ttribe Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Amulek said: The brother was engaged by the whistleblower to write the expose', so we've got sort of an Aaron and Moses thing going on here. 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I got the impression it was a team effort. You may have better information than me...I'm currently stuck in a continuing education program all day and can't spend much time on this today.
Navidad Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Apparently it is owned by Deseret Book, which is owned by the Church. Could you provide some links to instances of writers at LDS Living suggesting that we should "hesitate to associate with non-Church members or allow their children to associate with non-Church member children because the faithful Church member has higher standards than non-Church members"? Thanks, -Smac Hi Smac - Just to be clear - the articles I refer to indicated that Saints "do" hesitate to associate with non-Church member and allow their children to associate with non-Church member children . . . not that they should. The articles tend to be written by those who bemoan that practice, encouraging others to be more kind and welcoming. The context is usually in neighborhoods in dominantly LDS areas where the LDS folks fail to make newcomers feel welcome, especially when it is discovered they are non-members. The articles present this as a fairly common practice. I don't have time right now to go back and search for them. I hope that is ok.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, stemelbow said: That is not the only real question, thus the letter. Why, if true, should the rest of us carry the burden the church puts on us for not being treated, in a legal sense, as a large conglomerate corporation? If the Church paid it's fair share of taxes this wouldn't be much of an issue at all, but this letter adds skepticism to that notion. The legal principle underlying all this is Constitutional, the First Amend, and was settled long ago by the U.S. Supreme Court -- declaring in effect that religion cannot be taxed. So I am not sure what your notion of "fair share of taxes" means. The claim made by the whistleblower is likely false, and he will get no reward. Of course the LDS Church is a huge multinational corp. What else should it be? Moreover, it puts no burden on you. Payment of tithing is completely voluntary, and no one at Church is going to upbraid you for not paying it. It is not even their right to know whether you pay it. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: How is a statement from 1985 relevant? Bishop Causse quoted it in 2018 and the church posted it on its website. You don't find that misleading?
Navidad Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: No. It is semi-affiliated in that the church owns it (LDS Living is owned by Deseret Books I believe) but it is not an official publication. While they would doubtlessly get the rug pulled out from under them if they were bashing the Church the Church is also not managing them that minutely. From their “About Us” page: “LDS Living Magazine is an independent work, and is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed in the magazine are the responsibility of the various authors and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Church. Contributors include Church members and members of other faiths.” Thanks. Maybe I can get an article published in it then! Take care.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 32 minutes ago, CV75 said: Transparency and 'informed consent" might have a practical application, but they are hardly what D&C 120 enjoins. I am talking practical reality, not legalism.
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, topcougar said: If the IRS ultimate collects taxes on the profits of Ensign , Mr. Nielsen could receive a reward in the low billions. Is that motive enough?? They almost certainly will not collect taxes at that level. If (and this is a big if) the money illicitly went to a for profit corporation for something other than investment purposes the penalty would be taxation on that amount plus MAYBE a nominal punitive fine. If the IRS was going to go after nonprofits that stockpile money to potentially pay operating expenses the Ivy League schools would have lost their nonprofit statuses a LONG time ago. I do not doubt it at least crossed the mind of these twerps that they might get a big reward but after listening to some of their video I do not think they are competent to assess their chances at getting such a payout. If they are not idiots I think they realize they have little to go on and are going for a smear against the church without expecting the IRS to find (or maybe even do) anything. If I had dirt on a nonprofit and thought I could get millions as a whistle blower or just wanted to expose malfeasance as part of my civic duty I would calmly and privately compile the information (preferably with the help of legal counsel) and send it off to the IRS and let them handle it. I would not put an expose video on YouTube or talk to the press. It would almost certainly leak at some point but I would not be interviewed this early. They know quite well that having solid facts is not really relevant to that goal (as evidence see many of the reactions on this board). 3
Danzo Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, provoman said: In the spirit of love, I ask that you not resign. For all we know the the IRS could totally exonerate the Church for the accusations made. The IRS does not exonerate accusations. They decide to make an adjustment in tax (or a determination as to not profit status) or they don't The most likely outcome is that nothing happens (which isn't really an exoneration). The only way for the church to be exonerated (and we would know about it) is if the IRS made an adverse determination, the church went to court and the church won, which is not likely to happen. Edited December 17, 2019 by Danzo
