obviously he's weighing things in the balance and has come to a different conclusion than you.  To him it is less ethical for an org that receives donations to hide much of it's operations and finances than for people, not just him of course, to try and force this org's hand to transparency.    

So he’s appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So he’s appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner.

I realize this is hyperbole but it is a bit over the top. Executioner? Come on.

I'm curious what would happen if a disinterested party came to this board and read these kinds of comments. Taking the whole thread about Bill and about Ryan into account, I'm curious which side of the argument they would find more abrasive, hostile, and just plain rude. Those supporting the church or those supporting Bill and Ryan?

It never ceases to amaze me how awful people can act when self-righteously defending the church.

 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So he’s appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner.

We all have to weigh things in the balance and sometimes make tough choices in life.  I don't know that he's any more judge, jury and executioner than anyone else for his conclusions.  

I'm not sure Mormonleaks is a good thing or a useful thing.  I'm not sure it'll do anything or help the Church move towards transparency at all.  But I get the purpose.  I understand why people are wanting to pressure the Church to transparency.  I don't think they are evil for wanting that or feeling there's a need to pressure the Church.  

[Kevin Christensen]

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

you actually help my point.  If having determined adherents in the most crazy and absurd of religions occurs then surely it will happen in a religion that is slightly less absurd or even only mildly absurd.  Pointing out that people maintain faith after knowing the issues and still believe and hence the religion must be reasonable and rational simply is a non-sequitur

Bill, you did not address my point here, nor a point I have been making for decades.  My point here is that the metaphorical equivalence that you offered does not apply.  Your map of the territory is inaccurate and inadequate.  Your metaphors make predictions that fail.  They don't explain a great many things about LDS claims.  They make promises that they do not and cannot keep, and I was able to demonstrate that easily.

In attempting to generalize from "determined adherents in the most crazy and absurd of religions" you are overlooking what happens in the most rational of human enterprises, science, the least crazy and absurd practice, there is this sort of thing:

Quote

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.  ( Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 157-58).

You forget that science itself runs on faith.  Or did the people who built the CERN supercollider have proof of the Higgs boson before they built it?

And in dealing with anomaly, having known issues with any belief system and still believing, you neglect the Mote-Eye rule. In a response to Dan Vogel's claims that it was game over for LDS if he can point out some issue, I noted this:

Quote

Vogel explains the rules as he sees them:

Before questioning my methodology, Christensen should keep in mind that no matter how many correlations one perceives in a text, one negative evidence cancels them all. In other words, it is the apologists who are obliged to answer every negative evidence, while those who doubt only need present evidence for rejecting Book of Mormon historicity.⁷⁷

As a statement of his own attitudes about the Book of Mormon, this is no doubt accurate, but as a guide to a working philosophy of science and scholarship in general, he couldn’t be more wrong. Kuhn’s observations include:

There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times.⁷⁸

To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.⁷⁹

If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times.⁸⁰

Most anomalies are resolved by normal means; most proposals for new theories do prove to be wrong. If all members of a community responded to each anomaly as a source of crisis or embraced each new theory advanced by a colleague, science would cease. If, on the other hand, no one reacted to anomalies or to brand-new theories in high-risk ways, there would be few or no revolutions. In matters like these the resort to shared values rather than shared rules governing individual choice may be the community’s way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise.⁸¹

During periods of normal science, the object is to “solve a puzzle for whose very existence the validity of the paradigm must be assumed. Failure to achieve a solution discredits only the scientist and not the theory.”⁸²

Since the business of science is to solve puzzles that have not yet been solved and all science and scholarship confront problems that have not yet been solved, a general application of Vogel’s attitude that “one negative evidence” suffices would demand the rejection of all science and scholarship. Vogel’s empiricism overlooks the following points:

