Op-Ed: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Oh no, Grammar Nazi!

 

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, blackstrap said:

grammar and spelling should not be conflated. 😈

A Grammar Nazi is a pedant who either compulsively criticizes or corrects people’s grammar mistakes, typos, misspellings, and other errors in speech or writing, or merely uses it as ad hominem to say his opponent is dumb and/or in a way that distracts from the larger substance of the content. Hence there is no "Spelling Nazi", its already covered under Grammar Nazi.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

His name is in his profile and has been for as long as I remember. 

Deleted  

Edited May 17, 2023 by Teancum

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think many of those people use the tax code as a pretext.  

I also think many of these folks are selectively indignant about "US tax laws on such things."  

On 5/15/2023 at 3:45 PM, smac97 said:

...Nielsen is trading on such technicalities.  He's going for righteous indignation/outrage against the Church (and, I suspect, its leaders).

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nielsen isn't aiming for "reasonably-informed members," I think.  I think he is aiming for the general public, who have only passing familiarity with the Church.  I think he wants to embarrass the Church, to make it look bad, and to foment ill will against it.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible.  Criminal, even.  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW).

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nielsen, meanwhile, hopes to get rich from it.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

No matter what the Church does, people like you will just move the goalposts and continue your vituperative critiques. 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's the incivility that I find problematic.  The casual slanders and misrepresentations.  The eager willingness of our critics to step in and presume to tell others what we believe, what we think, and so on.  

Physician, heal thyself.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Physician, heal thyself.

I try to not to tell you what you believe, but rather to critique what you and yours say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

It was a minor attempt at levity, that's all.  I pretty much always ignore spelling errors.

Ok.  I will try to do better in editing my posts.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not.  Each and every post carries my IRL name:

I have been doing this for, I think, 15 years or more.

Ah ok.  I never pay attention to the side bar.  I see your name there. I am Kevin Hill.  So there you go.  Live in Palmyra NY.  Was bishop of the Palmyra Wards from 2003 to 209.  Have served in almost all other leadership positions at the ward at stake level other than being in a stake presidency.  What lese would you like to know?

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, my posts are in defense of my faith, whereas you have racked up 8,000+ posts which mostly disparage, insult, ridicule, etc. a religious minority you dislike.  I do not go to message boards themed on other religious groups and denigrate their beliefs to their faces.  Nor do I do this on a regular basis, to the tune of 8,000+ posts.  That's your bag, not mine.  What I do on this board and what you do are not really comparable.

Oh goodness.  Well I have been Teancum here for a long time. And as Teancum I was initially a defender of the faith.  A noble cause in your mind I guess.  So many of my older posts were as a hobby apologist.  As for ridiculing a religious minority, once again your ludicrous persecution complex is showing.  It is really pathetic and show you to be pathetic,  Good lord. This is a discussion board that hardly anyone in the worlds sees. Get over yourself and your religion.  And my point in being here is to yes, criticize a religion that DOMINATED my life based on what I now have concluded it a false religion.  I have  a right to discuss it and criticize it.  It sucked up my time, my money , my attentions, my emotions, fo r me, for the family I raised.  So to bad if your are butt hurt by my criticisms or others who no longer believe.  The LDS church's controls and dominates everything its members do.  When some of those members realize that it was and is false, built upon a lie, they find various ways to work through it. This is one of my ways.  Whether its is or is not your bag, I really could not care less.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that.

Uh no your fool.  You attempts at equating my personal finances and disclosure to those of your very wealthy church is quite frankly one of the most stupid arguments I have seen.  I would expect better from an attorney.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are a private party.  You have no legal obligation to disclose your personal financial or other sensitive data to the world.  This would hold even if you were confronted with arbitrarily-created disclosure requirements presented by self-appointed, hostile, fault-finding, "do as I say, not as I do" looky-loos.

As noted, whet I ask people to give their $$ to my not for profit entity I will happily disclose all the financial activity of such an organization.  I am not asking for the leaders of the LDS Church to disclose their personal finances now am I?  But I do think the Church should do so. 

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suppose you could sidestep into a "Yeah, but you guys have a moral obligation..."-style demand, but I won't hold my breath.  Such subjective demands often don't hold up well, and can turn around on ya.  You want your privacy, and I don't fault you for that.  It's the "privacy for me and mine, but not for thee and thine" stuff that I find problematic.

Uh no SMAC.  I am not asking you to disclose your personal financial situation.  Your church has wonderful advantages when it comes to finances under US tax law.  Other Church's have the same advantage.  But they have the integrity to share their finances with their members and the public.  Yours is to paranoid to do so apparently.  

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Malarky.  The Church's record of financial management (for the last many decades) has been exemplary.

You cannot assert this because you do not know.  You have nothing to base this conclusion on.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry you are so angry at the Church. 

I do not think you are sorry at all.  And your comment is passive aggressive.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I find it to be a wonderful organization, with lots of good people in it. 

Sure, there are good people in it.  And there are good people that are in all sorts of other organizations.  So what?

 

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

It's virtues vastly outstrip its vices and flaws.  It is doing a lot of good in the world. 

Sure it does do good.  And IMO it does bad and causes damage as well.  So what?  Same for other organizations.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

The world is a better place because Latter-day Saints are in it, and much of what makes Latter-day Saints who they are arises from the doctrines and beliefs of their faith, and because they cohere around an institution you really really dislike.  I sense that much of your vitriol arises from your from-affiliation-to-alienation journey. 

