Clearing the Financial Record

[Moksha]

So Wade, by setting yourself up as the representative of Church leaders, rather than the Devil's Advocate for shady business practices, I think you are doing the Church leaders a disservice.

The Church, its members and even its leaders deserve openness and honesty. It is the truth that shall set us all free.

We should do what is right and that is be open and honest about our financial dealings.

Needing to keep things hidden is for underworld characters, not Churches.

Trying to wrap the financial records in the mantel of sacredness seems like the ploy of a desperate scoundrel.

[Golden Tapir]

Hey!

we's gotta let "WE" have the last word(s) on this subject (wink wink).

[wenglund]

I see you have taken financial information to its extreme, with ISP addresses, my clients names and addresses, etc. A far cry from what this topic is about.

Actually, I was just assuming that "full disclosure" meant....well, full disclosure (i.e. disclosure of everything).

Yet, I also have been attempting to clarify the significant ambiguity as to what you and others may idiosyncratically mean by it. In fact, my questions were, in part, intended towards that end, as well as to start to illuminate various things you "full disclosurist" believe are prudent to keep private, confidential, sacred, or as you folks say, "hidden" and "secret."

After all, we may not be as far apart in our opinions as may at first seem to be the case.

I have repeatedly stated my position on this matter, as have others.  I will state it again since you continue to claim I haven't and then assume to know my mindset.

My opinion was that the church should allow people to know where the money is invested ( the companies).  I repeatedly stated that, they do not have to, and I do not need to contribute and I don't.  So I really do not care if they do or do not.  Its my opinion Wade, can't you accept that?  Can't you accept that other people think differently than you.  There is not a right answer, each side has an opinion.  We come here to share those opinions and share information, hopefully to gain alittle more understanding, not to win.  You can give all of your money to the church without any accountability, I could care less.  Its your life.

I will readily acknowledge that you have stated your general opinion on the issue, and I have no problem respecting it, even though it differs from my own.

However, as explained to Moksha, what I am now attempting to do is to better understand your opinions (beyond your simply wanting to know where Church money is being invested, to also learning how detailed you believe that information should be, how it should be disseminated, why you want to know that specific information, what benefit you personally will derive from learning that information, and more specifically why you think it is the "right thing to do").

I am also attempting to see whether you and others can respect the opinions of the leaders and other members of the Church on this issue, and also determine whether any of us on this board are rightly in a position to say or even care one way or another

[wenglund]

So Wade, by setting yourself up as the representative of Church leaders, rather than the Devil's Advocate for shady business practices, I think you are doing the Church leaders a disservice.

The Church, its members and even its leaders deserve openness and honesty. It is the truth that shall set us all free.

We should do what is right and that is be open and honest about our financial dealings.

Needing to keep things hidden is for underworld characters, not Churches.

Trying to wrap the financial records in the mantel of sacredness seems like the ploy of a desperate scoundrel.

uhhh...your record seems to be broken. It keeps repeating the same old hypocritical and hysterical nonsense, and makes not even the slightest pretense at engaging the thoughtful questions that have been asked.

You may want to look into getting it fixed. It is irritating, if not embarrassing of you.

GT:

Hey!

we's gotta let "WE" have the last word(s) on this subject (wink wink).

...as if you GSB types (chronic whiners, complainers, and naysayers from the Great and Spacious Building) will ever let that happen. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[vistamod]

Wade,

I disagree. People have not been disrespectful, they have been branded as suspicious, distrustful when they stated their opinion. You don't have a problem with Scott Gordon because you know his full position towards the church. Through this thread I have seen many people accused of positions that they have not taken, and accussed of intent that they did not mean.

YOu continue to refer to me as somebody wanting full disclosure, etc. I have never asked for full disclosure, etc. In the early pages of this thread I repeatedly saw people accussed of distrusting and accusing the leaders of misconduct which is not what they were asking or stating.

I don't care why the leaders do or do not disclose financial information. I don't give them my money. I am very generous with the Lords money to other organizations that do tell where the money goes and where it is invested. The church is entitled to set any rules they want, and some people will choose to play with them and some people will not.

I have brought up one item for consideration, whcih is not even my belief. Cultwatch organizations are very quick to include religious organizations which do not disclose financial information or do not have an atmosphere of financial transperancy. In the age of the quick information via the internet, many investigators and also relatives/friends of investigators utilize this type of information. It becomes ammunition against the church, in the same manner that accusations that LDS are not Christian. There are things that the church should and should not address in regards to their critics. Perhaps financial transperancy is a matter which should be addressed since many "cults" and organizations which are not legitimate, do operate without financial transperancy. It seems that if the church is so concerned with its missionaries having a certain look and presenting a certain image, thye would also be concerned with the image that non-financial disclosure might be presenting to those outside of the church.