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Smac - Just to be clear - the articles I refer to indicated that Saints "do" hesitate to associate with non-Church member and allow their children to associate with non-Church member children . . . not that they should. The articles tend to be written by those who bemoan that practice, encouraging others to be more kind and welcoming. The context is usually in neighborhoods in dominantly LDS areas where the LDS folks fail to make newcomers feel welcome, especially when it is discovered they are non-members. The articles present this as a fairly common practice. I don't have time right now to go back and search for them. I hope that is ok. Yes, but you said it was taught by the Church institutionally. It is not. 1
smac97 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Navidad said: Quote Could you provide some links to instances of writers at LDS Living suggesting that we should "hesitate to associate with non-Church members or allow their children to associate with non-Church member children because the faithful Church member has higher standards than non-Church members"? Hi Smac - Just to be clear - the articles I refer to indicated that Saints "do" hesitate to associate with non-Church member and allow their children to associate with non-Church member children . . . not that they should. Okay. Wow. One little word sure can make a difference ("do" instead of "should"). Thank you for clarifying. I would still like to see some examples of this, though. Two reasons: First, acknowledging a flawed behavior (shunning or refusing to socialize or interact with those not of our faith) for the purpose of offering corrective counsel is a very different proposition than advocating for or encouraging that flawed behavior. Second, I would be surprised to see LDS Living single out non-members as having "lower" standards of behavior. 2 minutes ago, Navidad said: The articles tend to be written by those who bemoan that practice, encouraging others to be more kind and welcoming. The context is usually in neighborhoods in dominantly LDS areas where the LDS folks fail to make newcomers feel welcome, especially when it is discovered they are non-members. The articles present this as a fairly common practice. I don't have time right now to go back and search for them. I hope that is ok. What, then, "bothers" you here? That Mormons can be clannish and snobby? Insufficiently kind and attentive and welcoming to new neighbors? Thanks, -Smac 1
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: He titled it 'Letter to an IRS Director'? Well, that makes this all quite clear. That was pretty funny. Clearly this $100B is a problem though. Follow the math. $100 B divided by 15 Million (rough # of membership) = $6,666.66666666667 per member That's a lot of 666's. Is this Jesus' money or... Edited December 17, 2019 by HappyJackWagon 6
Navidad Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I really doubt you heard that. I am also interested to hear your argument on how using incognito mode or clearing your browser’s cookies and history constitute fraud. If I have to explain how getting around having to pay to read articles after a certain number of allowed free articles is fraud, I would be very disappointed. As to doubting what I say - I can't help you with that. Another poster inserted the word "should" in his reply post. Please re-read my post I never said that anyone said Saints "should" do that. The discussions in both forums were that they in actuality do it. Of course not all and of course not always, but that it is done, especially in the concept of a small town like ours and in neighborhoods in dominant LDS areas. I am sorry if this offends you, but it wasn't me who brought it up or who wrote the articles. My sense is that it is a common enough practice that it merited discussion within the Saint community.
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: That was pretty funny. Clearly this $100B is a problem though. Follow the math. $100 B divided by 15 Million (rough # of membership) = $6,666.66666666667 per member That's a lot of 666's. Is this Jesus' money or... We are past 16 million now but if we also have 666,666 more behind that or 616,616 depending on your take on the Mark of the Beast we could be in real trouble.
Lemuel Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Remember that the Liahona Children's Foundation exists, because we don't feed our poor children. Also the Church forced the LCF to change its name: https://bountifulchildren.org/ "In response to a request from Church leaders, we are in the process of changing our name. The legal documents have been submitted and we are waiting on the bureaucratic process to be completed so we can finalize the name change." Quote Mormon 8:37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. 39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?
HappyJackWagon Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 $100B is a lot of scratch. I wonder what the rainy day would look like. 1
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, Navidad said: If I have to explain how getting around having to pay to read articles after a certain number of allowed free articles is fraud, I would be very disappointed. As to doubting what I say - I can't help you with that. Another poster inserted the word "should" in his reply post. Please re-read my post I never said that anyone said Saints "should" do that. The discussions in both forums were that they in actuality do it. Of course not all and of course not always, but that it is done, especially in the concept of a small town like ours and in neighborhoods in dominant LDS areas. I am sorry if this offends you, but it wasn't me who brought it up or who wrote the articles. My sense is that it is a common enough practice that it merited discussion within the Saint community. It does not offend me. Many of our members are wary of non-members but the church does not teach that fear beyond not associating with those who would wish you to compromise your standards. Some take that to mean that to be safe we should just not associate with non-members at all.
