Scott Lloyd Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I didn’t realize the majority determines right from wrong. I never said it did. But in this instance, the majority happen to be in the right.
Teancum Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I dare say the Church accomplishes enough social good in society and relieves the government of part of its burden thereby that taxpayers have no real standing to begrudge the Church it’s tax exempt status. Does it? Maybe. Maybe not. Again simply conjecture.
Teancum Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I do know active members, a serving stake president for one, who have told me they wish the church would be transparent with their finances. I guess they are non-payers. Go figure. They are on their way out likely....😏
Teancum Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, I clearly remember your complaining. And then, as now, you seemed to be clearly in the minority on this issue among Church members. Yep I was in the minority. So?
jkwilliams Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: What “insurance bailout”? Are you speaking of Beneficial Life? And the mall, like other Church-owned commercial ventures is self-sustaining. Meh. I went from slightly annoyed to don’t care in short order. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal for members to expect financial transparency, as if there’s some evil intent behind that expectation. I find that a lot more interesting than how the church spends its money. Teancum was talking about financial transparency years ago, even before I crossed over to the dark side. I didn’t think he was complaining. Not sure why you think so. 2
Teancum Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I never said it did. But in this instance, the majority happen to be in the right. And if tomorrow the Church decided to publish info your opinion would switch. Such is the way of things for you. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 Just now, Teancum said: Yep I was in the minority. So? Just answering the complaint that Church members are entitled somehow to “transparency” as you define it. I’m suggesting that for the overwhelming majority, it’s not even an issue.
jkwilliams Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: They are on their way out likely....😏 Again, why does it bother you so much that believing members might expect financial transparency?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Meh. I went from slightly annoyed to don’t care in short order. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal for members to expect financial transparency, as if there’s some evil intent behind that expectation. I find that a lot more interesting than how the church spends its money. Teancum was talking about financial transparency years ago, even before I crossed over to the dark side. I didn’t think he was complaining. Not sure why you think so. Answer the question, please. What “insurance bailout”?
jkwilliams Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Teancum said: And if tomorrow the Church decided to publish info your opinion would switch. Such is the way of things for you. The funny thing is that the church used to be happy to publish their finances every year. Now you’re some kind of evil ark-steadier if you suggest such a thing. 1
smac97 Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 48 minutes ago, Teancum said: Quote I think there are a lot of things that the Church and its members do that never see the light of day. "Alms ... in secret," as it were. Pure speculation and conjecture. Well, no. 48 minutes ago, Teancum said: And the church is pretty good about publicizing such things even to the point of the helping hands t shirts. Your kinda proving my point. The Church is in a now-win situation in terms of placating relentless faultfinders. Thanks, -Smac 2
jkwilliams Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Answer the question, please. What “insurance bailout”? You know the answer. I’m telling you I don’t care enough to rehash something you already know. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 3 minutes ago, Teancum said: And if tomorrow the Church decided to publish info your opinion would switch. Such is the way of things for you. I didn’t say I would be opposed in theory to them doing so (though I understand why they would choose not to). I’m fine either way.
smac97 Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Teancum said: It would matter if people were making the argument that they are enriching themselves which I am not making. Again, context. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Nor do I see others making it here. Accordingly it does not matter to the point of the discussion. I think it does. Quite a bit. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Answer the question, please. What “insurance bailout”? “Latter-day Saint officials acknowledged that it used Ensign funds to underwrite construction of City Creek Center mall in downtown Salt Lake City and rescue Beneficial Life, a church-owned insurance company, but said there was nothing illegal in that.” That’s what I was talking about. How do you know that City Creek is self-sustaining? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: You know the answer. I’m telling you I don’t care enough to rehash something you already know. You care enough to weaponize it as a talking point — until somebody calls you on it. I’ll answer the question if you won’t. You’re probably referring to Beneficial Life Insurance Co. In the recession of the 1990s, Beneficial, like many other institutions, fell on hard times. At that point, it ceased to issue new policies. To help the company honor its existing commitments, the Church kept it afloat. The company is now slowly and gradually going out of business as the existing policies, one by one, are paid out or expire. When the last one goes, it will cease to exist. I submit that ensuring that these contract holders would have their policies honored was the decent and honorable thing for Beneficial — and the Church — to do. If any tithing funds were used in the process, well, as a tithe payer I earnestly approve. Now you tell me honestly: Do you disagree? 2
jkwilliams Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: You care enough to weaponize it as a talking point — until somebody calls you on it. I’ll answer the question if you won’t. You’re probably referring to Beneficial Life Insurance Co. In the recession of the 1990s, Beneficial, like many other institutions, fell on hard times. At that point, it ceased to issue new policies. To help the company honor its existing commitments, the Church kept it afloat. The company is now slowly and gradually going out of business as the existing policies, one by one, are paid out or expire. When the last one goes, it will cease to exist. I submit that ensuring that these contract holders would have their policies honored was the decent and honorable thing for Beneficial — and the Church — to do. If any tithing funds were used in the process, well, as a tithe payer I earnestly approve. Now you tell me honestly: Do you disagree? I couldn’t care less, Scott. “Weaponize”? Please. Try somewhere between slight annoyance and don’t care in the slightest. 1
JAHS Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I do know active members, a serving stake president for one, who have told me they wish the church would be transparent with their finances. I guess they are non-payers. Go figure. I would bet that they say that so the critics would stop complaining about it and not because they personally don't trust how it is being spent.
Teancum Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Just answering the complaint that Church members are entitled somehow to “transparency” as you define it. I’m suggesting that for the overwhelming majority, it’s not even an issue. Again so what? A majority of stupidity does not make something right. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 30 minutes ago, Teancum said: Does it? Maybe. Maybe not. Again simply conjecture. So your complaint about the Church’s tax exempt status is pretty weak sauce.
Teancum Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Again, why does it bother you so much that believing members might expect financial transparency? Does not bother me. I think you meant this for Scott.
Teancum Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 24 minutes ago, smac97 said: Your kinda proving my point. The Church is in a now-win situation in terms of placating relentless faultfinders. I am fine if the church talks about donations it gives. I think this encourages more giving.
Teancum Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: Again, context. I think it does. Quite a bit. Thanks, -Smac Well you are wrong. It does not matter for the argument I am making.
jkwilliams Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Does not bother me. I think you meant this for Scott. Yeah, my mistake. I just don't understand the hyperbole over this. How is expecting financial transparency so offensive to some people? They act like it's the last step before apostasy. I sincerely don't understand why this provokes such defensiveness and hostility. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I couldn’t care less, Scott. “Weaponize”? Please. Try somewhere between slight annoyance and don’t care in the slightest. But you must have an opinion. It was you who brought it up. Do you really think the Church should have let the company go under and leave all those policy holders high and dry? Or is it just that you were ill-informed about the facts of the matter?
Recommended Posts