Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the contributors to Jack's charity did not want to have full financial transparency, is it ethical for someone who does not donate to the charity to attempt to force Jack to be financially transparent by releasing confidential information without his permission?

I don't understand why you defend non-disclosure.  And yes it is ethical to propose changes to transparency laws and force disclosure.  "Jack" is demanding his members to give 10% of their increase to him on an annual basis.  Because society should be interested in preventing charity fraud and abuse, "Jack" should disclose what he is doing with those charitable funds and if Jack refuses, whistle blowers should be encouraged to disclose in "Jack's" place.

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is not true.  Endowed members of the church are not asked to "live" the law of consecration.  I don't want to get into the language on a public message board, but this is not the word that is used and I think some of the conclusions you've made would change if you used the correct word in it's place.

Very observant.  I like you.  People who carefully study their covenants are often better at understanding and keeping them.

I understand your sensitivity around using temple language, but I have only covenanted not to reveal certain signs and tokens. I can discuss verbiage heard in the temple.

You’re right - the word “live the law...” is not stated in the covenant.

I think you’re referring to the fact that the law is “given to us.”  We “accept it.”  Thus, we are not under covenant to “live” the law of consecration today.  Is that what you mean?

If this is what you mean (perhaps you don’t because of your intentional respectful vagueness), then we need to accept a couple of things:

We are likewise not asked to “live” the law of chastity. Can we then neglect the law of chastity as much as we neglect the law of consecration?  Do we agree to live it one day, but not today?  I do note that the law of chastity differs slightly in that we are specifically covenanted to “observe and keep” this law.  Maybe this is meaningful?

Secondly, if we are truly not under covenant to live the law of consecration today, then an argument to condemn someone for not giving all he/she has to the church (tithing, obedience, etc...) is without merit.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is not true.  Endowed members of the church are not asked to "live" the law of consecration.  I don't want to get into the language on a public message board, but this is not the word that is used and I think some of the conclusions you've made would change if you used the correct word in it's place.

I've heard more than one mormon scholar use the temple to explain that yes, we are asked to live the law of consecration right now, so I think there is room for reasonable disagreement on the issue.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Everybody gets to make up their own reasons for doing what they do. 

Really?  Are you sure about that?

Let's say that you have a nice Ford Mustang that I like.  I want it, but I do not want to pay of it.  You like it and do not want to sell it or give it to me.  So I steal it from you.  And since, as you say, I get "to make up" my own "reasons" for stealing it from you, and because those reasons justify theft anytime I want, then - according to your reasoning - I am justified in stealing your Mustang, and you just need to shut your piehole and let me take it from you.

Right?

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure why this has been such a sticking point for you.  

We are a society of laws.  We are governed by laws external to ourselves and decided upon by the community.  And yet here you are, suggesting that we each get to do whatever we want, whenever we want, and that we are justified in doing whatever we want because "everybody gets to make up their own reasons for doing what they do."

Huh?  That makes no sense.  At all.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?  It sure seems that way.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And how many people will go along with your justifications, smac? 

Doesn't matter.  If Ryan McKnight (and you) get to rationalize encouragement of theft from the LDS Church by making up whatever ad hoc justifications you like, then "Jack" can do the same to justify his theft from you.

And if someone happens to agree with him, then that's just gravy.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just because you come up with something doesn't mean it's equivalent here.  But, if you are intent on continuing this awfully illogical and foolish point, by all means, make an issue out of it. See if you can figure out a way to justify your silly scenario of getting my SS number and other things to post online. 

You don't understand (actually, I think you do).

I don't want to get your private data.  I would never encourage your friends/family to steal that data from you and send it to me so I could publish it to the world.  That would be immoral and unethical and wrong.

Similarly, I don't think Mr. McKnight should be encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We'll see whose site gets more hits, yours or Mormonleaks.  we'll see who garners more interest. 

I couldn't care less about "hits" or "interest."

I'm not talking about a popularity contest.  I'm talking about a system of ethics.  You and Mr. McKnight have a system of ethics that excuses the encouragement of employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

I find that system of ethics to be flawed and contemptible.  I have posited - hypothetically - that if someone were to deploy this system of ethics against you and your property, you would object to it.  And you would be right to object to it.  "Jack" does not have the right to demand that you capitulate to his opinions about you being "transparent" with your sensitive personal data.  He also does not have the right to respond to your refusal to capitulate by encouraging family/friends to steal your personal data and secretly send it to him so he can publish it to the world without your consent.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're making crap up again.  Where did I suggest Jack would be entitled to encourage people close to me to steal my personal data?  That's no my reasoning. 

