Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court


Recommended Posts

On 3/28/2024 at 1:58 PM, smac97 said:

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 funds.  

It depends upon how you define “misuse” of funds. Consider these data:

  1. In 2016, Dallin H. Oaks proudly proclaimed that the Church gives away on average $40 million a year in humanitarian efforts.
     
  2. The Church recently announced that in 2023, it gave away $1.36 billion in humanitarian efforts.

This raises two questions. First, why did the humanitarian efforts increase from $40 million to $1.36 billion over the course of a mere 7 years? Second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? 

Here are my answers, but I’d be interested in your thoughts. First, before the IRS whistleblower report, most of the general authorities, including the apostles, had no idea how much money the Church had nor how much investment income it made. When Elder Neil L. Andersen told Zimbabwe's Vice President We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have,” he was spreading false information: the Church is wealthy and it does not share what it has. But he wasn’t deliberately lying--he was merely an apostle and knowing how much money the Church actually has is above his pay grade. He may have honestly thought he was telling the truth.

But after the whistleblower report came out, how do you think Elder Andersen felt? And how do you think the Presiding Bishopric and the FIrst Presidency felt when all of the sudden the entire council of the deposition of tithes understood that the Church actually had an addition $7-10 billion of annual investment income that could be distributed beyond the $7 billion of tithing they were distributing? Perhaps they all looked in the mirror and realized that “because I have been given much I too must give”?

I submit that transparency, even unwanted transparency, causes people to make better decisions. 

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If you and yours had competent evidence that the Church is deliberately withholding funds from carefully vetted partners and programs, I would be more concerned. 

In the context of this discussion, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to carefully vet partners and programs before donating to them?

If you think it is a good thing, then why doesn’t the Church provide the same financial transparency to its members that it requires from its humanitarian partners?

I’d be interested in your thoughts, but here is what I think. Imagine a guy typical of many faithful church members in the U.S. or Canada. He is 45 years old and has 5 kids. He makes $120,000 a year. In one sense that is a lot of money, but in another sense with the current costs of everything, he’s on a tight budget.

And the Church asks for him to cut them a check of $1,000 a month, every single month. If he thought the Church was putting the money to great use then he might quite happily continue making the sacrifice. But if he realized that the Church’s total annual income was on the order of $15 billion a year, that it only spent $6 billion on its religious, educational, and humanitarian missions, and then used the remaining $8 billion to invest in its $150 billion “rainy day fund,” what would this member think? Would he think that the Church didn’t need his $1,000 a month as much as he thought? Would he think that maybe it would be better to put that money into his own personal rainy day fund, or perhaps into his children’s college fund? Or would he think that maybe it would be better to give the money to the Red Cross or the United Way were it would be put to better use?

Maybe he’d be faithful and continue to make huge personal sacrifices to contribute to the Church. Or maybe he would carefully vet the Church and realize that donating to it doesn’t make any sense.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the context of this discussion, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to carefully vet partners and programs before donating to them?

If you think it is a good thing, then why doesn’t the Church provide the same financial transparency to its members that it requires from its humanitarian partners?

I’d be interested in your thoughts, but here is what I think. Imagine a guy typical of many faithful church members in the U.S. or Canada. He is 45 years old and has 5 kids. He makes $120,000 a year. In one sense that is a lot of money, but in another sense with the current costs of everything, he’s on a tight budget.

And the Church asks for him to cut them a check of $1,000 a month, every single month. If he thought the Church was putting the money to great use then he might quite happily continue making the sacrifice. But if he realized that the Church’s total annual income was on the order of $15 billion a year, that it only spent $6 billion on its religious, educational, and humanitarian missions, and then used the remaining $8 billion to invest in its $150 billion “rainy day fund,” what would this member think? Would he think that the Church didn’t need his $1,000 a month as much as he thought? Would he think that maybe it would be better to put that money into his own personal rainy day fund, or perhaps into his children’s college fund? Or would he think that maybe it would be better to give the money to the Red Cross or the United Way were it would be put to better use?

Maybe he’d be faithful and continue to make huge personal sacrifices to contribute to the Church. Or maybe he would carefully vet the Church and realize that donating to it doesn’t make any sense.

