Excommunication Appeal for Sam Young - Protect LDS Children

[rockpond]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no, it doesn't.

Is Ryan McKnight encouraging people close to John Dehlin to steal his financial information and surreptitiously send it to Mr. McKnight, with the intended purpose of publishing it to the world?

Kidgloves go on when Mr. McKnight is addressing the purported lack of sufficient transparency from his fellow critic, but the gloves come off and thievery is the order of the day when addressing the purported lack of sufficient transparency from the Church.

One standard for the Church, another for Mr. McKnight's compatriots.  Convenient, that.

And the accountability for Mr. Dehlin appears to be . . . lacking.  And yet Mr. McKnight is not encouraging people associated with Mr. Dehlin to steal from Mr. Dehlin and send the stolen materials to Mr. McKnight.

A brave crusader, this Mr. McKnight.

Except the information isn't "out there," and Mr. Dehlin isn't being held "accountable."

And yet Mr. McKnight is approaching him in conciliatory, can't-we-all-get-along tones, and is not encouraging Mr. Dehlin's trusted associates to steal from Mr. Dehlin and send the stolen materials to Mr. McKnight for publication to the world.

Curious.

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."

It is false to say that the Church is "totally unaccountable to the people who donate."

Mr. Dehlin is not being held accountable.

Mr. McKnight is not encouraging Mr. Dehlin's associates to steal from Mr. Dehlin so as to coerce Mr. Dehlin into "accountability."

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you aware that the links regarding Dehlin-McKnight are over a year old?  My understanding is that they have resolved their differences.  McKnight appeared on a Mormon Stories podcast with Dehlin just this past June.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Are you aware that the links regarding Dehlin-McKnight are over a year old?  My understanding is that they have resolved their differences.  McKnight appeared on a Mormon Stories podcast with Dehlin just this past June.

They've resolved their differences?  So full-and-unfettered disclosure of OSF finances has happened?

I am happy to be corrected on that point.  However, I also reserve the right to unilaterally and arbitrarily declare that the disclosures of OSF finances - whatever they are - are insufficient, and that the public needs "more."  I, and I alone, get to decide what "more" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They've resolved their differences?  So full-and-unfettered disclosure of OSF finances has happened?

I am happy to be corrected on that point.  However, I also reserve the right to unilaterally and arbitrarily declare that the disclosures of OSF finances - whatever they are - are insufficient, and that the public needs "more."  I, and I alone, get to decide what "more" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

OSF has always disclosed its finances.  I've mentioned a couple times that they are posted to the OSF website.

You are welcome to review (even though you are not a donor) and you can unilaterally and arbitrarily declare that the disclosures are insufficient.  However, OSF's financials disclosures are still more "full-and-unfettered" than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Then again, it's not hard to beat zero.

[smac97]

Just now, rockpond said:

OSF has always disclosed its finances.  I've mentioned a couple times that they are posted to the OSF website.

Not to my satisfaction, though.

Just now, rockpond said:

You are welcome to review (even though you are not a donor) and you can unilaterally and arbitrarily declare that the disclosures are insufficient. 

I'm glad we agree on that.

Just now, rockpond said:

However, OSF's financials disclosures are still more "full-and-unfettered" than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Then again, it's not hard to beat zero.

Except that the Church's disclosures are not "zero."

It looks like we're talking a difference of degree, not kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not to my satisfaction, though.

I'm glad we agree on that.

Except that the Church's disclosures are not "zero."

It looks like we're talking a difference of degree, not kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

OSF discloses its balance sheet and profit and loss each year.  This is far more than the Church discloses (which is nothing more than a statement that an audit has been passed).

Edited October 12, 2018 by rockpond

[smac97]

So here are the OSF financial disclosures for 2017.

It's five pages long.  Here's the first page:

Quote

Open Stories Foundation
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
December 31, 2017

Current assets
Unrestricted cash $ 56,867
Designated and restricted cash 215,000
Accounts receivable 19,386
Total current assets 291,253

Property and equipment, net 4,667
Total assets $ 295,920

Current liabilities
Payroll and related liabilities $ 7,425
Total liabilities 7,425

Net Assets
Unrestricted $238,495
Restricted 50 ,000
Total net assets 288,495
Total liabilities and net assets $ 295,920

What are these assets?  What are the liabilities?