Again, its not something I am going to bang my head against a wall over. I am long past wondering why the church chooses to do some of the things it does.

[Teancum]

Don't be sorry. I am glad you chimed in. You have this very amusing talent for honing in on a number of striking irrelevancies, while completely missing the simple and obvious point of the question

Really. Not so. Quite the contrary as I will demonstrate. And I find it amusing to say the least that you do not get it yet. You actual have continued to insist on some sort of disclosure on a public board from those who believe the church should disclose its finances.

(Hint: they had nothing to do with keeping identities secret on a message board.

Hint. Yes it did.

In fact, I explicitely noted that such things were "beside" the point)--and this while repeatedly claiming to "understand," but really having no clue--as evinced by how you confusedly chimed

Really? How confused am I.

In your last post this is what I responded to:

Or, is that something (besides your identity) that you wish to hide while ironically proclaiming the virtues of full disclosure?

Clearly without any confusion on my part you imply that we are hiding something so we should not object to the church doing it.

Additionally on March 21 at 1:00 PM you said:

I still find it interesting that the ones calling for full disclosure, and claiming that people "deserve the truth," as well as trumpeting "openness and honesty," are the ones here keeping their identity and personal information secret.

So one day previous to the post I quoted you were still talking about people hiding their identity and keeping personal info secret. Will you now admit that the two are unrelated. Or will you continue to be insulting by calling me confused?

In the same post you continued to say:

I am sure they have their good reasons. It just that I can't see why they don't grant the same as probably true for the leaders of the Church. Why don't they presume that the leaders have equally good reasons to keep portions of the Church's financial records discrete, confidential, sacred, private, etc.?

Thus making once again the fallacious comparison. So I will state once again to you: When I require you to pay 10% of your income to become a member of my organization, enter into my most important edifice and to participate in the most sacred ordinances of my group I will disclose all to you. Till then this continued proclamation and feigned astonishment is kindergarten material.

Now, on to your queries.

Why do we believe we now have all the "truth" we "deserve" on the matter, and others believe we "deserve" more?

Well, honestly, I think you are naive.

Why doesn't the lack of full disclosure not trouble us in the least, or even register on our radars (until the subject is raised), while it seems to be of at least some concern to others--such that they feel a need to raise the issue and press it on public forums?

Who cares? Just because you are satisfied you, by asking this question, imply there is something wrong with those who are not. At the same time your pious position attempts to portray you and those how are not "trouble in the least" as some how more faithful then those who do. This as you know is called poisoning the well.

Why do some of us believe the Church is doing the "right thing" in keeping the financial records partially discrete, confidential, sacred, private, etc., whereas others believe the "right thing" is full disclosure (whatever that entails--even corporations are not legally required to disclose each and every financial transaction)?

Because those who do are more financially savvy then you and pother perhaps? And the records for the church on the macro level are not partially discrete or confidential and one wonders what could be sacred about them that would require total restriction to them by the rank and file. The records are totally discrete as they are totally unavailable.

If it is not suspicion and distrust, then what explains the difference?

Lack of naivety and a lack of desire for accountability.

And, given these differences, whose preferences should prevail? Why?

I guess the point is moot as it is not up to you or me now is it.

And, how far down the road of full financial disclosure should the Church go? Why there?

I believe they should publish a financial statement that is independently audited similar to what most large 501©(3)'s offer. Why there? Because that is the accepted standard for financial reporting today.

What difference will it make?

It will demonstrate total fiscal responsibility. Why do you think the church stopped this in 1959?

What if there are members who think the Church should disclose more than what you believe they should?

There will always be disagreement just as there is now. Do you really think this is a compelling reason to not disclose. If so you are more financially naive then I thought.

One cannot, with at least 4th grade level comprehension skills, think that my two QUESTIONS above had anything to do with remaining anonymous on a public debate board

Wade. You are incredibly rude and distasteful.

Clearly, though, as stated previously, I am not smart enough to word things sufficintly clear enough so that some won't mistake questions and queries about questions for arguments, nor mis-think my queries were  about the very thing I said was "beside" the point. I am obviously no match for the kind of knee-jerk rationalizing powers of some people's minds.

Try cleaning up your writing from what seems to me your intentional fog factor and perhaps it will stimulate more intelligent discussion.