1. Theory influences observation. “The procedures for making observations, and the language in which data are reported” are “theory-laden.”⁸³ For example, when Vogel offers up nineteenth-century descriptions of Native American fortifications, he sees them as direct evidence of his position rather than as data that any theory should acknowledge and explain. He ignores the issue of whether such descriptions would be present in an authentic text because of a combination of a common stimulus (similar fortifications being present in Book of Mormon times) and translator vocabulary. His theories permeate the language in which he reports his data. For example, Vogel claims that “Lehi’s blessing on his sons speaks of preserving America for his posterity and that the land would not be ‘overrun’ by other nations until after his seed should ‘dwindle in unbelief’ (2 Ne. 1[:10]).”⁸⁴ The word America does not appear in the Book of Mormon, but Vogel’s interpretive language remedies the lack.
2. Theories are assessed and replaced by alternatives rather than falsified. “The empiricists,” Barbour explains, “had claimed that even though a theory cannot be verified by its agreement with data, it can be falsified by disagreement with data. [Note that this is Vogel’s express position!] But critics showed that discordant data alone have seldom been taken to falsify an accepted theory in the absence of an alternative theory; instead, auxiliary assumptions have been modified, or the discrepancies have been set aside as anomalies.”⁸⁵ Barbour demonstrates that in practice, theories are neither verified, nor falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria. “Comprehensive theories are indeed resistant to falsification, but that observation does exert some control over theory; an accumulation of anomalies cannot be ignored indefinitely.”⁸⁶

So, how much control do we grant to any particular observation and interpretation? In practice, this relates both to how an investigator chooses to value that particular observation and to how it rests within a network of theories and observations.⁸⁷

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

We have discussed before what happens if the theory that you point at a religion is that all behavior by members should be demonstrably perfect, and that all teachings should be unchanging and validated by the secular consensus of the moment so as to relieve members of any tensions with science or of any need for faith in the practice of their faith, then, that theory will quite naturally focus exclusively on human imperfection and foibles, and on the places where anyone can claim that this or that thought was wrong or unhelpful.  That is exactly what the Tanners did with their careers.  Is it perfect?  Is it what I think it should be?  Is it ideal?  Does it live up to what I desire it to be?  In that scenario, perfection is the standard, and only imperfection answers the question, and even the appearance or suspicion is sufficient to generate decisive outrage.

However, it also turns out that there is another theory available, one that asks people to consider, not what is perfect, and not what is ideal, but what is Real?  That happens to be what I found in the Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.  But you know about those.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

The question ought not be why don't Mormons and Mormonism live up to my Fears and Desires, but rather, what is Real?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 14, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I realize this is hyperbole but it is a bit over the top. Executioner? Come on.

I'm curious what would happen if a disinterested party came to this board and read these kinds of comments. Taking the whole thread about Bill and about Ryan into account, I'm curious which side of the argument they would find more abrasive, hostile, and just plain rude. Those supporting the church or those supporting Bill and Ryan?

It never ceases to amaze me how awful people can act when self-righteously defending the church.

 

I think the metaphor is appropriate.

An executioner is one who executes.  To execute means to carry out or accomplish.  McKnight is the one who is carrying out and accomplishing the work of the website that he set up and that he decides what it contains.

Seems appropriate.

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We all have to weigh things in the balance and sometimes make tough choices in life.  I don't know that he's any more judge, jury and executioner than anyone else for his conclusions.  

I'm not sure Mormonleaks is a good thing or a useful thing.  I'm not sure it'll do anything or help the Church move towards transparency at all.  But I get the purpose.  I understand why people are wanting to pressure the Church to transparency.  I don't think they are evil for wanting that or feeling there's a need to pressure the Church.  

McKnight has decided that the church needs to be more transparent.  Is he a member of the church?  Is he a donor?  I am both a member of the church and a donor.  Why do his wishes trump mine?  What about the thoughts and feelings of the other millions of donors who agree with the churches current policies and practices and do not want potentially sensitive information published?  What standing or right does he have to determine what my church does or doesn't do?