Here's the key bit:

Quote

Payroll related expenses: Payroll related expenses include the salaries, bonuses, and related benefits and payroll taxes for the Foundation’s 2 full time employees and 2 part-time employees. The Chief Executive Officer’s (“CEO”) compensation is set by the Board Compensation Committee which consists of 3 of the Foundation’s independent Directors, none of which receive any compensation from the Foundation. The CEO’s 2017 salary and bonus was $82,500 and $27,000 respectively. 

Who is the CEO?  What as the bonus based on?  What about benefits?  Were those paid for by OSF?  Travel?  Lodging?  Food?

And what about the complaints made by Kristy Money and Kate Kelly?  Have those been addressed, or swept under the rug.

Nosiree.  This summary is insufficient.  I demand more.  

Ryan McKnight is satisfied with these disclosures, huh?  If so, it looks like McKnight-the-Watchdog has become McKnight-the-Lapdog.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

OSF discloses its balance sheet and profit and loss each year.  This is far more than the Church discloses (which is nothing more than a statement that an audit has been passed).

But it is still insufficient.

There is so much more OSF could disclose.  What is it hiding?  

-Smac

[Abulafia]

28 minutes ago, provoman said:

Here is my issue with his appearance in Believer, I do not recall whether or not he stated he was licensed - it is my understanding that he does not have license for counseling/psychology, though he does have Ph.D. Additionally without reference to studies or scientific evidence he attributes the rise in youth suicide in Utah to anti-lgbt messages.

What struck my never member husband while watching the show, wasn't the suicide rate of gay youth, which maybe he already understands may be down to the theology... but the suicide of the concert assistants brother.

That he was barred from BYU for, what, 5 years, utterly shocked him.. his comment, not mine... *the guy was punished for being honest*??

We just aren't used to universities being that draconian over here in the UK. 

If the guy had not been up front, he would still be there.  It came across terribly on the church.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it is still insufficient.

There is so much more OSF could disclose.  What is it hiding?  

-Smac

Nothing.

And the Church discloses far less.  

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So here are the OSF financial disclosures for 2017.

It's five pages long.  Here's the first page:

What are these assets?  What are the liabilities?

Here's the key bit:

Who is the CEO?  What as the bonus based on?  What about benefits?  Were those paid for by OSF?  Travel?  Lodging?  Food?

And what about the complaints made by Kristy Money and Kate Kelly?  Have those been addressed, or swept under the rug.

Nosiree.  This summary is insufficient.  I demand more.  

Ryan McKnight is satisfied with these disclosures, huh?  If so, it looks like McKnight-the-Watchdog has become McKnight-the-Lapdog.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Thanks,

-Smac

Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website.

I believe that McKnight is satisfied but you'd have to ask him.

And yet... this is still far more than the Church discloses.  Interesting that you have no criticism or questions about what they are hiding.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

But it is still insufficient.

There is so much more OSF could disclose.  What is it hiding?  

-Smac

Nothing.

Well, it's clearly hiding something, since they're not disclosing everything.

Right?

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And the Church discloses far less.  

That's a non sequitur.  If Mr. Dehlin can say "Hey, my disclosures are sufficient because I am disclosing more than the Church does," then why can't the Church say "Hey, our disclosures are sufficient because we are disclosing more than [some other organization] does?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website.

Okay.  I'll do that.  But again, I reserve the right to unilaterially and arbitrarily declare what amount of "transparency" is sufficient.

EDIT TO ADD:

Okay, here's the part of the OSF website about its finances:

Quote

Below are the end of year financial statements for the Open Stories Foundation

Note: Starting January 1, 2016 all OSF podcasters were placed on a fixed income disbursement.  After commissioning an external compensation review of comparable organizations, John Dehlin’s base salary as CEO of the Open Stories Foundation, and as host of Mormon Stories Podcast, was set at $75,000/year for 2016.

• 2017 Condensed Financial Statements and Supplemental Information
• 2016 Condensed Financial Statements and Supplemental Information
• 2015 Income Statement
• 2015 Balance Sheet
• 2014 Income Statement
• 2014 Balance Sheet
• 2013 Income Statement
• 2013 Balance Sheet
• 2012 Profit and Loss Statement
• 2012 Balance Sheet
• 2011 Profit and Loss Statement
• 2011 Balance Sheet

(Updated 3/20/2018)

I'm not seeing any answers to my questions.  I'm also not seeing them in the FAQ.