BTW, a good friend of mine, a bishop has done rather well in life. He decided to start a 501©(3) to do charitable work in a particular area of the world. he put a lot of his own money into it. He also is soliciting public contributions. He wants his organizations financials audited and publiched? He insists on it. Why Wade? Why do you think that is? Especially when he funds over 50% of the organization himself? Think about it Wade then answer

Teancum

[Teancum]

And, while you, like Teancum, are very adept at noting striking, though irrelevant differences between the Church and individual members, you fail to see the simple and obvious similarities in principles between the two.

There is no failure to see any similarity because there are absolutly none except in the mind of one attempting to desperatly obfuscate the issue.

[Teancum]

By the way, I enjoyed visting your company web site. It was very nice. I was especially interested to see how fully you disclose your company finances. Unfortunately, though, I couldn't find any disclosure of finances at all. Did I somehow overlook a prominent link to that material. I know how important such things are to you.

There are alot of things that I would like to put up on my website, unfortunately I am doing a work trade thing with somebody that owes me some money. Since the entire site is already in the program he uses, I have a hard time just adding stuff. I wish I could because I have an additional 150 prints and another 300 or so images I would love to put up on the site.

If somebody wants to know the financials of my company they are free to send me an email and inquire. Since you are so interested I bank at Washington Mutual and I have an inventory of around 37,000 prints. I have a personal collection of around 160 rare framed prints, thats worth probably more than my home. i am actually getting everything ready to take to the accountant to finish taxes. Would you like me to email you my spread sheets?

I think you have me confused with the "full-disclosurists." My concerns are with my own business. Not yours or the Church's. I just wanted to check and see if you practiced what you preahced, and had proactively and fully disclosed your finances just as you and others seem to have expected the Church to do. And, you hadn't. That's all.

I am none of the above, but I have no problem opening up the financials of any of my business ventures to inquiring minds. I have nothing to hide.

Oh really?

So, if identity theaves wanted to know your social security number, bank account information, and so forth, or they wanted the same information about your clients and business associates, you would have no reason to hide anything from them?

If a theave wanted to see your full geneological family tree so as to get your mother's maiden name to use in gaining access to your bank account and financial assets, then you have nothing to hide?

If a pedaphile wanted to know the names and addresses of the precious children you have pictured on your web site, you would have nothing to hide? (You may want to know that there are such unimaginable perverts out there on the web who have taken innocent pictures of children posted on the net, and digitally super-imposed naked bodies onto them, and posted them on their own sites or sold them to other perverts. I know of this through my volunteer work in child advocacy and protection on the internet--i.e. my efforts to keep certain things hidden from children and keep children hidden from certain things.)

If porn spammers or other spammers wanted to know your email address, or email addresses of your clients, business associates, family and friends, you would have nothing to hide?

If hackers wanted to know the IP address for your friends web site, you have nothing to hide?

I could go on and on, but hopefully you and others will start to see the point that there are, indeed, things that are prudent for individuals and organizations (including the Church) to keep hidden.

Just imagine how careful you might be about disclosing various bits of information if you, like President Hinckley, had to live in a home equiped with bullet-proof windows, and be acompanied by security gaurds, because of the many threats made on your life (If you have any doubts about this, ask Brent Metcalfe. He worked in the Church's security service, and could probably regail you with many a horrowing tale.) Imagine how cautious you would be with information about disclosing information regarding your loved one's if they were subject to the same intense and unrelenting level of mockery, denegration, and criticism that the Church has long faced.

Just some things to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And not one of those things is any reason for the church not to publish a financial statement as by so doing they risk nothing of the sort.

You seem to be desperate to defen this Wade but it looks silly. There are few good reasons not to disclose. Interesting that you attempt to create a double standard then when vistmod says he would disclose you paint him as foolish, and the reasons you put are good reasons not to-for a person, but not for an organization like the LDS Church. The two are absulotly mutually exclusive.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Wade my man:

the sum total of most of your points & posts seems to come to one point/argument:

Since you don't desire disclosure, others shouldn't either.

That is bunk, and I think you know it.

Other people than you or I have opinions on things for themselves, they're just as valid.

GT, my o'l pal,

Your summarizing skills seem to be as poor and as errant as Moksha's.

Contrary to what you suggest, my point is to not only explore the "rationale" of the "full-disclosurist" in an effort to see whether their position is reasonable or not, or merely reactionary and emotive; but also to help the "full-disclosurist" to see that the Church's position, and the position of those of us supporting the leaders of the Church, is reasonable, valid, and even prudent (i.e. the "right thing" to do).