Yes, it is.  You are rationalizing Mr. McKnight's encouragement of employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer.  That is wrong.

I am saying that if "Jack" used your reasoning to encourage your family/friends to steal your data from you, you would object to that.  You would say it is wrong.

And you would be right.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And as I've said a few times, I have no decided that Mormonleaks is fully justified in doing what they're doing.  I'm pointing out that I get their reasoning, which it seems you don't get, and am in favor of the Church being more transparent.  I don't know that the tactics Mormonleaks is using justifies the pressure for the Church to be transparent.  

Huh.  Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't understand why you defend non-disclosure.  

If you don't understand why, then perhaps you shouldn't assume disclosure is the better approach as it might turn out once you do understand, it makes sense to you as it does to us.

[Exiled]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you read the blog entry on this topic (written by an accountant) that I linked to earlier, The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency?

Thanks,

-Smac

Mistrust is why we need transparency and sunshine laws.  Or as the Gipper said when talking about the old soviet union, "trust but verify."  Too much trust leads to fraud and abuse and a little sunshine goes a long ways.  Did you know that the church bailed out Beneficial Life to the tune of $600 Million?  The life insurance company had too much invested in cdo's and clo's, etc. and got caught during the financial crisis.  G.A. life insurance policies were at stake so a bailout occurred.  Anyway, the problem of the episcopal church disclosures could be easily remedied by forcing better accounting standards.  It looks like the episcopal church accountants hid what it was doing in plain sight and that can easily be remedied.  Also, the monday morning quarterback problem your accountant claims is a reason to not disclose is misguided.   This is precisely why disclosure is needed.  Dumb decisions with money will happen but these will lessen if the decision makers know they will be scrutinized.

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "idea" are you referencing here?

I am referring to the idea that endowed members of the church have accepted the covenant of consecration in some form.  What that specifically means is up for debate.

 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Providing for the poor is obviously a very important part of the Law, but that's not the sum total of it.  If the Law of Consecration were solely about providing for the poor, we would theoretically not have missionary work, or temples, or educational endeavors.  Moreover, there are all sorts of ways that the Church "provides for the poor" other than giving them money and materials and food (which we do, with the understanding that such things should be temporary so as to avoid the "evils of the dole").  The Church's emphases on education and hard work and living within our means and so on are all geared toward lifting ourselves out of poverty and setting us on a path toward self-reliance.

I certainly am not one to interpret scripture for others.  I advocate that each person under covenant explore it in the Doctrine & Covenants themselves.  Could the law of consecration extend beyond doling out dollars to the poor?  Certainly.  But, I don't agree with a broad interpretation of the law of consecration to encompass anything a leader in this church asks.  The covenant clearly constrains this to what is contained in the Doctrine and Covenants.  Again, how this is interpreted is personal, but the starting point should be Doctrine and Covenants.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Not being used as D&C directs" seems to have a ton of wiggle room in it.

Yes - it does.  I'm certainly not stating that anyone in church leadership is or is not following D&C guidelines.  I can see how others have a hard time seeing how certain LDS church investments don't align with those scriptures.  BUT - that is a very big, long, and nuanced debate that is probably already on another thread.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't understand why you defend non-disclosure. 

I don't think that's the point under discussion.  We are objecting to Mr. McKnight imposing his views about "transparency" on the Church.  And his use of deceit, theft and coercion to do so.

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

And yes it is ethical to propose changes to transparency laws and force disclosure. 

I quite agree.  But Mr. McKnight isn't doing that.

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

"Jack" is demanding his members to give 10% of their increase to him on an annual basis. 

No, "Jack" is doing nothing of the sort.

And neither is the LDS Church.

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Because society should be interested in preventing charity fraud and abuse, "Jack" should disclose what he is doing with those charitable funds and if Jack refuses, whistle blowers should be encouraged to disclose in "Jack's" place.

And that is where we disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Which we believe receives it's authority to act (the priesthood) from God.  I don't see the difference.

I think it's more accurate for you to say "Which I believe..."  I am a member in good standing with this church, and I don't believe that God and the Corporation of the President of the Church of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are one and the same.