I cannot say whether the world is better or worse due the the LDS Church.  Nor can you.  And you have no idea how I really feel about the church. Do I really dislike it? Some yes, some no.  But you seem to want to make this personal and much of your comments in this post are ad hominem. And sure much of how I feel and what I say is due to my journey out of Mormonism.  Just as much of your defense is based on your need to defend your faith and your own testimony.  Again so what?  What is your point?

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I would prefer to have amicable discussions, but I think you are a bully who insists on disparaging your former faith.  As I find real value in that faith, I find it worth defending, and so reluctantly do so.

 

Oh good lord.  Me a bully?  Dude look at your own posts and approach.  Recently I have considered resigning my membership from the church.  I have a lot of mixed emotions about it.  I am reluctant.  But some of the things that tilt me towards doing it are people like you and how you approach things LDS.  So thank you in helping me tilt towards an official resignation.  Me a bully?  Your really are over the top. And I really think you must have a fragile testimony.  It is apparent in your attempts to defend at all costs.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Teancum

[Okrahomer]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Recently I have considered resigning my membership from the church.  I have a lot of mixed emotions about it.  I am reluctant.

You have surprised me here.  I had assumed that you had already exited the Church.  I enjoy the counter-balance you provide in these discussions; although I don't often agree with you.  Even so, I think your voice/perspective is important and valid.  I hope the fact that you have not resigned your membership means you are still trying to find your way back to faith and belief.  The Church is better with you in it. 

[blackstrap]

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

A Grammar Nazi is a pedant

I think you missed the point of the post .I was being pedantic .

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I try to not to tell you what you believe, but rather to critique what you and yours say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

As some feedback, here are what I think the relevant issues are:

• Are there best practices for financial transparency for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?
• Are there best practices for setting target reserves for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?
• For federal tax purposes, is Ensign Peak Advisors really a public charity, or is it a private foundation?
• For federal tax purposes, does Ensign Peak Advisors qualify as an Integrated Auxiliary of the Church?
• Should the laws regarding tax exemptions for churches be changed?

I think those are the issues, and you seem extremely reluctant to talk about any of them. Instead, you go off on these weird straw men attacks.

Example 1: "You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that." The truth is that there really are best practices for financial transparency, and those best practices treat natural persons and corporations that receive favorable tax treatment differently because those entities really are different. The existence of these best practices weren't fabricated out of hatred for your church.

Example 2: "It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible.  Criminal, even.  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW)." That isn't Nielsen's view. He never said that. He never implied that. He never implied anything like that. At all. He never said or implied investing money is terrible or criminal. He makes a living as an investment banker for crying out loud! He never said or implied building malls is terrible or criminal. The only crime he's alluded to is tax evasion, which is totally different than investing money or building malls. Earlier you said, "My comments are neither irrational nor obsessive." Are you sure about that? Because this sentence isn't the least bit rational. Paying taxes is something that good, law-abiding, morally upright people and corporations do. Yet you seem to think paying taxes is a criminal penalty for doing terrible things. That isn't even wrong. Taxes are merely something people and organizations do in order to pay their fair share of the society they benefit from.

 

[smac97]

Quote

 

Quote

Moreover, my posts are in defense of my faith, whereas you have racked up 8,000+ posts which mostly disparage, insult, ridicule, etc. a religious minority you dislike.  I do not go to message boards themed on other religious groups and denigrate their beliefs to their faces.  Nor do I do this on a regular basis, to the tune of 8,000+ posts.  That's your bag, not mine.  What I do on this board and what you do are not really comparable.

Oh goodness.  Well I have been Teancum here for a long time. And as Teancum I was initially a defender of the faith.  A noble cause in your mind I guess.  So many of my older posts were as a hobby apologist. 

Defending an institution that is substantively and overwhelmingly good and decent is noble.  And superior to endlessly disparaging it and finding fault with it.  Yes, I'll own that.

Quote

As for ridiculing a religious minority, once again your ludicrous persecution complex is showing.  It is really pathetic and show you to be pathetic, 

You are only demonstrating my point.

Quote

Good lord. This is a discussion board that hardly anyone in the worlds sees.

You spend your time on this board mostly disparaging, insulting, ridiculing, etc. a religious minority you dislike.  That you do so to a relatively small audience is neither here nor there.

Quote

Get over yourself and your religion. 

I have no real qualms with you disparaging me personally.  I have my faults, and some of them show up in my posts.  But I will continue to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even from former members such as yourself.  I find it to be a wonderful institution.

Quote

And my point in being here is to yes, criticize a religion that DOMINATED my life based on what I now have concluded it a false religion.

You are entitled to believe that.  

I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  And moreover, it is an overwhelmingly good and decent institution.  And its devoted members - including its leaders - sincerely believe in its truth claims.

Quote

I have  a right to discuss it and criticize it. 

I don't dispute that.  I have never suggested that you lack such a right.

Quote

It sucked up my time, my money , my attentions, my emotions, for me, for the family I raised.  So to bad if your are butt hurt by my criticisms or others who no longer believe. 

I have no qualms with reasoned criticism of my faith and the Church.  Your comments frequently go well beyond that.

Quote

The LDS church's controls and dominates everything its members do. 

Baloney.

Quote

When some of those members realize that it was and is false, built upon a lie, they find various ways to work through it. This is one of my ways.  Whether its is or is not your bag, I really could not care less.