I also hope to raise the question of where the focus of our attention, as members, should be--whether we should be focusing on how our leaders should be doing their job, or on how we, as faithful SERVANTS of the Lord, are doing our "job." In other words, who should be giving an accounting of their stewardship to whom.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actaully Wade, you should be asking why you an others are so opposed to the idea of disclosure. Most of the world believes that financial disclosure is a good thing to do for organizations like the LDS Church. I would submit that you and others are the minority on this and thus the abberition. Reverse your questoins then answer them.

Teancum

[Teancum]

The imaginary "shadow" only exists in the emotion-driven and conspiratorial minds of overly suspicious and distrusting busy-bodies who, ironically, don't practice what they preach.

And Wade thinks I am confused.

But likewise, the naive and simpleminded fearful are the ones who seem to protest over much about this. Who is emotion driven. You Wade, are in the minority of reasonable standard ands people on this one.

Those of us who have a grasp of the pragmatic and prudent, who respect the right to privacy (for individuals as well as private organizations like the Church--

A Church that demands 10% for membership etc. give up any right to privacy on financial matters. It forfeits the right to such a defense.

as opposed to publicly traded corporations and trusts, and non-exempt charitable organizations)

What is a non-exempt organization? Trusts do not have to publish financial records as most trusts are established by private individuals. Clearly you do not know hat you are talking about. Give it up.

and sacred things sacred, and who practice what we preach

Financial dealings with peoples donations is sacred. And because it is sacred the stewards of such money should show they are above reproach by publicly declaring their stewardship.

particularly when our eyes and minds are rightly focused, as stewarts of the Lord, on OUR doing the "right thing," rather than on whether others (including those who have stewartship over us) are doing THEIR "right thing."

In other words Wade thinks he is more faithful by arguing the party line.

But don't let that stop your persistent snarls.

Can Wade say pot and ketlle?

Teancum

[wenglund]

Wade,

I disagree. People have not been disrespectful, they have been branded as suspicious, distrustful when they stated their opinion.

We, then, have a very different view of certani people's behavior here.

I can only go on how it comes across to me, though I can accept that others may view it differently.

To each their own.

You don't have a problem with Scott Gordon because you know his full position towards the church.

As the foremost expert on why I don't have problems with certain posts or posters, I can unequivocably tell you that you are wrong. My reasons were precisely as I stated them.

If you require further evidence: I know as much about Scott's position towards the Church as I do Teancums, and while I see little if any difference between the two positions, it is clear that I have no problem with Scotts approach, but have taken exception to Teancum's.

Through this thread I have seen many people accused of positions that they have not taken, and accussed of intent that they did not mean. 

YOu continue to refer to me as somebody wanting full disclosure, etc.  I have never asked for full disclosure, etc.

Unlike you, I will take your word for it. My apologies for classifying you as a "full-disclosurist." It was lazy on my part to lump you all together and try and address you criticism collectively. I will try and do a better job of making you accountable only for what you say.

Now, if I can only talk you and others into doing the same. ;-)

In the early pages of this thread I repeatedly saw people accussed of distrusting and accusing the leaders of misconduct which is not what they were asking or stating.

Again, I saw it differently. To each their own.

I don't care why the leaders do or do not disclose financial information.

If you are going to publically disagree with them, then wouldn't the fair thing be for you to inform yourself about what it is your disagreeing with. That is certainly what I am attempting now to do with you and others--though you each, to varying degrees, seem reticent about informing me much about the basis of your respective opinions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is kind of like you are saying: "Don't confuse me with facts and reasons, my mind is made up."

If so, I can except that, and will grant your opinion as much consideration as you grant the leaders of the Church (which is, as far as I can tell, too small to measure).

I don't give them my money.  I am very generous with the Lords money to other organizations that do tell where the money goes and where it is invested.

It certainly makes sense that you would direct your money where it suit your fancy. That's is, after all, your financial decision.

But, I am not sure it makes sense to complain or criticize the financial discissions of those with whom you have no financial vested interest.

Maybe its just me, but I don't go around voicing public disagreement with how the Catholics, Jews, Ba Hai, Evangelicals, or other religious organization may chose to handle their finances, when I have not directly contributed to them (the church has, though, contributed sizable donation to several of those other organizations without, interestingly enough, requesting that they disclose any more financial information than they already do).

So, forgive me if I view your opinion as "without standing."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

Actually Vistamods and my position is quite close Wade. Perhaps you have figured that out now.

(the church has, though, contributed sizable donation to several of those other organizations without, interestingly enough, requesting that they disclose any more financial information than they already do).

