Clearing the Financial Record

[Teancum]

I am curious.

And perhaps WEnglund can answer since he seems to imply that those who would like the church to adopt a practice of financial disclosure are somehow supicious of deeply deceitful an nefarious deeds.

Why do you think this?

I am fairly certain the leaders are doing a fine job with the finances. I am not supicious contrary to your insistance that I am.

It is the right thing to do.

The church asks its members to give a substantial portion of income.

To right thing is to publish the financial datat so the church is beyond reproach.

By so doing they show that indeed this is Christ's Church and they are willing to be open about its operations. It is a stewardship issue.

But I actually feel like an anti LDS on this thread by the way I have been treated as well as another thread on this topic.

Honestly, I find the thought on this by those who are so vehemnetly against it a bit parochial. ANd the personal inputation of some evil motives or thoughts on the parts of those who may wish to see the data is ridiculous. Of course I am sure some have evil purposes but so what? I believe we are beyond reproach as a church. Let's show it.

Teancum

[Outshined]

And perhaps WEnglund can answer since he seems to imply that those who would like the church to adopt a practice of financial disclosure are somehow supicious of deeply deceitful an nefarious deeds.

Why do you think this?

Perhaps because it has been implied so much on this thread, with talk of "coverups" and "burying your head in the sand", and "shady games"...

[Blink]

WWJI?

Where Would Jesus Invest?

Would Jesus invest? Or would Jesus consider the concept of investing to be outside the scope of his church, and redirect the money to helping the poor and afflicted? Is investing the right and proper thing to do with God's money, when there is so much poverty and affliction, even among the Saints?

How could Jesus consider a rich church to be his church, as long as there is suffering that could have been alleviated and wasn't?

[Del March]

To right thing is to publish the financial datat so the church is beyond reproach. 

By so doing they show that indeed this is Christ's Church and they are willing to be open about its operations.

They would show it is Christ's church by obeying to men's standards??

As has already been explained numerous times, Christ's standard is not to report to those over whom one has authority: it is to report to those who are in authority over one.

And the only one whose reproach the Church should worry about is Christ. Definitely not men.

Isaiah 55:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Del

[Blink]

As has already been explained numerous times, Christ's standard is not to report to those over whom one has authority: it is to report to those who are in authority over one.

Excuse me, but you know this how? How do you know what Christ's standard is? Please quote me chapter and verse, because until 1959, the church's standard was quite different than it is now, and I'd like to see the revelation you're referring to. Just because the church does something one way now doesn't mean it's Christ's standard; please don't confuse Christ and the church. They are two entirely different entities.

The men in charge of the affairs of the church are men, not Gods. They're fallible, prone to error, subject to temptation. Until Christ himself takes over the reins of the church and writes the checks himself, there is no guarentee, other than the knowledge that full disclosure is the norm, that those who are in charge are indeed good stewards of the tithes and offerings of the Saints. With an open set of books, there would be no suspicion and no allegations of wrongdoing, because the proof would be available and open to all. Opening the books protects our leaders from false accusation.

[Del March]

How do you know what Christ's standard is? Please quote me chapter and verse, because until 1959, the church's standard was quite different than it is now, and I'd like to see the revelation you're referring to.

I did a quick search at "steward" in the scriptures, and came up with many answers. Here are some:

Luke 16:

1 AND he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

Who was the steward accountable to?

D&C 42:32 :

And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

D&C 70:

1 BEHOLD, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.

2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them

[Blink]

I'm not talking about stewardship, Del. I'm talking about what you called "Christ's standards". What are Christ's standards? I'm sure you have a revelation tucked away that says exactly what Christ's financial standards are, so please produce it. Because those scriptures you cited were the same prior to 1959, when the church had open books. The scriptures didn't change, just the policy changed.

From what I've seen, there's a man in the head office of the church. His name is Gordon B Hinckley. Until Christ sits there himself, there will always be a man, a fallible man, subject to temptation and error. And as long as a man is subject to temptation and error, open books, like we had prior to 1959, is a good idea.

[Moksha]

Do you really think Jesus would have trouble with a wealthy Church?

Doesn't he require multi-million dollar Temples to reside in? Didn't he choose his Apostles from well-to-do Businessmen?

What I do think Jesus would have problems with for sure, is keeping his Churches financial records secret.