Lemuel Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 hours ago, JAHS said: All active church members who are full tithe payers (and even many who are not full tithe-payers) would be able to get help through the fast offerings of the church if needed. Only in places like the US where there are sufficient fast offerings. Not so much in the poorest countries. https://bountifulchildren.org/how-to-help/adopt-a-community
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Lemuel said: Remember that the Liahona Children's Foundation exists, because we don't feed our poor children. Also the Church forced the LCF to change its name: https://bountifulchildren.org/ "In response to a request from Church leaders, we are in the process of changing our name. The legal documents have been submitted and we are waiting on the bureaucratic process to be completed so we can finalize the name change." As someone who has been a Ward Executive Secretary and a Ward Clerk several times I can say that I have never seen a Bishop willingly let a child go hungry. That foundation focuses mostly on the developing world where the church is generally weak so I am not sure how “our children” could be accurate. Your snipe is stupid.
juliann Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Again the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with half the endowment gives 2.5 billion net grants each year (total of 5 billion given out while they receive 2.5 in donations). The church on the other hand gives .04 billion in humanitarian assistance each year. What is the value of the volunteer work, say, a doctor going on a humanitarian health mission for 18 mos? It is intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge what is left out of those figures. The two figures aren't comparable. If the human salaries were removed from the Gates' awesome contributions, what would it be?
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: $100B is a lot of scratch. I wonder what the rainy day would look like. We are building a ship that can actually fit and feed a breeding pair of every species for a year. Noah’s little boat could not pull that off. 1
Lemuel Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: As someone who has been a Ward Executive Secretary and a Ward Clerk several times I can say that I have never seen a Bishop willingly let a child go hungry. That foundation focuses mostly on the developing world where the church is generally weak so I am not sure how “our children” could be accurate. Your snipe is stupid. Are the poor mormon kids not our people?
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They almost certainly will not collect taxes at that level. If (and this is a big if) the money illicitly went to a for profit corporation for something other than investment purposes the penalty would be taxation on that amount plus MAYBE a nominal punitive fine. If the IRS was going to go after nonprofits that stockpile money to potentially pay operating expenses the Ivy League schools would have lost their nonprofit statuses a LONG time ago. I do not doubt it at least crossed the mind of these twerps that they might get a big reward but after listening to some of their video I do not think they are competent to assess their chances at getting such a payout. If they are not idiots I think they realize they have little to go on and are going for a smear against the church without expecting the IRS to find (or maybe even do) anything. If I had dirt on a nonprofit and thought I could get millions as a whistle blower or just wanted to expose malfeasance as part of my civic duty I would calmly and privately compile the information (preferably with the help of legal counsel) and send it off to the IRS and let them handle it. I would not put an expose video on YouTube or talk to the press. It would almost certainly leak at some point but I would not be interviewed this early. They know quite well that having solid facts is not really relevant to that goal (as evidence see many of the reactions on this board). Currently it has the same feel as the Rico lawsuit for me, feels more about getting free PR for one’s claims and less about the legal case.
MiserereNobis Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 May I recommend the Vatican Bank as an alternative? 3
rockpond Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, juliann said: What is the value of the volunteer work, say, a doctor going on a humanitarian health mission for 18 mos? It is intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge what is left out of those figures. The two figures aren't comparable. If the human salaries were removed from the Gates' awesome contributions, what would it be? Just trying to understand your comment: What does a doctor choosing to go on a humanitarian health mission have to do with our Church finances and charitable contributions?
Amulek Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Calm said: What is signing the Jurat please? (Not looking it up because I am probably not the only one wondering) The Jurat is the part of the tax return where you sign, under oath, and indicate that everything is on the up-and-up. Here's the sort of boilerplate language for what that would look like (pulled from a couple of random returns I had laying around the office just now): I declare under the penalties imposed by law that this return, including any accompanying schedules and statements, has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is a true, correct and complete return. I hereby declare under the penalties of perjury and applicable penalties set forth in Chapter 431, HRS, that I have the authority to sign this statement on behalf of the above named insurer and that this statement, and the accompanying exhibits, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are true, correct, and complete and made in good faith, for the taxable year stated. Sometimes there will be a notary requirement and the language will be a bit different because the return will be set up to have you list your name, title, etc., swear to it being true, correct, complete, etc. and then have the notary sign and indicate that you have represented the same. Regardless, the point of the signed Jurat is merely to remind you that you filing an official document with a governing entity. But, in and of itself, it isn't the sort of thing that the government comes after anyone for. It's more like an add-on crime that gets included when they have found you to have been doing something actually wrong and are looking to pile on additional charges. Edited December 17, 2019 by Amulek 1
Recommended Posts