The Church does it due diligence on organizations it supports I can assure you. Elder Ballard said as much when they gave the funds from a special fast day to the starving Ethiopians through Catholic Charities (Which does disclose it financials) in the 80's.

Teancum

[wenglund]

Actaully Wade, you should be asking why you an others are so opposed to the idea of disclosure. Most of the world believes that financial disclosure is a good thing to do for organizations like the LDS Church. I would submit that you and others are the minority on this and thus the abberition. Reverse your questoins then answer them.

Teancum

That would make sense were I attempting to better understand my own position, and were I illogically moved by majority opinion.

But, alas, I am attempting to understand your opinion and those of others who disagree with the leaders of the Church. And, I am not concerned with whether your opinion is in the majority or minority (though I can see how such things are of marked importance to you), but rather whether it makes sense. (I am wondering how often I need to repeat this before it finally sinks in--in spite of your repeated claims to already understanding what I have said.)

I am also attempting to determine just how informed and reasonable you are about the descision of the Church leaders and supportive opinions of members such as myself. (I am wondering how often I need to repeat this before it finally sinks in--in spite of your repeated claims to already understanding what I have said.) I cannot accomplish that objective by doing as you ask.

So, given these facts, then what you suggest doesn't make sense (though, undoubtibly, you will assume that it does, and that I am the one who doesn't "get it," even though it is what I say and mean that I supposedly don't get. Anyone else getting dizzy from the inanity?)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

Actaully Wade, you should be asking why you an others are so opposed to the idea of disclosure.  Most of the world believes that financial disclosure is a good thing to do for organizations like the LDS Church.  I would submit that you and others are the minority on this and thus the abberition.  Reverse your questoins then answer them.

Teancum

That would make sense were I attempting to better understand my own position, and were I illogically moved by majority opinion.

But, alas, I am attempting to understand your opinion and those of others who disagree with the leaders of the Church. And, I am not concerned with whether your opinion is in the majority or minority (though I can see how such things are of marked importance to you), but rather whether it makes sense. (I am wondering how often I need to repeat this before it finally sinks in--in spite of your repeated claims to already understanding what I have said.)

I am also attempting to determine just how informed and reasonable you are about the descision of the Church leaders and supportive opinions of members such as myself. (I am wondering how often I need to repeat this before it finally sinks in--in spite of your repeated claims to already understanding what I have said.) I cannot accomplish that objective by doing as you ask.

So, given these facts, then what you suggest doesn't make sense (though, undoubtibly, you will assume that it does, and that I am the one who doesn't "get it," even though it is what I say and mean that I supposedly don't get. Anyone else getting dizzy from the inanity?)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well Wade I did answer your questions if you read my recent posts. And in response to your questions I am pointing out that most reasonably people understand fiscal, fiduciary and financila responisbilty invites an organization like the LDS Church to publish its financials. Reasonable people can disagree. But reasonable people do not impugn thoes who reasonably want to the church to disclose.

So, are my reasons clear enough for you yet? I have repeated them numerous times here.

Teacum

[wenglund]

The imaginary "shadow" only exists in the emotion-driven and conspiratorial minds of overly suspicious and distrusting busy-bodies who, ironically, don't practice what they preach.

And Wade thinks I am confused.

But likewise, the naive and simpleminded fearful are the ones who seem to protest over much about this. Who is emotion driven. You Wade, are in the minority of reasonable standard ands people on this one.

If it helps you to feel better about yourself to think so, then I am fine with that.

Certain, I am disinclined to play your juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" game.

Those of us who have a grasp of the pragmatic and prudent, who respect the right to privacy (for individuals as well as private organizations like the Church--

A Church that demands 10% for membership etc. give up any right to privacy on financial matters. It forfeits the right to such a defense.

Since you have persistently pressed this claim, I think it of value to explicate it. Please lay out your argument in support thereof. (Fallacious appeals to majority--i.e. "everybody is doing it," or the fallacious appeals to authority "you would already know this if you had Teancums' extensive background in finance" assertions doesn't count, nor will the lame "I have already stated my position" work here either.)

as opposed to publicly traded corporations and trusts, and non-exempt charitable organizations)

What is a non-exempt organization? Trusts do not have to publish financial records as most trusts are established by private individuals. Clearly you do not know hat you are talking about. Give it up.

Apparently, with all your vast experience in finances, you forgot having noted earlier in the thread the exempt organizations (i.e religions) that I had in mind. Either that, or you lack the capacity to extrapolate given the set of exemt organizations, what may be included in the non-exempt set.