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you don't understand why, then perhaps you shouldn't assume disclosure is the better approach as it might turn out once you do understand, it makes sense to you as it does to us.

Is it o.k. to disagree with the brethren?  You know they disagree among themselves over this or that policy all the time.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't understand why you defend non-disclosure. 

I think that some people (not saying you) mistakenly see disclosure as a moral issue.  Disclosure (or non-disclosure) is not moral or immoral though and because of that, there is no reason, in general to always defend it. I sometimes defend non-disclosure because, like many other people, I think there are times when people have a right not to be transparent.  

Quote

And yes it is ethical to propose changes to transparency laws and force disclosure. 

That's not what I asked though.  I did not ask anything about transparency laws.  I asked is it ethical for someone who does not donate to the charity to attempt to force Jack to be financially transparent by releasing confidential information without his permission?

That is the specific question that I would like answered.  

Quote

Because society should be interested in preventing charity fraud and abuse.

Why should society be interested in that?  If someone doesn't care if they are being defrauded or not, why does society need to get involved?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  Are you sure about that?

Let's say that you have a nice Ford Mustang that I like.  I want it, but I do not want to pay of it.  You like it and do not want to sell it or give it to me.  So I steal it from you.  And since, as you say, I get "to make up" my own "reasons" for stealing it from you, and because those reasons justify theft anytime I want, then - according to your reasoning - I am justified in stealing your Mustang, and you just need to shut your piehole and let me take it from you.

Right?

Shut my pie hole?  You are missing the point.  Everyone gets to make reasons why they do what they do.  That does not mean those reasons can't be argued, or disagreed with.  yes, someone might feel justified in stealing a car, but another might not be convinced.  Yes, McKnight gets to decide why he does what he does.  You are free to disagree with his reasons. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We are a society of laws.  We are governed by laws external to ourselves and decided upon by the community.  And yet here you are, suggesting that we each get to do whatever we want, whenever we want, and that we are justified in doing whatever we want because "everybody gets to make up their own reasons for doing what they do."

Huh?  That makes no sense.  At all.

That's largely because you are employing that silly tactic of making up my position.  Just because we each get to decide why we do what we each do, it does not follow that anything anyone decides is lawful, or ethical.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?  It sure seems that way.

Well we are discussing the matter, going back and forth.  while I probably could, I haven't trie dto predict your responses.  I just respond to whatever nonsense you've said.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Doesn't matter.  If Ryan McKnight (and you) get to rationalize encouragement of theft from the LDS Church by making up whatever ad hoc justifications you like, then "Jack" can do the same to justify his theft from you.

He sure can.  But, I can also disagree with Jack's justification.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And if someone happens to agree with him, then that's just gravy.

You don't understand (actually, I think you do).

I don't want to get your private data.  I would never encourage your friends/family to steal that data from you and send it to me so I could publish it to the world.  That would be immoral and unethical and wrong.

Similarly, I don't think Mr. McKnight should be encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

I couldn't care less about "hits" or "interest."

I'm not talking about a popularity contest.  I'm talking about a system of ethics.  You and Mr. McKnight have a system of ethics that excuses the encouragement of employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

I find that system of ethics to be flawed and contemptible.  I have posited - hypothetically - that if someone were to deploy this system of ethics against you and your property, you would object to it.

Not true.  If I accepted donations like the Church I'd welcome pressure for me to be transparent.  Please stop repeating this falsehood.  It's a lie.  I've told you numerous times to stop trying to tell me what I'd object to and you keep telling me what I'd object to.  It's nonsense.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  And you would be right to object to it.  "Jack" does not have the right to demand that you capitulate to his opinions about you being "transparent" with your sensitive personal data.  He also does not have the right to respond to your refusal to capitulate by encouraging family/friends to steal your personal data and secretly send it to him so he can publish it to the world without your consent.

Yes, it is.  You are rationalizing Mr. McKnight's encouragement of employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer.  That is wrong.

I am saying that if "Jack" used your reasoning to encourage your family/friends to steal your data from you, you would object to that.  You would say it is wrong.

And you would be right.

Huh.  Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've clarified many times for you.  I would not object.  If I were receiving donations I would be transparent.  And if I weren't being transparent I'd welcome others to pressure me to be transparent.  You keep saying if I were in the Church's shoes, I'd object, or you keep trying to paint that picture of me.  Not true, not at all.  You are being deceitful every time you repeat that nonsense, and yet you keep repeating it.  I keep telling you you are wrong about me and what I would do.  Yet you continue to insist you know me more than me.  