Scorched earth it is, then.

The "way to work through it" that I find problematic is the way of a bully.  Where the tools used are ridicule, derision, taunts, insults, and so on.

I am fine with reasoned criticisms of the doctrines of the Church, its history and leaders, its culture and people.  I even agree with some of those criticisms.  But at the beginning, middle and end, I am persuaded that the Church as an institution is overwhelmingly decent and good.

If the Church is not what it claims to be, I want to know that.  Your conclusory disparagements to that effect do not persuade me of much.

Quote

Quote

You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that.

Uh no your fool.  You attempts at equating my personal finances and disclosure to those of your very wealthy church is quite frankly one of the most stupid arguments I have seen.  I would expect better from an attorney.

It is an analogy.  A comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

Quote

Quote

You are a private party.  You have no legal obligation to disclose your personal financial or other sensitive data to the world.  This would hold even if you were confronted with arbitrarily-created disclosure requirements presented by self-appointed, hostile, fault-finding, "do as I say, not as I do" looky-loos.

As noted, whet I ask people to give their $$ to my not for profit entity I will happily disclose all the financial activity of such an organization.  I am not asking for the leaders of the LDS Church to disclose their personal finances now am I?  But I do think the Church should do so. 

Again, you are a private party.  So is the Church.

Again, you have no legal obligation to disclose your personal financial or other sensitive data to the world.  Neither does the Church.

Again, this would hold even if you were confronted with arbitrarily-created disclosure requirements presented by self-appointed, hostile, fault-finding, "do as I say, not as I do" looky-loos.

Quote

Quote

I suppose you could sidestep into a "Yeah, but you guys have a moral obligation..."-style demand, but I won't hold my breath.  Such subjective demands often don't hold up well, and can turn around on ya.  You want your privacy, and I don't fault you for that.  It's the "privacy for me and mine, but not for thee and thine" stuff that I find problematic.

Uh no SMAC.  I am not asking you to disclose your personal financial situation. 

I did not suggest otherwise.

Quote

Your church has wonderful advantages when it comes to finances under US tax law. 

Again, a "huge advantage" over whom?  Against whom/what is the Church competing?  The Church is not getting anyone wealthy.  And it exists to pursue religious, educational, and humanitarian/charitable objectives.  

And yet there are those who want to punish the Church, to see its tax exempt status stripped, to see it lessened.  

Quote

Other Church's have the same advantage.  But they have the integrity to share their finances with their members and the public. 

Says the guy who who doesn't share his finances with the public.

Meanwhile, I have previously said this:

Quote

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Church is doing what it has been teaching us to do: live within its means, set aside reserve funds, plan for the future, etc.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that setting aside reserve funds and planning for the future does not mean simply stuffing money in a metaphorical mattress, but instead involves prudent use and investment of such funds.  The Parable of the Talents not only lauds such prudent use by the "good and faithful servant{s}," but also condemns the servant who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

Additionally, I think the Church is heavily scrutinized, both from without and from within.  Just look at MormonLeaks, which spent years publicly soliciting church employees to steal the Church's sensitive internal information and materials and submit it to them.  And yet they apparently couldn't get enough grist to justify their mill. 

Look at how many people who are arrayed in a very hostile stance against the Church, who are predisposed to think the worst of it, who are thrilled to rake any muck they can find.  And the Church is a huge institution with huge resources, so some financial scandals would seem to be almost expected.  And yet, the Church does a very good job of managing its finances.  So critics have to pivot to disparaging the Church on almost entirely subjective grounds.  The Church should be more "transparent," whatever that means (and the definition is left conveniently vague, likely to facilitate endless future shifting the goalposts and demanding a nebulous "more").  The Church should donate more to charitable causes (how much more is never stated, also likely to facilitate future shifting-the-goalposts demands for "more").

That an institution the size of the Church, both in terms of members, global presence, and resources, has - for many decades now - an established track record of exemplary fiscal discipline and management, and also very few missteps (the SEC fine being a prominent example), is pretty amazing.  

Quote

Quote

Malarky.  The Church's record of financial management (for the last many decades) has been exemplary.

You cannot assert this because you do not know.  You have nothing to base this conclusion on.

Actually, I think I do.  See above.

The Church doesn't operate in a vacuum.  If the Church's record of financial management was subpar, there would be whistleblowers.  Lawsuits.  Leaks.  Investigations.  These seem pretty few and far between.  Moreover:

Quote

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.

I "base this conclusion" on these things.

But by all means, feel free to demonstrate my error.  Falsify my statement.  Present evidence that the Church's financial management has been subpar, or corrupt, or inept, or whatever.  Present evidence and reasoning.  I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.

Quote

Quote

I am sorry you are so angry at the Church. 

I do not think you are sorry at all.  And your comment is passive aggressive.

It's not passive aggressive.  I am genuinely sorry that you are so angry at the Church.

I think the Latter-day Saints are, in the main, a congenial and nice people.  And largely averse to conflict.  This works out well most of the time.  But there are times when a person like me is not afraid of a bully like you, willing to stand up and respond to your various calumnies, willing to take your arguments and pick them apart.

"Bullying" is "the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate."  You do not use "force," but I think your remarks are calculated to coerce.  You sometimes attempt to persuade, but very often you ridicule us to shame and embarrass us into silence or capitulation.  To alienate us from our faith and our community.