[Del March]

I'm not talking about stewardship, Del. I'm talking about what you called "Christ's standards". What are Christ's standards?

Christ's standard is that the Prophet is the Steward of Christ. So yes we're very much talking of stewardship here.

I'm sure you have a revelation tucked away that says exactly what Christ's financial standards are, so please produce it.

No I don't. And I don't need one. The Prophet is the Steward. I'm not. He's the one Christ entrusted with the human leadership of His church.

  Because those scriptures you cited were the same prior to 1959, when the church had open books. The scriptures didn't change, just the policy changed.

The Steward chose a different way to do things. That's his privilege, as long as the Master doesn't have a problem with it. A steward is a trusted servant who is allowed to use his own methods, as long as his goal is to take a good care of his master's property. That's what a steward is for: to take care of the master's property without the master needing to always supervise what's going on. If the master has to instruct a steward in everything, then the steward is a useless servant.

From what I've seen, there's a man in the head office of the church. His name is Gordon B Hinckley. Until Christ sits there himself, there will always be a man, a fallible man, subject to temptation and error.

Yes, and this man is the Steward of God. He's accountable to Christ, not to you and me.

And as long as a man is subject to temptation and error, open books, like we had prior to 1959, is a good idea.

Just because it is A good idea, doesn't mean that it is THE only acceptable way of doing things in the Master's eyes.

Del

[Moksha]

Keeping things dark secret and shady is how the Master would want it, eh?

Gotcha, up to now you had us thinking that Jesus Christ was the Master.

Actually, he still is. Unhand that ledger, ye minions of Satan, and let them see the light of Christ's day.

[Del March]

Whatever.

[Zeta-Flux]

Moksha,

It isn't dark and shady. It isn't even illegal. In fact, I'm betting that the only reason they don't publish the financial records is because their accountants/lawyers tell them not to for whatever good reason they have. If you were a certified accountant, or a corporate lawyer, and could tell me otherwise I might think that it would be wise to open the books, but since you aren't...

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Del March]

Let me explain my point of view in another way.

When the day of the Judgment comes, I want to be able to stand before Christ, and truthfully tell Him that I bothered about only one stewardship: mine. I want to be able to say that I didn't lose precious time demanding reports from people over whom I have no authority (be it my branch president, my stake president, or the prophet). I want to be able to say that I totally put my life into His hands, and that this included not interfering into matters that weren't any of my concern. I want to be able to say that I trusted Him completely to deal with His church in His own righteous way.

Is the prophet wrong to hide the financial records of the church? Maybe. But that's his problem, not mine.

Are there awful irregularities in those records that the prophet is trying to hide? Maybe. But they are the problem of those who committed them and of those who are hiding them, not mine.

I give my tithing and offerings to the Lord, and I let Him deal with it as He sees appropriate. Maybe all the money I ever gave was sinfully stolen by some people. That could be. But that's not my problem. I gave those offerings, that's the only thing that matters to me. I used my free agency to follow Christ. If some men used their own free agency to steal Christ's money, that's their problem.

Christ gives men much greater stewardships than money, like children in particular, and all men in general. How many of us who've ever dealt with children can claim that they fulfilled their stewardship towards those kids perfectly? I can't. I have done things to my son that I shouldn't have, and I haven't done some things that I should have done. How many of us can claim that they fulfilled their stewardship towards their fellow men perfectly? I can't. I am a totally imperfect steward, in everything God ever gave me. How can I then turn and demand from others that they perform their own stewardship perfectly?

It is all a matter of stewardship: theirs, and most of all ours.

Del

[Blink]

I'm not talking about stewardship, Del. I'm talking about what you called "Christ's standards". What are Christ's standards?

Christ's standard is that the Prophet is the Steward of Christ. So yes we're very much talking of stewardship here.

I'm sure you have a revelation tucked away that says exactly what Christ's financial standards are, so please produce it.

No I don't. And I don't need one. The Prophet is the Steward. I'm not. He's the one Christ entrusted with the human leadership of His church.

[Blink]

I give my tithing and offerings to the Lord, and I let Him deal with it as He sees appropriate.

You do not pay your titing to the Lord. You pay your tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Christ does not cash your check, the church does. Christ does not administer your funds, the prophet does. Men have their fingers in every level of the financial dealings of the church, and opening up the books can only be of benefit to our leaders. The current policy hurts them far more than opening books ever would.