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

We are likewise not asked to “live” the law of chastity.

We are asked to live the law of chastity.

27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Secondly, if we are truly not under covenant to live the law of consecration today, then an argument to condemn someone for not giving all he/she has to the church (tithing, obedience, etc...) is without merit.

We are not required to consecrate all that we have to the church, right now (perhaps in the future?). 

We are asked to be obedient (that is a temple covenant), and we are asked to live by the law of tithing.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I think it's more accurate for you to say "Which I believe..."  I am a member in good standing with this church, and I don't believe that God and the Corporation of the President of the Church of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are one and the same.

By saying we I meant the general membership of the church.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

Have you read the blog entry on this topic (written by an accountant) that I linked to earlier, The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency?

Mistrust is why we need transparency and sunshine laws. 

This is a worthwhile, but very different, topic from the one under discussion, namely, the ethics (or lack thereof) involved in Mr. McKnight's encouragement of employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen items to him so he can publish them to the world.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Or as the Gipper said when talking about the old soviet union, "trust but verify."  Too much trust leads to fraud and abuse and a little sunshine goes a long ways. 

We have annual reports.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Finance and Records Department, the Auditing Department, the Audit Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, the Deseret Management Corporation and its board of directors, the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, "other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves," and on and on.

Moreover, we have a robust missionary program.  And meetinghouses.  And temples.  And educational and humanitarian efforts.  And Fast Offerings.  And so on.

We also have a generalized knowledge that the General Authorities live very moderate lifestyles, particularly given the huge amounts of money to which they have access.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have tens of thousands of bishops and stake presidents and other local leaders who work for free.

We also have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."

We also have a rather remarkable lack of demonstrated "fraud and abuse" as to the finances of the LDS Church.  There is some mismanagement and misconduct, to be sure.  There always will be in a large organization and when large sums of money are in play.  

Have you read D. Michael Quinn's most recent book on the Church's finances?  He is clearly no friend to the Church.  And yet his assessment of the Church's finances was:

Quote

Yet LDS general authorities — from the most senior apostle to the lowest-ranking Seventy — all receive the same yearly “living allowance”: $120,000. Though the church has enormous wealth, he {Quinn} says, none of the leaders is getting rich off it.

...

{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is “an enormously faith-promoting story.”

If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would “breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.”

So my question to you is this: Is your concern about "fraud" in the Church's finances purely theoretical?  Or do you have evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that such fraud exists?

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Did you know that the church bailed out Beneficial Life to the tune of $600 Million? 

Yes.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The life insurance company had too much invested in cdo's and clo's, etc. and got caught during the financial crisis. 

Okay.  And?

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

G.A. life insurance policies were at stake so a bailout occurred. 

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Documentation that the bailout arose because "G.A. life insurance policies were at stake."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I asked is it ethical for someone who does not donate to the charity to attempt to force Jack to be financially transparent by releasing confidential information without his permission?

That is the specific question that I would like answered. 

I answered that it is ethical to force disclosure.

Quote

Why should society be interested in that?  If someone doesn't care if they are being defrauded or not, why does society need to get involved?

Fraud affects society at large.  Fraud affects the local economy where fraud occurs.  The defrauded don't have the discretionary money that might have been spent in local businesses etc.  Retirement savings gets lost and that puts a burden on families and society to take care of the defrauded. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I answered that it is ethical to force disclosure.

 

No, you answered that it was ethical to attempt to change the law to force disclosure.  I'm asking if it's ethical to try to force disclosure without trying to change the laws?  

Quote

Fraud affects society at large. 

How would fraud in the LDS church affect the local economy?  I'm not sure what you are saying.

Quote

The defrauded don't have the discretionary money that might have been spent in local businesses etc.  Retirement savings gets lost and that puts a burden on families and society to take care of the defrauded. 

Were talking about fraud in the LDS church though.  It would be really hard to argue that if fraud was discovered in the LDS church, tithe paying members would instead be putting that 10% into their local economy.  Likewise for the argument that society should force the transparency of the LDS church because of the threat to the retirement savings of LDS members.  That argument doesn't seem at all reasonable or valid.

[HappyJackWagon]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard more than one mormon scholar use the temple to explain that yes, we are asked to live the law of consecration right now, so I think there is room for reasonable disagreement on the issue.