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

My main issue is financial transparency and the church certainly can meaningfully disclose where the money goes and how much they get on a yearly basis regardless of what Mr. McKnight or anyone else does or says.  The power is with the church to decide to continue down the path of secrecy or chose transparency.  Should the church go to the light or stay in the dark?  Also, I don't understand how the church doesn't have a choice to be transparent because of Mr. McKnight.  Perhaps you can walk me through this statement: "[t]he Church isn't being given a choice to be transparent or not and possibly lose members/donations or whatever consequences come because of their choice."  It seems that the church, a multi-billion dollar entity, can do what it wants regardless of what some "intransigent" does.  Also, I think you are ascribing more power to Mr. McKnight than he has.  Regardless of what he does or discloses, the church still has the power to do whatever it wants.  Sure, there are consequences to actions but Mr. McKnight isn't stopping the church from acting however it wants.  Some erudite or some crazy can sit on the couch claiming to have some hidden knowledge and purport to tell the world how to act, but we still can chose to agree or not.

I believe the members need to know these things, especially when they are being told to consecrate their time, talents, money, etc. The church can ask this, but the members shouldn't expect transparency in return? Too onesided, and really a scary existance, to be in the dark about the chruch's decisions, or actions. 

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago. The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago. The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

So because the church has bought an apartment building and is not building hospitals this nullifies everything good that the church is doing?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

McKnight has decided that the church needs to be more transparent.  Is he a member of the church?  Is he a donor?  I am both a member of the church and a donor.  Why do his wishes trump mine?

What makes you think that he, me or anyone thinks his opinion trumps yours?  

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

  What about the thoughts and feelings of the other millions of donors who agree with the churches current policies and practices and do not want potentially sensitive information published?  What standing or right does he have to determine what my church does or doesn't do?

The principle is pretty simple.  If an org requests and receives donations from a mass of people that org ought to be transparent about what it does and how it spends its money.  You may disagree with that.  And that's cool.  But just because you disagree does not mean others can't disagree with you.  McKnight and plenty of others plainly disagree with you and feel strongly enough that they are doing something about it.  

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago.

As a financial investment, yes.  Part of being a good steward of finances includes making sure that the Church's money is keeping ahead of inflation.  Year over year, inflation lowers the purchasing power of a dollar.  The low interest rate that banks provide are insufficient to keep pace with or overcome inflation.  So if the Church were to simply park its money in a bank account, over time it would, technically, lose money via decreased purchasing power.

There is a pretty good blog entry on this topic (written by an accountant): The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Financial Statements are a snapshot into the financial health of a business or organization, designed to allow stakeholders (i.e. a person who has a stake in a business. Not like “Stake Boundary” stake, more like “interest” stake) to determine, on a macro level, the well being of the company.

...

Keep in mind that financial statements are at a painfully high level. Ask any auditor and they’ll tell you the same thing until they’re blue in the face. It doesn’t tell most of the transactions. It’s not a blueprint on how to run a company. It’s not designed to detect fraud. Although our accounting overlords continually add new rules to try to prevent the next Enron or WorldCom, neither a thorough, expensive audit nor the resulting financial statements are a guarantee to that.

...

Okay, so you now know, or can at least pretend to know, what a financial statement is. Here’s where I’m having problems: what would publicly releasing the LDS Church’s financial statements accomplish?

Before you answer that, want to see what you’ll be getting? I found the financial statements for the Episcopal Church, which happened to be put together by my former employer. Go ahead, read through the 2013 report.

So what did you learn? I learned that the Episcopal Church is financially sound right now. And…that’s about it.

How much do they donate to the poor? How much to give in foreign relief? How much do they use on buildings? I have absolutely no idea. The best we get is this scant breakout here:



What do they consider to be “Canonical and missional programs”? Is “General convention” a euphemism for the priests heading to ComiCon on the church’s dime? And what’s with this “other” amount grouped in with Grants?