Perhaps, too, with your vast financial experience you somehow never heard of publically traded trust, like REITs and Mutual funds, that are subject to the same SEC regulations regarding financial disclosure as Publically traded stocks.

No, of course that can't be. You are obviously the one who "get's it," and I don't know what I am talking about. (At least, I am fine with letting you think that--not that anything could be said to change your self-perception)

and sacred things sacred, and who practice what we preach

Financial dealings with peoples donations is sacred. And because it is sacred the stewards of such money should show they are above reproach by publicly declaring their stewardship.

That is certainly an interesting claim. Please explicate you supposed "logic" here as well.

particularly when our eyes and minds are rightly focused, as stewarts of the Lord, on OUR doing the "right thing," rather than on whether others (including those who have stewartship over us) are doing THEIR "right thing."

In other words Wade thinks he is more faithful by arguing the party line.

Not even close--but even though I should be the one to know whether that is what I am saying or not, there is no convincing you that you don't get it. Your the one who understands better what I am saying than even I do. Remarkable.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Teancum]

The imaginary "shadow" only exists in the emotion-driven and conspiratorial minds of overly suspicious and distrusting busy-bodies who, ironically, don't practice what they preach.

And Wade thinks I am confused.

But likewise, the naive and simpleminded fearful are the ones who seem to protest over much about this. Who is emotion driven. You Wade, are in the minority of reasonable standard ands people on this one.

If it helps you to feel better about yourself to think so, then I am fine with that.

Certain, I am disinclined to play your juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" game.

Those of us who have a grasp of the pragmatic and prudent, who respect the right to privacy (for individuals as well as private organizations like the Church--

A Church that demands 10% for membership etc. give up any right to privacy on financial matters. It forfeits the right to such a defense.

Since you have persistently pressed this claim, I think it of value to explicate it. Please lay out your argument in support thereof. (Fallacious appeals to majority--i.e. "everybody is doing it," or the fallacious appeals to authority "you would already know this if you had Teancums' extensive background in finance" assertions doesn't count, nor will the lame "I have already stated my position" work here either.)

as opposed to publicly traded corporations and trusts, and non-exempt charitable organizations)

What is a non-exempt organization? Trusts do not have to publish financial records as most trusts are established by private individuals. Clearly you do not know hat you are talking about. Give it up.

Apparently, with all your vast experience in finances, you forgot having noted earlier in the thread the exempt organizations (i.e religions) that I had in mind. Either that, or you lack the capacity to extrapolate given the set of exemt organizations, what may be included in the non-exempt set.

Perhaps, too, with your vast financial experience you somehow never heard of publically traded trust, like REITs and Mutual funds, that are subject to the same SEC regulations regarding financial disclosure as Publically traded stocks.

No, of course that can't be. You are obviously the one who "get's it," and I don't know what I am talking about. (At least, I am fine with letting you think that--not that anything could be said to change your self-perception)

and sacred things sacred, and who practice what we preach

Financial dealings with peoples donations is sacred. And because it is sacred the stewards of such money should show they are above reproach by publicly declaring their stewardship.

That is certainly an interesting claim. Please explicate you supposed "logic" here as well.

particularly when our eyes and minds are rightly focused, as stewarts of the Lord, on OUR doing the "right thing," rather than on whether others (including those who have stewartship over us) are doing THEIR "right thing."

In other words Wade thinks he is more faithful by arguing the party line.

Not even close--but even though I should be the one to know whether that is what I am saying or not, there is no convincing you that you don't get it. Your the one who understands better what I am saying than even I do. Remarkable.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Wade,

You are rude and impolite.

You put down those who disagree with you and belittle.

Forgive me Wade. I forgot about REITs. Mutual Funds are not trusts.

And my friend if you want to see juvenile look at your posting here.

The term BTW, is tax exempt not non-exempt. I knew what you meant but was pointing out your error.

And your cynicism toward my financial experience is really irrelevant. I know what I have and do and know it is greater then yours as is clear from your posting. I am a CPA. I have been for 18 years. Attestation to financials and tax issues are what I do. My firm works with numerous NFPs and churches. These churches want to disclose so they can be above reproach. Yesterday a little non denominational church with 75 members called and asked for an audit. The really cannot affords it and do not need it based on their relatively limited activity. But they wanted it so they could be above reproach. Maybe that is what pushes me towards wanting to see the church publish an annual financial statement.

So, continue with your sarcasm and belittling Wade. I am embarrass for you as I actually do know you and have defended you in other forums. Perhaps I understand better why some have found you so distasteful to interact with. I should not pos this now because I am rather angry, But here goes.