Totally agree. There are many orthodox opinions on this. Drop this bomb in my Elder's Quorum and the old men will have a blast arguing both sides for hours

[SouthernMo]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We are asked to live the law of chastity.

If we are going to split hairs about what words are used in the covenants, then you are wrong.  The words "live the law of chastity" are not found in the current temple covenants.  The words used are "observe and keep the law of chastity, as it has been explained to you."  But I agree with your interpretation, I think they mean essentially the same thing.

As an interesting note, those who covenanted prior to 1990 are only under covenant not to have "intercourse" with anyone besides their spouse.  Those of us who covenanted after 1990, are under covenant not to have "sexual relations" with anyone besides our spouses.

Covenants sure are nuanced, and should be studied!

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If we are going to split hairs about what words are used in the covenants, then you are wrong.  The words "live the law of chastity" are not found in the current temple covenants.  The words used are "observe and keep the law of chastity, as it has been explained to you."  But I agree with your interpretation, I think they mean essentially the same thing.

As an interesting note, those who covenanted prior to 1990 are only under covenant not to have "intercourse" with anyone besides their spouse.  Those of us who covenanted after 1990, are under covenant not to have "sexual relations" with anyone besides our spouses.

Covenants sure are nuanced, and should be studied!

And then there is non-covenant of wearing the garment. How many people realize there isn't a covenant about that?

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

If we are going to split hairs about what words are used in the covenants, then you are wrong.  The words "live the law of chastity" are not found in the current temple covenants.  The words used are "observe and keep the law of chastity, as it has been explained to you."  But I agree with your interpretation, I think they mean essentially the same thing.

Correct.  Both terms have the same meaning to me.

 

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

As an interesting note, those who covenanted prior to 1990 are only under covenant not to have "intercourse" with anyone besides their spouse.  Those of us who covenanted after 1990, are under covenant not to have "sexual relations" with anyone besides our spouses.

The way words are used changes over time.  "Making love" has a different definition today than it did in my grandparents time.  Same covenant, the wording was just updated as word definitions changed with the times.

Edited August 15, 2018 by ksfisher

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, you answered that it was ethical to attempt to change the law to force disclosure.  I'm asking if it's ethical to try to force disclosure without trying to change the laws? 

 

I think it is ethical what Mr. McKnight is doing.  He is like a news service, like wikileaks and is merely reporting what he finds.

Quote

How would fraud in the LDS church affect the local economy?  I'm not sure what you are saying.

Were talking about fraud in the LDS church though.  It would be really hard to argue that if fraud was discovered in the LDS church, tithe paying members would instead be putting that 10% into their local economy.  Likewise for the argument that society should force the transparency of the LDS church because of the threat to the retirement savings of LDS members.  That argument doesn't seem at all reasonable or valid.

Some would leave the church if there were fraud found.  People are leaving in the current environment of non-disclosure so of course some would leave if fraud were found in addition to the common reasons people leave.  In any event, I am not saying that there is fraud going on with the tithing money.  What I am saying is that the members deserve to know exactly where their money goes.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Have you read the blog entry on this topic (written by an accountant) that I linked to earlier, The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency?

Thanks for sharing this.  I read this some months ago, and think that anyone who asks for more financial disclosure should read this.  The author does a great job of showing how disclosure is a nuanced issue, and helped me consider the arguments for and against increased transparency with more perspective and wisdom.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it is ethical what Mr. McKnight is doing.  He is like a news service, like wikileaks and is merely reporting what he finds.

Some would leave the church if there were fraud found.  People are leaving in the current environment of non-disclosure so of course some would leave if fraud were found in addition to the common reasons people leave.  In any event, I am not saying that there is fraud going on with the tithing money.  What I am saying is that the members deserve to know exactly where their money goes.

Ethics and the privacy harms of wikileaks

Yes, some would leave the church if fraud were found, but given what people like Quinn have said about the chances of fraud being found in the church (given what is known), I don't consider that to be very relevant reason for society to be concerned about the transparency of the LDS church.

Beyond that though, I get that you and some others believe that members deserve to know exactly where their money goes.  If you aren't a member (and I don't know if you are or aren't), that doesn't seem like a valid argument either.  

[Kenngo1969]

The thing about transparency is, no matter how much you know, there's no way to know how much you don't know.