In other words, we’re almost exactly where we started. We know how much money they brought in and how much money went out, but they grouped their expenses based on arbitrary categorizations invented by whichever accountant implemented Quickbooks for them.

Unfortunately, their grouping totally fails for me, because those Episcopal financials don’t allow me to voyeuristicly understand how they use their money. Heck, it doesn’t even tell me how much they spent on Communion Crackers!

For them, though, it works. Their goal was likely to prove that they are spending less than they make, and on that point, mission accomplished.

If we were to get public financial statements for the LDS Church, this is about as good as we could expect. Want proof? Turns out the LDS Church has financial statements in the UK (required by UK law). And considering that I haven’t heard a single person mention how great it is that the Church practices financial transparency overseas, I’m guessing the number of people demanding US financial statements that know about the UK financials are in the single digits.

Hence my suspicion that calls for further "Financial Transparency" would be followed, endlessly, by more calls for "Financial Transparency."  Because the objective of the critics is digging for dirt, that's about it.

More from the blog:

Quote

Okay, so you’re not an accountant, and you’re not interested in stuffy financial statements made up by overweight accountants with little green visors and even smaller personalities. You just want more transparency.

But why?

What are you going to do with that information? Do you honestly believe that knowing how much the LDS Church depreciates the Salt Lake City Temple renovations every year will convince you that what goes on inside is sacred? Will seeing how much the LDS Church sends to Africa in financial aide have one bit of bearing on whether Joseph Smith talked with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove? Does the amount spent on basketballs each year have any relevance on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true?

Look, I really don’t mean to come across as harsh, I just fail to see how financial ledgers, no matter how detailed or how summarized, matter. Either the Church is true, or it’s not. I believe that it is. Yes, it’s absolutely run by imperfect people, and they will make financial mistakes. But like Tomas at the beginning of this post so wisely told me, if they screw up, it’s on them.

I think these are fair questions for you.  What do you propose to do with the further-disclosed information about the Church's finances?

And more (emphasis added):

Quote

The thing is, I get what many people are trying to say. It’s easy to look around the world and see all the suffering, then look at the (non-released) financial situation of the LDS Church and think, “surely we can do better.”

Whether we can or can’t, I really don’t know. As individual members of the Church and followers of Jesus Christ, especially ones living in the wealthiest country in the world (or wherever you are on that list if you’re not in the the US), absolutely. I throw myself into that bucket for sure. All of us can get a little caught up in what should be considered a “want” and what should be considered a “need,” forgetting that the amount we spend on those alleged needs could be better served helping those with real needs.

But can the actual organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better allocate it’s resources to give more to the poor?

The LDS Church recently included “caring for the poor” among their missions, bringing the total missions to four. I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by saying that this new mission takes money. What about the other three? Proclaiming the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, Redeeming the Dead? All of them take money, too.

Could we ask missionaries to pay a bit more to cover the expenses related to the mission? Maybe, but for many what’s being asked is already a huge burden.

Could we worship in buildings that aren’t quite as nice? Perhaps, but most of the newer buildings are pretty utilitarian, even reusing the same architecture plans to save on costs.

Could we make our temples look a little less nice? On this one, I think not. The new, smaller temples already have several changes to help cut back on expenses, but we can only go so far.

...

So, what, then, would transparent financial statements be used for? I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game.

Yep.  I think that's the endgame intended by critics demanding for more "transparency."

And one more bit:

Quote

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret: there’s too many accountants at the LDS Church, including some who have turned against the Church, for unethical dealings to not have been leaked by now. Enron had a much shorter life than the LDS Church, and it was dismantled by someone on the inside, not someone reading financial statements. Considering that Enron was stocked full of self interested employees, not people who grew up believing that their organization should be held to a higher standard than everything else, serious Church financial wrong doing would have come out by now.

At best, if we had transparency, you’d get a small group of people complaining that the LDS Church is wrong because it does their finances differently than they would do it, while everyone else would get bored before scrolling to the end of the released PDF.