I get that you think I am a bully, but I don't think that works.  I am virtually always on the defense.  I am responding to disparagements, insults, ridicule, and the rest of what you so often include in your repertoire.

Quote

Quote

I find it to be a wonderful organization, with lots of good people in it. 

Sure, there are good people in it.  And there are good people that are in all sorts of other organizations.  So what?

See below.

And we aren't speaking about "other organizations."  The only one being discussed is the one you so regularly vilify.

Quote

Quote

It's virtues vastly outstrip its vices and flaws.  It is doing a lot of good in the world. 

Sure it does do good.  And IMO it does bad and causes damage as well.  So what?  Same for other organizations.

Again, see below.

Quote

Quote

The world is a better place because Latter-day Saints are in it, and much of what makes Latter-day Saints who they are arises from the doctrines and beliefs of their faith, and because they cohere around an institution you really really dislike.  I sense that much of your vitriol arises from your from-affiliation-to-alienation journey. 

I cannot say whether the world is better or worse due the the LDS Church.  Nor can you. 

Actually, I think I can say.  Perhaps even in an objective sense.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to engage in right conduct, to repent of bad conduct, to love and serve others, to obey the laws of the land, to abstain from violence sexual licentiousness and substance abuse, to be polite, to be honest in their dealings, to be attentive to the needs of family and community, to participate in civic matters, and so on.  And when the Latter-day Saints do these things, they are making the world better than it would otherwise be.

To be sure, there are mistakes made (including serious ones), and some problematic aspects of the "culture," and so on.  But overall, the Church is a wonderful institution, both because of its doctrines and its people.

Quote

And you have no idea how I really feel about the church.

I have read many hundreds of your posts here.  You have made how you "really feel" pretty clear.

Quote

Do I really dislike it? Some yes, some no.  But you seem to want to make this personal and much of your comments in this post are ad hominem.

I think you are a bully.  That's based on how you behave on this board.  And having read many many posts from you, it's not that hard to extrapolate what you think of the Latter-day Saints and their faith.  I mean, there's hardly any need to extrapolate at all.  You are quite clear in what you think.

Quote

And sure much of how I feel and what I say is due to my journey out of Mormonism.  Just as much of your defense is based on your need to defend your faith and your own testimony.  Again so what?  What is your point?

I reject the notion of symmetry here.  

My point, I suppose, is to let you know that I think you are a bully, and that your bullying doesn't work on me.  And to that I will add that I think that your fixation on finding fault and disparaging your former faith is not, in the main, a good thing.  Your criticisms are seldom of the "constructive" kind, and instead come across as vituperative, ridiculing, and so on.

Quote

Quote

I would prefer to have amicable discussions, but I think you are a bully who insists on disparaging your former faith.  As I find real value in that faith, I find it worth defending, and so reluctantly do so.

Oh good lord.  Me a bully?  Dude look at your own posts and approach. 

I recognize that I, in speaking in defense of my faith and the Church associated with it, sometimes speak out of turn.  But I am not the aggressor.  I only interact with you in order to defend my faith from your disparagements and attacks on it.  We sometimes have substantive discussions about legitimate points and criticisms regarding the Church, but these seem few and far between.

I reject the notion that me defending my faith from the likes of you constitutes "bullying."  I have never disparaged you for your decision to leave to the Church.  I have never ridiculed things you hold sacred or dear to your heart.  I have never maligned your social community (I don't even know what that is).  

Quote

Recently I have considered resigning my membership from the church.  I have a lot of mixed emotions about it.  I am reluctant.  But some of the things that tilt me towards doing it are people like you and how you approach things LDS.  So thank you in helping me tilt towards an official resignation.  Me a bully?  Your really are over the top. And I really think you must have a fragile testimony.  It is apparent in your attempts to defend at all costs.

Defend?  Yes.  But not "at all costs."  You will not find me defending MMM, or the Priesthood Ban, or problematic aspects of "Church culture," or some aspects of 19th-century polygamy, or past over-the-pulpit propagations of racism, and so on.  We are good, but far from perfect.  We make mistakes, both individually and sometimes collectively/institutionally.

I don't think I have a fragile testimony.  If I did, I would not have been on this board defending it for the last 19 years.  I would have instead gone out and found an echo chamber, where I could listen to what I want to hear.  Instead, I come hear to listen to people, well, like you.  And I've learned a lot.  In the end, though, I am more and more convinced that the Church is what it claims to be.  It doesn't claim to be a congregation of perfect people with perfect understanding and perfect behaviors.  But the foundational truth claims are there.  The First Vision, the Plates, the Witnesses, the restoration of the Priesthood, the Book of Mormon.  And personal revelation.

Again, I am sorry that you are so angry at the Church, and that you disbelieve me when I say that.  Sometimes, it can be hard for a bully to confront his bullying.  You have accused me of that, and I will think on it.  I invite you to do the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2023 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As some feedback, here are what I think the relevant issues are:

• Are there best practices for financial transparency for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?
• Are there best practices for setting target reserves for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?
• For federal tax purposes, is Ensign Peak Advisors really a public charity, or is it a private foundation?
• For federal tax purposes, does Ensign Peak Advisors qualify as an Integrated Auxiliary of the Church?
• Should the laws regarding tax exemptions for churches be changed?

I think those are the issues, and you seem extremely reluctant to talk about any of them. Instead, you go off on these weird straw men attacks.