How many of us can claim that they fulfilled their stewardship towards their fellow men perfectly? I can't. I am a totally imperfect steward, in everything God ever gave me. How can I then turn and demand from others that they perform their own stewardship perfectly?

Because we know that all men are imperfect, fallible, prone to error, subject to temptation, we should do all that we can to protect them. Opening the books protects our leaders. Keeping them closed only creates an atmosphere of distrust, a burden that our leaders need not shoulder.

[Del March]

What is the 3 fold mission of the church? To perfect the Saints, to redeem the dead, and to take the gospel to the world. It is the charge of the President that all tithes and offerings be used on the 3 fold mission of the church, in the service of the members and the poor.

Isn't this being done? Isn't the church actively working on all 3 missions? Don't units all over the world receive the necessary funds to help them fulfill those missions?

And as you say, it is the charge of the President to make sure that tithes and offerings are being used correctly. His charge, not ours.

Hiding the financial dealings of the church leads to the inevitable question: why, if there's nothing to hide?

Only in those with a suspicious mind. I have never had a problem with not knowing those things, because I trust God to control His servants tightly enough.

Question: what is there to hide in the temple ordinances? If there's nothing to hide, then why can't reporters come and document them live?

There are many possible reasons as to why the leaders chose to keep those things hidden. But because I happen to trust Christ, I do not automatically go for the most hideous possibility.

Do you think our leaders have something to hide?

They might. If they are hiding something because God told them to, then I don't want to go and question them. If they are hiding something because they are being dishonest, I don't care. And then maybe they are not hiding anything.

In your zeal to protect the leaders, do you forget their primary calling is to the care of the members and the poor?

And isn't this being done every day in every unit of the church all over the world?

Opening the financial dealings of the church only serves to protect all involved, the leaders and the members.

You keep repeating that. But protect from WHAT?

Unless the books are open, there is no way to know that what we assume takes place actually takes place.

We haven't been called of God to take care of the finances of the church. Hence we don't need to know. Some people might desire to know out of curiosity or because they think evil of the leaders, but the truth is: we don't need to know, because those things are not part of our calling.

The financial policy changed in 1959. That which was changed in 1959 can be changed again. There was no revelation that changed the policy, because there was no revelation that set it in place in the first place. We aren't talking doctrine; we're talking policy. And all policies, including the one in place right now, are of men and can be changed.

And maybe they will change the policy tomorrow. But it's their free decision to make. I don't feel we have any right to demand this change of policy from them.

Changing the policy and opening up the financial reports would protect our leaders from any possibility of temptation or error.

Do you mean that you have our leaders' best interests in mind? Then maybe you could start by trusting them and not assuming the worst of them? You know, supporting them?

And I believe that God is a much bigger force preventing them from doing stupid things if necessary, than any financial reports ever would be. One can cheat with a financial report. Nobody can cheat with God.

Are you afraid there are irregularities in the books that you think need to be kept hidden?

No, I am not at all afraid. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised or dismayed if some financial scandal erupted tomorrow. As you keep saying, we're dealing with men, and with huge amounts of money, so it would be very surprising that no misdeed would ever be done. Should such a scandal happen, I would be sorry for all the money that was stolen. But I wouldn't pretend that one rat makes a whole policy wrong.

You do not pay your titing to the Lord. You pay your tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Nope. I pay my tithing to the Lord by giving my money to the Church. Should the Lord reveal to me tonight that from now on I will pay my tithing by giving 3 dozens of apple pies to the local shelter every month, the church would stop getting my money but I would still pay my tithing. The money is only the means of paying the tithing, it's not the offering in itself.

The current policy hurts them far more than opening books ever would.

The only thing that hurts them right now is the unfounded suspicion of some people.

Because we know that all men are imperfect, fallible, prone to error, subject to temptation, we should do all that we can to protect them. Opening the books protects our leaders. Keeping them closed only creates an atmosphere of distrust, a burden that our leaders need not shoulder.

1. We have no calling to protect our leaders. Our duty is to support them.

2. Opening the books wouldn't protect them anymore than keeping the books shut. Suspicious minds always find something wrong.

3. The atmosphere of distrust wouldn't exist in the first place if some people didn't suspect the leaders of misdeeds without any proof.