So . . . CFR.  If you please.  You said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."  Please provide references as to where these "questions are answered."

Chapter and verse.  Thanks.

Quote

I believe that McKnight is satisfied but you'd have to ask him.

But I'm not satisfied.

Quote

And yet... this is still far more than the Church discloses.  Interesting that you have no criticism or questions about what they are hiding.

Non sequitur.  Dodge.  Distraction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 12, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I'll do that.  But again, I reserve the right to unilaterially and arbitrarily declare what amount of "transparency" is sufficient.

EDIT TO ADD:

Okay, here's the part of the OSF website about its finances:

I'm not seeing any answers to my questions.  I'm also not seeing them in the FAQ.

So . . . CFR.  If you please.  You said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."  Please provide references as to where these "questions are answered."

Chapter and verse.  Thanks.

But I'm not satisfied.

Non sequitur.  Dodge.  Distraction.

Thanks,

-Smac

I''m not going to provide additional references because I haven't made unsubstantiated claims.  I said that I believe most of your questions are answered on the OSF website.  If they aren't, ask Dehlin.  You can't CFR me for claims I didn't make.

Your approach here is laughable.  OSF publishes its finances - you were able to access them quite quickly and I doubt you have ever even donated to OSF.  If you are a donor and have follow up questions, contact them, I am confident they would respond.

Comparing your complaints here to the Church's financial disclosure is relevant since we are on a Mormon (or Church of Jesus Christ) discussion board.  Your double standard is noted.

If the Church wants to say that they disclose more than other similar organizations, go for it.  Good luck with that.

[Duncan]

On 10/11/2018 at 11:53 AM, Jeanne said:

I have never heard of anyone appealing before..so this is interesting anyway.  It is his right.  I wish him well and though others may not see it...I see him as a champion for the children. 

FWIW I knew a lady who appealed her excommunication and it got overturned

[rockpond]

Just now, Duncan said:

FWIW I knew a lady who appealed her excommunication and it got overturned

I also know someone who appealed the denial of their temple recommend... all the way to the First Presidency.  And, the denial was overturned.  They (the FP) do listen and even though I believe their first instinct is to support the local leader (as it should be), they do act independently.

[LoudmouthMormon]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

FWIW I knew a lady who appealed her excommunication and it got overturned

 

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I also know someone who appealed the denial of their temple recommend... all the way to the First Presidency.  And, the denial was overturned.

 

Wow.  Little old me in the clerk's office, only know a couple of people who stopped by and got irritated after the bishop cut off their fast offerings checks.  I didn't overturn anything. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not to my satisfaction, though.

I'm glad we agree on that.

Except that the Church's disclosures are not "zero."

It looks like we're talking a difference of degree, not kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sure you're right, but what are the church's financial disclosures? Can you give an example of what they have disclosed?

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I''m not going to provide additional references because I haven't made unsubstantiated claims. 

Well yes, you have.  You said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."

You haven't substantiated this claim.  That makes it . . . unsubstantiated.

Quote

I said that I believe most of your questions are answered on the OSF website. 

No, you didn't.  You said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."

If you are amending your claim, just say so.  

Quote

If they aren't, ask Dehlin.  You can't CFR me for claims I didn't make.

Again, you said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."

"Most of those questions are answered" sounds like a claim.  And you made it.  Hence the CFR.

And it's an important one, too.  For all the hue-and-cry about how the Church needs to be "transparent," there seems to be quite a bit of "Nothing to see here, move along..." when it comes to the critics adhering to their own standards of conduct.

And now here you are, defending them, saying that most of my questions "are answered on the OSF website."  Well, they aren't.  And as you are asserting an affirmative factual statement, you have the obligation to provide substantiated references.  So . . . 

Quote

Your approach here is laughable.  OSF publishes its finances

It published a five-page summary with no details.  Radically and painfully insufficient.

Quote

- you were able to access them quite quickly and I doubt you have ever even donated to OSF. 

Its summary is insufficient.  I get to say so.  I am the arbiter of what is and is not sufficient "transparency."  I say that the OSF is not being sufficiently transparent.  By way of illustration, I posed a number of questions left unanswered by the OSF's five-page summary.  You have asserted that answers to most of these questions are on the OSF website.  So . . . CFR, if you please.

Quote

If you are a donor and have follow up questions, contact them, I am confident they would respond.