Going back to the cost, that sounds like a pretty low benefit to justify virtually any expense.

If the LDS Church does one day release their finances, so be it. In the meantime, there are much better causes to dedicate our time to. May I suggest helping the poor instead of complaining that the Church isn’t helping them enough?

Well said.

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

Have you ever investigated by the Church divested itself of its hospitals?

See here:

Quote

In 1963 the Church owned or administered fifteen hospitals in the intermountain area under the direction of the Presiding Bishopric. In 1970 the Health Services Corporation of the Church was organized and a commissioner of health was appointed to oversee the rapidly expanding health needs of the Church and to unite the fifteen hospitals into a coordinated health care system. This system demanded increasing amounts of administrative time and financial commitment by the Church.

In 1974 the First Presidency announced that the Church's fifteen hospitals would be donated and turned over to a new nonprofit organization so that the Church could devote "the full effort of [its] Health Services…to the health needs of the worldwide Church." While noting that the hospitals were "a vigorous and financially viable enterprise," the First Presidency emphasized that "the operation of hospitals is not central to the mission of the Church." The First Presidency further indicated that with the expansion of the Church in many nations it was "difficult to justify the provision of curative services in a single, affluent, geographical locality" (news release, Sept. 6, 1974).

On April 1, 1975, the Presiding Bishopric signed the final divestiture agreement transferring ownership and management of LDS Hospital, Primary Children's Hospital, and thirteen other facilities to the new philanthropic organization. This nonprofit organization was named Intermountain Health Care. It is directed by a geographically and religiously diverse board of trustees. With the divestiture of the hospitals, the Church rapidly expanded its medical missionary program-a program more compatible with its worldwide religious mission.

The Church has also shut down quite a few of its schools or allowed them to be turned into state-run schools:

• Sanpete Stake Academy (founded 1888), now Snow College
• Weber Stake Academy (founded 1889), now Weber State University 
• St. Joseph Stake Academy (founded 1888), now Eastern Arizona College 
• St. George Stake Academy (founded 1911), now Dixie State University 
• University of Deseret (1850), now the University of Utah 

Preparatoria Benemérito de las Américas (Mexico City) and Church College of New Zealand (1958–2009) have been shut down.  

As I understand it, the general concept as to these things (schools and hospitals) are that the Church doesn't want to "re-invent the wheel," or maintain educational and medical facilities where they are available from society at large.  Divesting itself of these things allows the Church a lot more flexibility to provide services worldwide.  Instead of building a hospital (in a fixed location, with fixed population to be served, etc.), the Church can support and coordinate with reputable NGOs and other organizations who already have infrastructure in a given location.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The principle is pretty simple.  If an org requests and receives donations from a mass of people that org ought to be transparent about what it does and how it spends its money.

I disagree.  I do not believe that this is apparent in any way.  Is it written in law somewhere?

 

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But just because you disagree does not mean others can't disagree with you.

That's understood.  But disagreement is different than taking unilateral action against those you disagree with.

 

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

McKnight and plenty of others plainly disagree with you and feel strongly enough that they are doing something about it.  

What standing does McKnight have to make this decision, on behalf of the church, that the church should be transparent in the manner that he thinks it should?  Is he a member or donor of the church? 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the members need to know these things, especially when they are being told to consecrate their time, talents, money, etc. The church can ask this, but the members shouldn't expect transparency in return? Too onesided, and really a scary existance, to be in the dark about the chruch's decisions, or actions. 

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago. The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

Tacenda, I love you, but I really get frustrated when you make assumptions about the good the church does/doesn't do, despite me doing my best to show you there is really a whole lot of good that the church does that you don't know about and assume is not there.  Next time, please try to ask what you might be there instead of assuming it is not - I just hope for your happiness and I worry that when you don't see the good you may be missing some of that happiness .   