4. I don't think our leaders care one bit that some members suspect them of trifling with the church's money.

5. If it's not the money, it will be something else. Critical people will always find something to reproach to our leaders.

Del

[LDS4EVER]

For those members that believe the records should be released.

If the Prophet or one the the 12 says that the finances are being spent in accordance with church standards, would you believe them?

[wenglund]

I am curious.

And perhaps WEnglund can answer since he seems to imply that those who would like the church to adopt a practice of financial disclosure are somehow supicious of deeply deceitful an nefarious deeds.

Why do you think this?

I don't. And, I can't imagine what would make you think I did.

I have only said that you were overly suspicious.

And, I clearly indicated why I felt that way: among other things, it was your statement that "it looks like the leaders are hiding something" and now your statement about "above reproach." These are explicit declarations of suspicion, and implicit suggestions of reproachable wrongdoings that are being hidden on the part of the Church--which, to those of us who actually trust the leaders of the Church, and are not just paying lipservice in one sentence while distrusting them in others, appears to be overly suspicious.

In short, I was suspicious of your over suspicion.

Perhaps, then, to your way of thinking (and others here as well), in order to keep from looking like your hiding something, and for you to stay above reproach, a full disclosure on your part may be in order, beginning with using your real name as well as the public display of all your personal finances. After all, as you say: "its the right thing to do."

But I actually feel like an anti LDS on this thread by the way I have been treated as well as another thread on this topic.

Your entirely unwarranted victimological melodrama doesn't help your case, but is grounds for further suspicion. Such banal strategies are not uncommon among anti-Mormonism.

Honestly, I find the thought on this by those who are so vehemnetly against it a bit parochial.  ANd the personal inputation of some evil motives or thoughts on the parts of those who may wish to see the data is ridiculous.  Of course I am sure some have evil purposes but so what?  I believe we are beyond reproach as a church.  Let's show it. Teancum

What? Can't abide your own stringent standards? You don't like being suspected? Well, here is your chance to practice what you preach. Put yourself beyond reproach and provide full disclosure.

And, since your buddies "blink" and "moksha" seem to be of the same mind, perhaps they should do so as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Would Jesus invest? Or would Jesus consider the concept of investing to be outside the scope of his church, and redirect the money to helping the poor and afflicted? Is investing the right and proper thing to do with God's money, when there is so much poverty and affliction, even among the Saints?

How could Jesus consider a rich church to be his church, as long as there is suffering that could have been alleviated and wasn't?

From BibleGateway.com

King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 25:14-23

  14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

  15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

  16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

  17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

  18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

  19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

  20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

  21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

  22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

  23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

And then there was the time Christ rebuked Judas when he complained that some expensive ointment wasn't taken and sold to give to the poor.

Sounds like Christ didn't think investment was a bad thing or that the care of the poor's financial needs was top priority all the time either.

=======

I wonder how people back in 30 AD would classify those we call "poor" in 2000 AD.

[Moksha]

So if I were a slick lawyer or accountant, your would look to me more for correct guidance?

Urging a policy of being honest and above board isn't persuasive enough?

As long as members: Keep their shoulder to the wheel and their head in the sand, those peddling the Mafia's code of Omerta - of silence and stonewalling will prevail. I for one doubt that the best way to be true to the Godfather is the best way to be true to Jesus Christ.

Why should my chosen Church relish the moral low ground? Why should I cringe when then Episcopalians on the Debate board of another site chide us about our finances?

Should we tell them flat out that our Church has decided after consultation with its lawyers and accountants to take the moral low ground? Oh and BTW, we have the only true Church.

Too bad our Word of Wisdom didn't say to be open and honest.

[Blink]

Isn't this being done? Isn't the church actively working on all 3 missions? Don't units all over the world receive the necessary funds to help them fulfill those missions?

Is it? Do they? How do you know? The books aren't open. You have no way of knowing anything that you profess is true, because the books aren't open.

Del:

Hiding the financial dealings of the church leads to the inevitable question: why, if there's nothing to hide?

Only in those with a suspicious mind. I have never had a problem with not knowing those things, because I trust God to control His servants tightly enough

Blink: Every person who was ever swindled by another was certain they were not being swindled, Del. Only the naive and the gullible have the utmost respect for the con artist who takes their savings and runs. With an open set of books, there can only be truth and light, and no hint of scandel or error.