Teancum

[wenglund]

Well Wade I did answer your questions if you read my recent posts. And in response to your questions I am pointing out that most reasonably people understand fiscal, fiduciary and financila responisbilty invites an organization like the LDS Church to publish its financials. Reasonable people can disagree. But reasonable people do not impugn thoes who reasonably want to the church to disclose.

So, are my reasons clear enough for you yet? I have repeated them numerous times here.

Teacum

Yes, I saw your flippant, non-responsive, and dismissive answers. They fit well with your fallacious and baseless claim about what "reasonable people" supposedly understand.

It is just that I am trying to work up enough energy and interest to unravel the knot of your repeated superficial banalities so as to extract, through pointed follow-up questions, greater understanding of your alleged "reasoning."

Be patient. Or, just go on assuming that you already "get it"--not that you have the capacity to do otherwise. There's no harm in that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[vistamod]

If you are going to publically disagree with them, then wouldn't the fair thing be for you to inform yourself about what it is your disagreeing with. That is certainly what I am attempting now to do with you and others--though you each, to varying degrees, seem reticent about informing me much about the basis of your respective opinions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is kind of like you are saying: "Don't confuse me with facts and reasons, my mind is made up."

If so, I can except that, and will grant your opinion as much consideration as you grant the leaders of the Church (which is, as far as I can tell, too small to measure).

So you keep asking me for my opinion and then you say later that I shouldn't be giving my opinion because I don't pay tithing. The church leaders haven't given a reason for why they do or do not share financial information, how is that not giving them consideration? I simply stated I didn't care why or why they didn't, its no big deal, I don't pay tithing. They have nothing to justify to me.

But, I am not sure it makes sense to complain or criticize the financial discissions of those with whom you have no financial vested interest.

Maybe its just me, but I don't go around voicing public disagreement with how the Catholics, Jews, Ba Hai, Evangelicals, or other religious organization may chose to handle their finances, when I have not directly contributed to them (the church has, though, contributed sizable donation to several of those other organizations without, interestingly enough, requesting that they disclose any more financial information than they already do).

So, forgive me if I view your opinion as "without standing."

Well, you keep asking me about my opinion and why I have it. I have stated from the beginning that I am not a tithe payer anymore, because I know that is a valid issue. Its a message board, we share our opinions about matters. I comment and share my opinion on alot of things. I used to tithe so I have had vested financial interest. For the record I am also half Jewish and when it came time to renew my Israel Bonds I declined, because I have a hard time supporting some of the settlement issues that are going on there. Wherever I have an interest, ( emotional, financial, spiritual) you may find me on an internet message board, sharing my opinions and thoughts.

I really don't care if you view my opinion with or without standing wade, I'm not looking for validation on a message board. Its just my opinion, can you not accept that somebody has an opinion different than yours?

[wenglund]

Wade,

You are rude and impolite.

You put down those who disagree with you and belittle.

To use your own snide words: "can you say pot and kettle?"

Forgive me Wade. I forgot about REITs. Mutual Funds are not trusts.

You're forgiven for forgetting about REIT's, while lauding your presumed superior knowledge of finances over me.

As for mutual funds not being trusts, please put in a call to Fidelity Investsments (one of the world's largest mutual fund companies), and ask the representative to send you a prospectus for any one of their hundreds of mutual funds. When you get the prospectus in the mail, note where the mutual fund is registered, and what type of organization it is registered under.

Be sure to let us know what yo udiscover, so as to confirm your alleged superior financial knowledge to mine.

For my part, I will forgive you for that in advance.

And my friend if you want to see juvenile look at your posting here.

Agreed. In the world of finance, it is called "trading in-kind." If you don't like what you are getting in return, then stop dishing it out. Deal?

The term BTW, is tax exempt not non-exempt.  I knew what you meant but was pointing out your error.

The term "exempt" was used in reference to the reporting requirements of 501-3 ©, and not to their tax exempt status (religions and othe charitable organization are each tax exempt, but religions are exept from the reporting). So, even given your claimed superiority to me on financial matters, the error was your's.

And your cynicism toward my financial experience is really irrelevant.

You have got it exactly backwards. It was YOU who was being cynical towards my financial experience, and arrogantly lauded your falsely presumed superiority over me. I was merely demonstrating that your cynicism and presumtions were completely unwarranted.

I know what I have and do and know it is greater then yours as is clear from your posting.

See what I mean?