Example 1: "You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that." The truth is that there really are best practices for financial transparency, and those best practices treat natural persons and corporations that receive favorable tax treatment differently because those entities really are different. The existence of these best practices weren't fabricated out of hatred for your church.

Example 2: "It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible.  Criminal, even.  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW)." That isn't Nielsen's view. He never said that. He never implied that. He never implied anything like that. At all. He never said or implied investing money is terrible or criminal. He makes a living as an investment banker for crying out loud! He never said or implied building malls is terrible or criminal. The only crime he's alluded to is tax evasion, which is totally different than investing money or building malls. Earlier you said, "My comments are neither irrational nor obsessive." Are you sure about that? Because this sentence isn't the least bit rational. Paying taxes is something that good, law-abiding, morally upright people and corporations do. Yet you seem to think paying taxes is a criminal penalty for doing terrible things. That isn't even wrong. Taxes are merely something people and organizations do in order to pay their fair share of the society they benefit from.

 

It's really interesting to read this discussion against teachings like,

The kingdom of God is here and now

Set your heart not on the things of this world

Love thy neighbour, love everyone

...and it is also painful to see individuals of presumably modest means defend an institution of extravagant means. Not from special standards, to be clear, but from standards we of modest means are called on to uphold in our lives BY THAT SAME institution.

Is the separation of church and state is being used to absolve churches of civil and legal obligations as if those are discretionary?

 

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As some feedback, here are what I think the relevant issues are:

• Are there best practices for financial transparency for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?
• Are there best practices for setting target reserves for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?
• For federal tax purposes, is Ensign Peak Advisors really a public charity, or is it a private foundation?
• For federal tax purposes, does Ensign Peak Advisors qualify as an Integrated Auxiliary of the Church?
• Should the laws regarding tax exemptions for churches be changed?

I think those are the issues, and you seem extremely reluctant to talk about any of them. Instead, you go off on these weird straw men attacks.

Example 1: "You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that." The truth is that there really are best practices for financial transparency, and those best practices treat natural persons and corporations that receive favorable tax treatment differently because those entities really are different. The existence of these best practices weren't fabricated out of hatred for your church.

Example 2: "It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible.  Criminal, even.  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW)." That isn't Nielsen's view. He never said that. He never implied that. He never implied anything like that. At all. He never said or implied investing money is terrible or criminal. He makes a living as an investment banker for crying out loud! He never said or implied building malls is terrible or criminal. The only crime he's alluded to is tax evasion, which is totally different than investing money or building malls. Earlier you said, "My comments are neither irrational nor obsessive." Are you sure about that? Because this sentence isn't the least bit rational. Paying taxes is something that good, law-abiding, morally upright people and corporations do. Yet you seem to think paying taxes is a criminal penalty for doing terrible things. That isn't even wrong. Taxes are merely something people and organizations do in order to pay their fair share of the society they benefit from.

 

👏 The church hopefully will learn to be honest and not hipocrites.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As some feedback, here are what I think the relevant issues are:

• Are there best practices for financial transparency for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?

Are there ways the Church could be more financially transparent than it is?  Yes.

Is it legally obligated to do so?  No.

Ought it do so anyway?  That's a judgment call, and we'd need to talk about specifics.  

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

• Are there best practices for setting target reserves for churches? If so, does the Church follow them?

Same as above.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

• For federal tax purposes, is Ensign Peak Advisors really a public charity, or is it a private foundation?
• For federal tax purposes, does Ensign Peak Advisors qualify as an Integrated Auxiliary of the Church?

These are reasonable questions, but legal ones.  And AFAICS, every legal expert that has spoken on them has said that the Church and EPA are probably fine.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

• Should the laws regarding tax exemptions for churches be changed?

I think those are the issues, and you seem extremely reluctant to talk about any of them.

Baloney.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Instead, you go off on these weird straw men attacks.

Also baloney.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Example 1: "You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that."  The truth is that there really are best practices for financial transparency, and those best practices treat natural persons and corporations that receive favorable tax treatment differently because those entities really are different. The existence of these best practices weren't fabricated out of hatred for your church.

I didn't say otherwise.  This "best practices" stuff did not arise until you raised them now.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Example 2: "It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible.  Criminal, even.  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW)." That isn't Nielsen's view. He never said that. He never implied that. He never implied anything like that. At all. He never said or implied investing money is terrible or criminal. He makes a living as an investment banker for crying out loud! He never said or implied building malls is terrible or criminal. The only crime he's alluded to is tax evasion, which is totally different than investing money or building malls. Earlier you said, "My comments are neither irrational nor obsessive." Are you sure about that? Because this sentence isn't the least bit rational. Paying taxes is something that good, law-abiding, morally upright people and corporations do. Yet you seem to think paying taxes is a criminal penalty for doing terrible things. That isn't even wrong. Taxes are merely something people and organizations do in order to pay their fair share of the society they benefit from.

No, I don't think that paying taxes is criminal.  

Nielsen's grievance is rooted in the Church not spending its money in the ways he thinks it should have.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I try to not to tell you what you believe, but rather to critique what you and yours say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.