Del: Question: what is there to hide in the temple ordinances? If there's nothing to hide, then why can't reporters come and document them live?

There are many possible reasons as to why the leaders chose to keep those things hidden. But because I happen to trust Christ, I do not automatically go for the most hideous possibility.

Blink: Are you equating the doctrine of the temple with the policy of closed financial books? They are not at all related, Del. (And I'm not one to lay that argument on, since given my choice, I'd advocate for a much more open temple also).

Del:

Do you think our leaders have something to hide?

They might. If they are hiding something because God told them to, then I don't want to go and question them. If they are hiding something because they are being dishonest, I don't care. And then maybe they are not hiding anything.

Blink: And how will you know if they are hiding something to cover their own error? Hidden is hidden, no matter the cause. An open set of financial records can only serve as support for our leaders. Hidden books creates an atmosphere of distrust.

Del:

In your zeal to protect the leaders, do you forget their primary calling is to the care of the members and the poor?

And isn't this being done every day in every unit of the church all over the world?

Blink: How do you know? The books are closed. There is no way to know what is being done anywhere.

Del:

Opening the financial dealings of the church only serves to protect all involved, the leaders and the members.

You keep repeating that. But protect from WHAT?

Blink: Protection from any hint of wrongdoing, any hint of error, any minor bit of temptation. Satan cannot operate in the light.

Del:

Unless the books are open, there is no way to know that what we assume takes place actually takes place.

We haven't been called of God to take care of the finances of the church. Hence we don't need to know. Some people might desire to know out of curiosity or because they think evil of the leaders, but the truth is: we don't need to know, because those things are not part of our calling.

Blink: Then you think the members prior to 1959 were all called to take care of the finances of the church? What makes them any different than members today? This isn't doctrine, Del. This is policy, and policy can be changed without the need for a canonized revelation (unlike doctrine).

Del:

The financial policy changed in 1959. That which was changed in 1959 can be changed again. There was no revelation that changed the policy, because there was no revelation that set it in place in the first place. We aren't talking doctrine; we're talking policy. And all policies, including the one in place right now, are of men and can be changed.

And maybe they will change the policy tomorrow. But it's their free decision to make. I don't feel we have any right to demand this change of policy from them.

Blink: Demand? By voicing an opinion on a message board, I'm making demands? A forceful word, Del, not at all in tune with what is transpiring.

Del:

Changing the policy and opening up the financial reports would protect our leaders from any possibility of temptation or error.

Do you mean that you have our leaders' best interests in mind? Then maybe you could start by trusting them and not assuming the worst of them? You know, supporting them?

Blink: If you had their best interests at heart, you'd not put them on some pedestal and leave them open to conjecture and distrust. You'd advocate for an atmosphere of openness and trust could be built on full disclosure.

Del: And I believe that God is a much bigger force preventing them from doing stupid things if necessary, than any financial reports ever would be. One can cheat with a financial report. Nobody can cheat with God.

Blink: Perhaps you'd like to tell the people who sent money to Jimmy Swaggart or any of a number of so-called Godly men that God wouldn't allow them to cheat. I have no doubt that full disclosure would only create an atmosphere of openness and trust, while hidden finances creates an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion.

Del:

Are you afraid there are irregularities in the books that you think need to be kept hidden?

No, I am not at all afraid. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised or dismayed if some financial scandal erupted tomorrow. As you keep saying, we're dealing with men, and with huge amounts of money, so it would be very surprising that no misdeed would ever be done. Should such a scandal happen, I would be sorry for all the money that was stolen. But I wouldn't pretend that one rat makes a whole policy wrong.

Blink: Can I interest you in some ocean-front property in Arizona? I'm not nearly so trusting, I'm afraid.

Del:

You do not pay your titing to the Lord. You pay your tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Nope. I pay my tithing to the Lord by giving my money to the Church. Should the Lord reveal to me tonight that from now on I will pay my tithing by giving 3 dozens of apple pies to the local shelter every month, the church would stop getting my money but I would still pay my tithing. The money is only the means of paying the tithing, it's not the offering in itself.

Blink: The money ends up in a bank account with the church's name on it, not God's.