CPA.  I have been for 18 years.  Attestation to financials and tax issues are what I do. My firm works with numerous NFPs and churches. These churches want  to disclose so they can be above reproach.  Yesterday a little non denominational church with 75 members called and asked for an audit.  The really cannot affords it and do not need it based on their relatively limited activity.  But they wanted it so they could be above reproach.  Maybe that is what pushes me towards wanting to see the church publish an annual financial statement.

I can accept that. Wanting to be above reproach is a good thing. I am just trying to explore whether it is a sufficient reason (when balanced against other compelling interests and reasons) to follow the crowd, so to speak. Who knows, maybe with some mutually respectful and illuminating interactions, you may be "pushed towards" how the Church currently handles publishing their finances.

Continue with your sarcasm and belittling Wade.  I am embarrass for you as I actually do know you and have defended you in other forums. Perhaps I understand better why some have found you so distasteful to interact with.  I should not pos this now because I am rather angry,  But here goes. Teancum

You certainly have it on me. I can only guess who you are (and I have my "suspicions").

But one thing I am sure of, the people who most often find me distasteful, are the one

[wenglund]

So you keep asking me for my opinion and then you say later that I shouldn't be giving my opinion because I don't pay tithing.

I wasn't aware before that you didn't pay tithing (if you mentioned it previously, then I missed it, or didn't recall).

Now that I do know that you don't, I no longer have a vested interest in your opinion on a matter that you no longer have a vested interest in. So, never mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Moksha]

Wade, I can see why continuing to stay with the theme of openness and honesty benefiting the Church would upset you. I mean, how can you argue against positive virtues?

Openness and honesty are what we desire in business and certainly in Church. Nobody wants crooked business or Church. That is why we have financial disclosure, to show that everything is on the up and up.

It makes it hard for you to oppose or cloud this approach, and so you end up insulting me for it. I don't care about that - what I care about is the LDS Church.

I want it to be beyond reproach. I want its financial reputation to be as unencumbered as any other Church.

The Church, its members and its leaders deserve openness and honesty. We should do what is right and that is be open and honest about our financial dealings.

Needing to keep things hidden is for underworld characters, not Churches.

Thank you for not trying to wrap the financial records in the mantel of sacredness.

[wenglund]

Wade, I can see why continuing to stay with the theme of openness and honesty benefiting the Church would upset you. I mean, how can you argue against positive virtues?

Openness and honesty are what we desire in business and certainly in Church. Nobody wants crooked business or Church. That is why we have financial disclosure, to show that everything is on the up and up.

It makes it hard for you to oppose or cloud this approach, and so you end up insulting me for it. I don't care about that - what I care about is the LDS Church.

I want it to be beyond reproach. I want its financial reputation to be as unencumbered as any other Church.

The Church, its members and its leaders deserve openness and honesty. We should do what is right and that is be open and honest about our financial dealings.

Needing to keep things hidden is for underworld characters, not Churches.

Thank you for not trying to wrap the financial records in the mantel of sacredness.

Let me know when you wish to move beyond your insipid broken record to actually engaging the thoughtful questions that I asked. In the interim, I will leave you to your meaningless snarls.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Blink]

To use your own snide words: "can you say pot and kettle?"

....

And my friend if you want to see juvenile look at your posting here.

Agreed. In the world of finance, it is called "trading in-kind." If you don't like what you are getting in return, then stop dishing it out. Deal?

....

But one thing I am sure of, the people who most often find me distasteful, are the one

[Moksha]

Opening the books seems like the hymn:

"Do what is right let

the consequence follow"

[vistamod]

I wasn't aware before that you didn't pay tithing (if you mentioned it previously, then I missed it, or didn't recall).

Now that I do know that you don't, I no longer have a vested interest in your opinion on a matter that you no longer have a vested interest in. So, never mind.

I wish you would have figured that out three pages ago rather than dragging me back into this thread. I was having fun over on the "clean shaven priesthood" thread, and then I hear that you are saying I wasn't disclosing something or answering questions, or something.

Interesting that now you say you have no interest in my opinion, now that you know I do not pay tithing.

You know, the Gospel isn't about you. The Gospel isn't about the 12 million members ( or 6 million active members). What the Gospel really is about, is the 5.75 billion people in the world that are not part of it at the present time. It exists for them. Its not a special club that we protect through dress codes and tests of obedience, its a message that we are to be spreading and making available to the world. Perhaps as a member you have no problem with closed books, what about those outside the church that see that as a stumbling block. I always find it hard to believe that Christ is behind programs and policies that are a cause to

seperate Him from the people. But thats just me a half apostate.