James E. Talmage

[Vanguard]

More often than not I view the media's portrayal of any organization as slanted. I have thought that on numerous occasions including the recent one about the Church. The dynamic of ' David taking on Goliath' more often than not renders the Goliath in the story as the bad guy whether it be the Church, other religions, law enforcement, political parties (especially the 'right'), etc. I thought they gave the gentleman too much air time to grieve his issues without enough counter-balance or challenge to his positions. It's not the first time I've thought that though, and many times when it has nothing to do with the Church.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

enjoy the counter-balance you provide in these discussions; although I don't often agree with you.  Even so, I think your voice/perspective is important and valid. 

This…though I think Teancum’s posts (and everyone else’s) would be even better for going lighter on the personal character criticisms. 
 

The board seems to be tilting more negative in tone lately (not saying there is more criticism of the church, saying the language used is more pejorative).  It would be nice to tilt it back more to civil discourse. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Calm

[blackstrap]

Just watched this. It rings a bell. 

 

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Defending an institution that is substantively and overwhelmingly good and decent is noble.  And superior to endlessly disparaging it and finding fault with it.  Yes, I'll own that.

You are only demonstrating my point.

You spend your time on this board mostly disparaging, insulting, ridiculing, etc. a religious minority you dislike.  That you do so to a relatively small audience is neither here nor there.

I have no real qualms with you disparaging me personally.  I have my faults, and some of them show up in my posts.  But I will continue to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even from former members such as yourself.  I find it to be a wonderful institution.

You are entitled to believe that.  

I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  And moreover, it is an overwhelmingly good and decent institution.  And its devoted members - including its leaders - sincerely believe in its truth claims.

I don't dispute that.  I have never suggested that you lack such a right.

I have no qualms with reasoned criticism of my faith and the Church.  Your comments frequently go well beyond that.

Baloney.

Scorched earth it is, then.

The "way to work through it" that I find problematic is the way of a bully.  Where the tools used are ridicule, derision, taunts, insults, and so on.

I am fine with reasoned criticisms of the doctrines of the Church, its history and leaders, its culture and people.  I even agree with some of those criticisms.  But at the beginning, middle and end, I am persuaded that the Church as an institution is overwhelmingly decent and good.

If the Church is not what it claims to be, I want to know that.  Your conclusory disparagements to that effect do not persuade me of much.

It is an analogy.  A comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

Again, you are a private party.  So is the Church.

Again, you have no legal obligation to disclose your personal financial or other sensitive data to the world.  Neither does the Church.

Again, this would hold even if you were confronted with arbitrarily-created disclosure requirements presented by self-appointed, hostile, fault-finding, "do as I say, not as I do" looky-loos.

I did not suggest otherwise.

Again, a "huge advantage" over whom?  Against whom/what is the Church competing?  The Church is not getting anyone wealthy.  And it exists to pursue religious, educational, and humanitarian/charitable objectives.  

And yet there are those who want to punish the Church, to see its tax exempt status stripped, to see it lessened.  

Says the guy who who doesn't share his finances with the public.

Meanwhile, I have previously said this:

Additionally, I think the Church is heavily scrutinized, both from without and from within.  Just look at MormonLeaks, which spent years publicly soliciting church employees to steal the Church's sensitive internal information and materials and submit it to them.  And yet they apparently couldn't get enough grist to justify their mill. 

Look at how many people who are arrayed in a very hostile stance against the Church, who are predisposed to think the worst of it, who are thrilled to rake any muck they can find.  And the Church is a huge institution with huge resources, so some financial scandals would seem to be almost expected.  And yet, the Church does a very good job of managing its finances.  So critics have to pivot to disparaging the Church on almost entirely subjective grounds.  The Church should be more "transparent," whatever that means (and the definition is left conveniently vague, likely to facilitate endless future shifting the goalposts and demanding a nebulous "more").  The Church should donate more to charitable causes (how much more is never stated, also likely to facilitate future shifting-the-goalposts demands for "more").

That an institution the size of the Church, both in terms of members, global presence, and resources, has - for many decades now - an established track record of exemplary fiscal discipline and management, and also very few missteps (the SEC fine being a prominent example), is pretty amazing.  

Actually, I think I do.  See above.

The Church doesn't operate in a vacuum.  If the Church's record of financial management was subpar, there would be whistleblowers.  Lawsuits.  Leaks.  Investigations.  These seem pretty few and far between.  Moreover:

I "base this conclusion" on these things.

But by all means, feel free to demonstrate my error.  Falsify my statement.  Present evidence that the Church's financial management has been subpar, or corrupt, or inept, or whatever.  Present evidence and reasoning.  I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.

It's not passive aggressive.  I am genuinely sorry that you are so angry at the Church.

I think the Latter-day Saints are, in the main, a congenial and nice people.  And largely averse to conflict.  This works out well most of the time.  But there are times when a person like me is not afraid of a bully like you, willing to stand up and respond to your various calumnies, willing to take your arguments and pick them apart.

"Bullying" is "the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate."  You do not use "force," but I think your remarks are calculated to coerce.  You sometimes attempt to persuade, but very often you ridicule us to shame and embarrass us into silence or capitulation.  To alienate us from our faith and our community.

I get that you think I am a bully, but I don't think that works.  I am virtually always on the defense.  I am responding to disparagements, insults, ridicule, and the rest of what you so often include in your repertoire.

See below.

And we aren't speaking about "other organizations."  The only one being discussed is the one you so regularly vilify.

Again, see below.