The "Church" isn't asking him for anything. The Lord is requiring it of his followers.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Maybe--depends on the individual and the individual circumstances. I will make two points.

First, lets talk about James Huntsman specifically. He is a financially sophisticated guy, and he gave large donations to the Church based on interpreting Hinckley’s remarks the way that you, Kim Pearson, Pahoran, etc. all did. When he found out that the Church used tithing money to fund a hundred-billion-dollar slush fund which never supported any humanitarian issues at all, he felt betrayed. He felt that he gave his valuable money to an organization that was either unwilling or unable to do anything productive with it. If the Church would have been transparent either he would have donated to it knowing that on the margin his money would just been passed through to Ensign Peaks to buy stocks and bonds. Or he would have given it to somebody else that had a vision for it. Either way, he wouldn’t be suing.

Talking about exMormons in general, the Church really needs to take some of the responsibility for people feeling betrayed and being upset about it. If the Church was more honest and transparent with its history and finances, people would feel less lied to and betrayed, even if they stopped believing.

Was Huntsman an active member before he became aware of your statement above that I bolded?  I honestly don't remember.  Also, I thought that the issue for Huntsman was the mall and discovery of a "slush fund"?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Was Huntsman an active member before he became aware of your statement above that I bolded?  I honestly don't remember.  Also, I thought that the issue for Huntsman was the mall and discovery of a "slush fund"?

The narrative in my head is that he was active until the IRS whistleblower report. Maybe he had already lost his faith, but that is what upset him and made him want to sue?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Analytics said:
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Was Huntsman an active member before he became aware of your statement above that I bolded?  I honestly don't remember.  Also, I thought that the issue for Huntsman was the mall and discovery of a "slush fund"?

The narrative in my head is that he was active until the IRS whistleblower report. Maybe he had already lost his faith, but that is what upset him and made him want to sue?

It seems to me that once a member has received a testimony of the gospel and Church, that has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost, it would be very hard to get upset about what the church does with their money, once they have voluntarily given it;  unless they have already started losing their testimony for other reasons. Or they never had the correct attitude about tithing in the first place.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

First, before the IRS whistleblower report, most of the general authorities, including the apostles, had no idea how much money the Church had nor how much investment income it made.

This is a claim made by the brother of the whistleblower without confirmation, iirc. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The narrative in my head is that he was active until the IRS whistleblower report. Maybe he had already lost his faith, but that is what upset him and made him want to sue?

I don't remember the timeline, but I didn't think the whistleblower report had anything to do with his issues with the church when he left (though I'm sure he's tacked them on now). 

Maybe someone else knows and can help us out.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The narrative in my head is that he was active until the IRS whistleblower report. Maybe he had already lost his faith, but that is what upset him and made him want to sue?

If he stopped paying tithing in 2017 and the report came out in 2019, it doesn’t seem likely that he was active until the report.  Iirc, those were the dates mentioned by someone in the thread, maybe smac. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is a claim made by the brother of the whistleblower without confirmation, iirc. 

My basis for this claim is Exhibit A on page 4 of the document Financial Standard 6230: Accessing and Securing Financial Information, signed June 3, 2013 by church controller Alan L. Bott, which was published by MormonLeaks. It says the Quorum of the Twelve do not have access to the following elements on the balance sheet: Cash, Investment securities, Investment properties, Other assets, Liabilities, or Net assets. The Twelve are granted access to things like "operations expenditures" and "project expenditures", but "Only for departments/areas under their stewardship. Documentation of stewardship is retained by the function that provides confidential information to evidence the appropriateness of the access granted."

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Analytics said:

I see it in the opposite way. To me, multiple tithe payers all feeling they were defrauded in the same way is smoke that there is a real problem with the Church’s communication with its members.

The Church worrying that there will be a tidal wave of copycat lawsuits is a tacit admission that there is a tidal wave of people who paid tithing and now regret it.

Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue.