Del:

The current policy hurts them far more than opening books ever would.

The only thing that hurts them right now is the unfounded suspicion of some people.

Blink: You assume suspicion is unfounded. You have no way of knowing though, because there is no means of proving the unfoundedness.

Del:

Because we know that all men are imperfect, fallible, prone to error, subject to temptation, we should do all that we can to protect them. Opening the books protects our leaders. Keeping them closed only creates an atmosphere of distrust, a burden that our leaders need not shoulder.

1. We have no calling to protect our leaders. Our duty is to support them.

Blink: Have you never heard of being your brother's keeper, Del? We are called to help and support all of our brothers, even our brothers who are our leaders.

Del: 2. Opening the books wouldn't protect them anymore than keeping the books shut. Suspicious minds always find something wrong.

Blink: Only if there's something to hide would those suspicious minds find something wrong. If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason for nondisclosure.

Del: 3. The atmosphere of distrust wouldn't exist in the first place if some people didn't suspect the leaders of misdeeds without any proof.

Blink: You have no proof of non-misdeeds. The books aren't open.

Del: 4. I don't think our leaders care one bit that some members suspect them of trifling with the church's money.

Blink: Agreed. I agree with you completely. I think our leaders don't care one bit what the members think about much of anything.

Del: 5. If it's not the money, it will be something else. Critical people will always find something to reproach to our leaders.

Blink: At least if the books were open, the critics would have one less thing to complain about.

[Del March]

OK, Blink, let me ask you a few questions:

1. Is abscence of proof the same thing as proof of abscence? IOW, is the fact that we have no proof that the work is being done correctly the same as the fact that we have a proof that the work is not being done correctly?

2. Do you believe this church is the church of Christ, that it is led by Christ Himself, and that the leaders are His appointed and anointed stewards?

3. Have you asked the leaders to disclose to you the financial books? Or do you know of anyone who asked and to whom it was refused? Because before you can say the books are kept closed, you need to prove that they aren't open to anyone who asks to see them.

4.

Blink: Have you never heard of being your brother's keeper, Del? We are called to help and support all of our brothers, even our brothers who are our leaders.

Does "helping and supporting" mean "suspecting without any proof" in your eyes?

As for "naive and gullible", I prefer "trusting and faithful", as in "trusting faithfully that Christ is leading His church".

Del

[Teancum]

And perhaps WEnglund can answer since he seems to imply that those who would like the church to adopt a practice of financial disclosure are somehow supicious of deeply deceitful an nefarious deeds.

Why do you think this?

Perhaps because it has been implied so much on this thread, with talk of "coverups" and "burying your head in the sand", and "shady games"...

Perhaps by some but not be myself.

[Teancum]

To right thing is to publish the financial datat so the church is beyond reproach.

[Teancum]

I don't. And, I can't imagine what would make you think I did.

I have only said that you were overly suspicious.

And the difference is exactly what?

These are explicit declarations of suspicion, and implicit suggestions of reproachable wrongdoings that are being hidden on the part of the Church--

No, they are not. Only to those who over react.

and are not just paying lipservice in one sentence while distrusting them in others, appears to be overly suspicious.

I amnot paying luip service to my allgienec and support of the leaders of the church. Were I to turn this into a similar comment agains you you would find it highly offensive. I won't stoop to that though.

Perhaps, then, to your way of thinking (and others here as well), in order to keep from looking like your hiding something, and for you to stay above reproach, a full disclosure on your part may be in order, beginning with using your real name as well as the public display of all your personal finances.  After all, as you say: "its the right thing to do."

I have posted this view many times in other places under my real name. I choose not to do so here because I want to remian anonymous to a number of LDS critics that post here that may know me in other ways.

As for my finances I will be happy to disclose them to ypou when you contribute 10% or more of your income to me.

Your entirely unwarranted victimological melodrama doesn't help your case, but is grounds for further suspicion. Such banal strategies are not uncommon among anti-Mormonism

Well I am certainly not an anti mormon and you would feel bad about saying that is you knew who I am.

And, since your buddies "blink" and "moksha" seem to be of the same mind, perhaps they should do so as well.

So silly you are being Wade. I do not know blink and moshka. Just because I agree with them on this does not make them buddies. And like I sad, send me 10% and I wil disclose my finances to you.

Teancum

Teancum