Actually, I think I can say.  Perhaps even in an objective sense.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to engage in right conduct, to repent of bad conduct, to love and serve others, to obey the laws of the land, to abstain from violence sexual licentiousness and substance abuse, to be polite, to be honest in their dealings, to be attentive to the needs of family and community, to participate in civic matters, and so on.  And when the Latter-day Saints do these things, they are making the world better than it would otherwise be.

To be sure, there are mistakes made (including serious ones), and some problematic aspects of the "culture," and so on.  But overall, the Church is a wonderful institution, both because of its doctrines and its people.

I have read many hundreds of your posts here.  You have made how you "really feel" pretty clear.

I think you are a bully.  That's based on how you behave on this board.  And having read many many posts from you, it's not that hard to extrapolate what you think of the Latter-day Saints and their faith.  I mean, there's hardly any need to extrapolate at all.  You are quite clear in what you think.

I reject the notion of symmetry here.  

My point, I suppose, is to let you know that I think you are a bully, and that your bullying doesn't work on me.  And to that I will add that I think that your fixation on finding fault and disparaging your former faith is not, in the main, a good thing.  Your criticisms are seldom of the "constructive" kind, and instead come across as vituperative, ridiculing, and so on.

I recognize that I, in speaking in defense of my faith and the Church associated with it, sometimes speak out of turn.  But I am not the aggressor.  I only interact with you in order to defend my faith from your disparagements and attacks on it.  We sometimes have substantive discussions about legitimate points and criticisms regarding the Church, but these seem few and far between.

I reject the notion that me defending my faith from the likes of you constitutes "bullying."  I have never disparaged you for your decision to leave to the Church.  I have never ridiculed things you hold sacred or dear to your heart.  I have never maligned your social community (I don't even know what that is).  

Defend?  Yes.  But not "at all costs."  You will not find me defending MMM, or the Priesthood Ban, or problematic aspects of "Church culture," or some aspects of 19th-century polygamy, or past over-the-pulpit propagations of racism, and so on.  We are good, but far from perfect.  We make mistakes, both individually and sometimes collectively/institutionally.

I don't think I have a fragile testimony.  If I did, I would not have been on this board defending it for the last 19 years.  I would have instead gone out and found an echo chamber, where I could listen to what I want to hear.  Instead, I come hear to listen to people, well, like you.  And I've learned a lot.  In the end, though, I am more and more convinced that the Church is what it claims to be.  It doesn't claim to be a congregation of perfect people with perfect understanding and perfect behaviors.  But the foundational truth claims are there.  The First Vision, the Plates, the Witnesses, the restoration of the Priesthood, the Book of Mormon.  And personal revelation.

Again, I am sorry that you are so angry at the Church, and that you disbelieve me when I say that.  Sometimes, it can be hard for a bully to confront his bullying.  You have accused me of that, and I will think on it.  I invite you to do the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not interested in talking about who is or isn’t a bully. But do you at least acknowledge that there are people out there who don’t believe that “overall, the Church is a wonderful institution, both because of its doctrines and its people?” It seems unlikely that a rational person would walk away from an institution they consider wonderful.

It’s been interesting seeing my kids go through the “stages of grief” in terms of their loss of faith. A couple of them are quite angry, and I always tell them the same thing: it’s perfectly fine to be angry about people or organizations who have hurt you. The key is to acknowledge and express the anger and hurt, and it eventually passes. I seem to recall you were offended a while back because I said I no longer have any strong feelings about the church. It is my past and part of who I am, but I can’t get worked up about it anymore. What offended you I consider a very positive step in my life.

It’s funny how some people I know feel like I do but still like to argue on the internet. I think that’s less about hating the church than it is about just liking to argue. I’ve met you and Teancum in person, and I’ll just say both of you come across much differently online. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by jkwilliams

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Just watched this. It rings a bell. 

 

The guy in red is cute.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The guy in red is cute.

I feel there is massive cultural significance going on here that I am completely clueless about except perhaps at a very fundamental level of two boys daring each other who can last the longest in yet another random contest of will and strength. 
 

https://kabaddi.site/slap-kabaddi/

Quote

In comparison with Kabaddi, Slap Kabaddi is a relatively simpler game that involves little to no rules except for incessant slapping. It’s no wonder that Slap Kabaddi has grown to be a well-loved and patronized game all over the world because of how unique it is.

I beg to differ.  It is a total mystery to me why this would be well loved or patronized by anyone over the age of 13.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not interested in talking about who is or isn’t a bully. But do you at least acknowledge that there are people out there who don’t believe that “overall, the Church is a wonderful institution, both because of its doctrines and its people?”

Sure.  Subjectively, people can believe all sorts of things.  Objectively, though, the Church and its people are really quite good.  

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems unlikely that a rational person would walk away from an institution they consider wonderful.

I don't know about that.  Ours is a high-demand religion.  "Wonderful" in my book, but a lot of work.  And its claims are bold.

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s been interesting seeing my kids go through the “stages of grief” in terms of their loss of faith. A couple of them are quite angry, and I always tell them the same thing: it’s perfectly fine to be angry about people or organizations who have hurt you.

I suppose.  But a person's subjective assessment that the Church is not what it claims to be is not, in my view, reasonably characterized as equivalent to causing "hurt" to a person.

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The key is to acknowledge and express the anger and hurt, and it eventually passes.  I seem to recall you were offended a while back because I said I no longer have any strong feelings about the church. It is my past and part of who I am, but I can’t get worked up about it anymore. What offended you I consider a very positive step in my life.