Since when does donating to OSF amount to a hill of beans?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote

Comparing your complaints here to the Church's financial disclosure is relevant since we are on a Mormon (or Church of Jesus Christ) discussion board.  Your double standard is noted.

Not a double standard.  Just an exercise in nose-tweaking.  And in pointing out the irony of people like John Dehlin and Ryan McKnight faulting the Church for not meeting arbitrary standards of "transparency," only to turn around and find out that Mr. Dehlin is engaged in all sorts of shenanigans, that there's virtually no accountability about what he's paid, and that Ryan McKnight is apparently now just hunky-dory with this state of affairs, having mended fences with Mr. Dehlin (despite Mr. Dehlin apparently having not changed his level of "transparency").

Who watches the watchers?  Nobody.  They get off scot-free.   'Cuz reasons.  "Transparency for thee and thine, but not for me and mine."  That's the way it works, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 12, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

FWIW I knew a lady who appealed her excommunication and it got overturned

Thanks for the info.  Interesting. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Abulafia said:

No. You are seeing things from a Utah centric perspective imho. Believer was just shown here in the UK, so for us, this issue is new news and it's new news that reaches a wide non member audience.  

So I take it this movie is sweeping the nation then. 

[Abulafia]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it this movie is sweeping the nation then. 

Compared with the new Dr Who? Probably not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Compared with the new Dr Who? Probably not. 

I rather doubt it’s gaining much traction beyond a certain niche market. But I haven’t made any studies about it. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[2BizE]

I think Sam makes some good points that make me wonder.  If the scriptures (D&C) indicate that Common Consent should be used in all things in the church, why is it not really used today?  

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well yes, you have.  You said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."

You haven't substantiated this claim.  That makes it . . . unsubstantiated.

No, you didn't.  You said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."

If you are amending your claim, just say so.  

Again, you said: "Most of those questions are answered if you keep reading the OSF website."

"Most of those questions are answered" sounds like a claim.  And you made it.  Hence the CFR.

And it's an important one, too.  For all the hue-and-cry about how the Church needs to be "transparent," there seems to be quite a bit of "Nothing to see here, move along..." when it comes to the critics adhering to their own standards of conduct.

And now here you are, defending them, saying that most of my questions "are answered on the OSF website."  Well, they aren't.  And as you are asserting an affirmative factual statement, you have the obligation to provide substantiated references.  So . . . 

It published a five-page summary with no details.  Radically and painfully insufficient.

Its summary is insufficient.  I get to say so.  I am the arbiter of what is and is not sufficient "transparency."  I say that the OSF is not being sufficiently transparent.  By way of illustration, I posed a number of questions left unanswered by the OSF's five-page summary.  You have asserted that answers to most of these questions are on the OSF website.  So . . . CFR, if you please.

Since when does donating to OSF amount to a hill of beans?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Not a double standard.  Just an exercise in nose-tweaking.  And in pointing out the irony of people like John Dehlin and Ryan McKnight faulting the Church for not meeting arbitrary standards of "transparency," only to turn around and find out that Mr. Dehlin is engaged in all sorts of shenanigans, that there's virtually no accountability about what he's paid, and that Ryan McKnight is apparently now just hunky-dory with this state of affairs, having mended fences with Mr. Dehlin (despite Mr. Dehlin apparently having not changed his level of "transparency").

Who watches the watchers?  Nobody.  They get off scot-free.   'Cuz reasons.  "Transparency for thee and thine, but not for me and mine."  That's the way it works, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

1.   Regarding your questions about OSF, I was surmising when I said that most of them are answered on the website.  And I have clarified that it is my belief.  Additionally, your are welcome to reach out to them with your questions.  If you were a donor, I imagine they would be responsive.  If you aren’t a donor or a member of the foundation, than I am not sure why you think you should have access to their financials anyway.

2.  Gross donations/revenues of OSF were under a half million for last year and yet they provided a five page financial summary to the world.  The LDS Church gross revenues for 2017 were probably 10,000 times that much.  How many pages of financial disclosure have they published  to the world. 

3.  What shenanigans are you claiming Dehlin is guilty of and where is your evidence?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I rather doubt it’s gaining much traction beyond a certain mich market. But I haven’t made any studies about it. 

Unless things have changed a lot since my mission the main consumer will probably be dole recipients with nothing to do all day but watch dull programs about obscure religious faiths.