 

 

Quote

Hospitals Dropped as Health Services Expands Total Worldwide Program

Borrowing from the age-old concept that prevention is better than cure, the Church Health Services Corporation has stepped out of the bricks-and-mortar hospital business in the United States to concentrate on better health education for the Saints worldwide.

Explaining the decision to divest the Church of its 15 hospitals in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, the First Presidency said that “the growing worldwide responsibility of the Church makes it difficult to justify provision of curative services in a single, affluent, geographical locality.”

The First Presidency said the decision came after “thorough study and consideration,” and added that it “in no way signifies loss of interest or concern on the part of the Church for the sick and afflicted. To the contrary, it provides greater flexibility as the Church assists members and others everywhere with their temporal needs. Worldwide Health Services, which emphasizes disease prevention and assists people in various parts of the world to appropriately use local health facilities and personnel, is being expanded to a major degree.”

....

Among the better-known hospitals within the 15-unit group are the 570-bed Latter-day Saint Hospital and the Primary Children’s Medical Center, both located in Salt Lake City. The latter facility has been the focus of the annual Primary Children’s Penny Parade each year as Saints around the world have donated funds toward its operation. Although the center is no longer owned by the Church, the Primary Penny Parade will continue, but in a slightly different manner.

Sister LaVern W. Parmley, formerly Primary general president, says that the Penny Parade, started in the early 1920s and scheduled for mid-January through mid-February in 1975, will still play an important function in providing financial assistance for children in need.

“Instead of concentrating our efforts at the Primary Children’s Medical Center,” she says, “we are now in a position to offer assistance wherever the need arises. For example, if a child needs special medical care in another country, then we may make a grant to the hospital where that child is being treated. We have yet to finalize all the administrative details but, yes, the Primary Penny Parade is still important.”

...

In diverting the Church Health Services from the operation of localized physical facilities to the general well-being of the Church membership, the First Presidency emphasized that this “will require a substantial increase in the number of Health Services missionaries.”

Health Services missionaries serve 18 months at their own expense in developmental areas on American Indian reservations, in Mexico, Central America, South America, in the South Pacific, and in the Orient. Most missionaries are nurses, but they also include doctors, dentists, home economists, and nutritionists who work primarily in disease prevention rather than treatment. Since the program began in 1971, the number of these missionaries has grown to 120. Under Church Welfare Services, health and medical guidance is provided through medical practitioners who serve on ward, stake, or regional welfare councils and through the Health Services missionary program.

...

The primary objective of Church Health Services is to make good health possible throughout the world for Church members. According to Dr. James O. Mason, Church commissioner of Health Services, “Our concern is not entirely with the physical health of the individual. We try to serve the ecclesiastical objectives of the Church by recognizing that spiritual growth is usually enhanced when a person is enjoying good physical health.”

From the Ensign back in 1974

...

  

Edited August 14, 2018 by Rain

[stemelbow]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I disagree.  I do not believe that this is apparent in any way.  Is it written in law somewhere?

Yes, you disagree with the stated principle.  I realize that.  I'm just stating the principle is simple.  Whether you agree or not is another matter.  

Just now, ksfisher said:

 

That's understood.  But disagreement is different than taking unilateral action against those you disagree with.

Sometimes disagreement reaches those levels.  

Just now, ksfisher said:

 

What standing does McKnight have to make this decision, on behalf of the church, that the church should be transparent in the manner that he thinks it should?  Is he a member or donor of the church? 

I don't know anything about him.  But he's a person and that's standing enough, I suppose, to develop principles and live by them.  I don't see why he has to have some exalted standing amongst the people for him to pursue his principles.  

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, you disagree with the stated principle.  I realize that.  I'm just stating the principle is simple.  Whether you agree or not is another matter.  

Where does this principle come from? 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see why he has to have some exalted standing amongst the people for him to pursue his principles.  

What I'm asking is why a person who does not belong to a private, voluntary organization think he has to right to change the policies and procedures or that organization, and over the wishes of many of it's members.