This is not ringing a bell.  I don't know why I would get offended at you saying you "no longer have any strong feelings about the church."  

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s funny how some people I know feel like I do but still like to argue on the internet. I think that’s less about hating the church than it is about just liking to argue. I’ve met you and Teancum in person, and I’ll just say both of you come across much differently online. 

You've met me "in person?"  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  Subjectively, people can believe all sorts of things.  Objectively, though, the Church and its people are really quite good.  

I don't know about that.  Ours is a high-demand religion.  "Wonderful" in my book, but a lot of work.  And its claims are bold.

I suppose.  But a person's subjective assessment that the Church is not what it claims to be is not, in my view, reasonably characterized as equivalent to causing "hurt" to a person.

This is not ringing a bell.  I don't know why I would get offended at you saying you "no longer have any strong feelings about the church."  

You've met me "in person?"  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

You seriously don’t remember having lunch with me years ago? I’m deeply hurt. (I’m just kidding.) 

And no, I don’t think the church is objectively anything, good or bad. But it’s kind of silly to have a conversation when one participant denies the possibility that an organization might hurt people. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by jkwilliams

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are there ways the Church could be more financially transparent than it is?  Yes.

Is it legally obligated to do so?  No.

Ought it do so anyway?  That's a judgment call, and we'd need to talk about specifics.  

You can make your own judgement call about financial transparency. That doesn't change the objective fact that best practices for such things exist. Few leaders of affected organizations enjoy being transparent. But most of them realize that these best practices are well founded and ought to be followed. 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same as above.

These are reasonable questions, but legal ones.  And AFAICS, every legal expert that has spoken on them has said that the Church and EPA are probably fine.

Fine in terms of being able to get away with it, or fine because they hold themselves to a standard higher than the minimum of what they think they can get away with?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

[I think those are the issues, and you seem extremely reluctant to talk about any of them.]

Baloney.

Perhaps, but there must be a reason that you avoid talking about the real issues.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

[Instead, you go off on these weird straw men attacks.]

Also baloney.

I didn't say otherwise.  This "best practices" stuff did not arise until you raised them now.

That's not true. They are implicitly raised every time somebody talks about transparency. For example, it was raised yesterday when @Teancum said, "And oh by the way my concern about financial disclosure is not just focused on the Mormon Church. It is for all tax exempt organizations. As a CPA financial disclosure is an important thing to me. And Church's should not be exempt from such disclosures. It leads to abuse." Rather than acknowledging his expertise in the matter as a CPA and acknowledging that his opinion here is based on a broad principle, how did you respond? With a weird straw man attack. Your specific reaction to him saying that was "Malarky," followed by personal attacks about him being angry, full of vitriol, a psychological theory having to do with "from-affiliation-to-alienation journey", and calling him a bully. And your trite and superlatively silly "privacy for me and mine, but not for thee and thine" shtick.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think that paying taxes is criminal.  

But you seem to think that being required to pay taxes constitutes severe punishment for doing things that are terrible. Criminal even.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nielsen's grievance is rooted in the Church not spending its money in the ways he thinks it should have.  

Thank you for providing another example of a weird straw man attack. Nielsen's actual grievance is rooted in his belief that Ensign Peak Advisors is a private foundation and ought to be taxed as such because it doesn't spend anything on charitable causes and therefore isn't a public charity and can't be an integrated auxiliary of the Church. However, you refuse to acknowledge that's his actual grievance, and instead throw around these ad hominem attacks.

 

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You can make your own judgement call about financial transparency. That doesn't change the objective fact that best practices for such things exist. Few leaders of affected organizations enjoy being transparent. But most of them realize that these best practices are well founded and ought to be followed. 

Fine in terms of being able to get away with it, or fine because they hold themselves to a standard higher than the minimum of what they think they can get away with?

Perhaps, but there must be a reason that you avoid talking about the real issues.

That's not true. They are implicitly raised every time somebody talks about transparency. For example, it was raised yesterday when @Teancum said, "And oh by the way my concern about financial disclosure is not just focused on the Mormon Church. It is for all tax exempt organizations. As a CPA financial disclosure is an important thing to me. And Church's should not be exempt from such disclosures. It leads to abuse." Rather than acknowledging his expertise in the matter as a CPA and acknowledging that his opinion here is based on a broad principle, how did you respond? With a weird straw man attack. Your specific reaction to him saying that was "Malarky," followed by personal attacks about him being angry, full of vitriol, a psychological theory having to do with "from-affiliation-to-alienation journey", and calling him a bully. And your trite and superlatively silly "privacy for me and mine, but not for thee and thine" shtick.

But you seem to think that being required to pay taxes constitutes severe punishment for doing things that are terrible. Criminal even.

Thank you for providing another example of a weird straw man attack. Nielsen's actual grievance is rooted in his belief that Ensign Peak Advisors is a private foundation and ought to be taxed as such because it doesn't spend anything on charitable causes and therefore isn't a public charity and can't be an integrated auxiliary of the Church. However, you refuse to acknowledge that's his actual grievance, and instead throw around these ad hominem attacks.

 

That is the issue: is a charitable account that spends no money on charity actually a charitable account? 

[MorningStar]

Either the church is not what it claims to be or it is. If one believes it’s not, don’t pay tithing. If it is, it’s the Lord’s money and it’s saved for good reason. It will take more and more to support those in need, temples, chapels, etc. as we get closer to the second coming and more people in impoverished areas join.