I gave you an upvote after reading SMAC's response.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Analytics said:

My basis for this claim is Exhibit A on page 4 of the document Financial Standard 6230: Accessing and Securing Financial Information, signed June 3, 2013 by church controller Alan L. Bott, which was published by MormonLeaks. It says the Quorum of the Twelve do not have access to the following elements on the balance sheet: Cash, Investment securities, Investment properties, Other assets, Liabilities, or Net assets. The Twelve are granted access to things like "operations expenditures" and "project expenditures", but "Only for departments/areas under their stewardship. Documentation of stewardship is retained by the function that provides confidential information to evidence the appropriateness of the access granted."

I had forgotten this, thanks for reminding me.  I do remember the thread or at least one like it (mentioned and posted below)

For some reason I can’t find it on the Mormonleaks website.  I did find a previous 2017 conversation where you mentioned it on this board, but there was surprisingly no follow up…at least not that I saw.  I must have been having a bad day or maybe that was the week I did my best to ignore the board (can’t remember when I actually tried it, I think I made it three days of not posting, lol).  Do you have a link to the ML page or remember the provenance of the document at all?  I am not claiming it is a fake, but it would be nice to know for sure it was not. (I am paranoid in this way about everything, not just something that looks odd for the Church :) ).

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69719-the-next-time-a-critic-gripes-re-churchs-business-interests-quote-quinn/?do=findComment&comment=1209765878

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

Who determines what criticism is valid?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

 

Is your criticism of the Church automatically valid because it's yours?

Since I have never made such a claim it seems you are working hard here to build a straw man.

 

15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

 

As smac noted, 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.

Yes?  I understand that. So?

 

15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

All reviewing Church finances.

Yes all fine internal controls.  If these are sufficient why does the church still hide its financial information?

 

15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

 

I suspect that what critics would like to see are the nitty-gritty details so they could mine the fuel needed to feed the fires of discontent. "Look, they invested in XYZ Corp., Don't they know XYZ corp makes bombs, bullets and a whole bunch of really bad things, none of which the Savior would appprove of?" "Did the Prophet personally approve the purchase of these shares? If so, he's complicit in the Gazian Genocide. Bad Church."

I suspect you are wrong.  But once again hyperbolic spin serves you well in an attempt to deflects from the real issue.

 

15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

There is no way to appease the countless critics of the Church. It's best to carry on about the work of the Lord and ignore the naysayers.

This is simply not the case,

 

15 hours ago, bearhoof said:

I'm perfectly comfortable with the financial details the Church currently provides.

Good for you.  Mostly I just don't care. I don't attend. I you can be sure I do not give the church one cent of my $$ anymore.  I give it where I know it will go do the most for causes I believe in. But this is an interesting topic and I like debating about it.  Stay happy. Keep giving the Mormon empire your $$ and know most of it likely goes to increasing the wealth of the church. If you are happy with that great. It is your money.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Analytics said:

It depends upon how you define “misuse” of funds. Consider these data:

  1. In 2016, Dallin H. Oaks proudly proclaimed that the Church gives away on average $40 million a year in humanitarian efforts.
     
  2. The Church recently announced that in 2023, it gave away $1.36 billion in humanitarian efforts.

This raises two questions. First, why did the humanitarian efforts increase from $40 million to $1.36 billion over the course of a mere 7 years? Second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? 

Here are my answers, but I’d be interested in your thoughts. First, before the IRS whistleblower report, most of the general authorities, including the apostles, had no idea how much money the Church had nor how much investment income it made. When Elder Neil L. Andersen told Zimbabwe's Vice President We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have,” he was spreading false information: the Church is wealthy and it does not share what it has. But he wasn’t deliberately lying--he was merely an apostle and knowing how much money the Church actually has is above his pay grade. He may have honestly thought he was telling the truth.

But after the whistleblower report came out, how do you think Elder Andersen felt? And how do you think the Presiding Bishopric and the FIrst Presidency felt when all of the sudden the entire council of the deposition of ties understood that the Church actually had an addition $7-10 billion of annual investment income that could be distributed beyond the $7 billion of tithing they were distributing? Perhaps they all looked in the mirror and realized that “because I have been given much I too must give”?

I submit that transparency, even unwanted transparency, causes people to make better decisions. 

I think this is a good point.  When it came to EPA there was not transparency even among the top leadership. 

It is an odd thing to me that many of the believing members here seem to object to financial transparency.  It is fairly a given amongst financial experts that interact with tax exempt and government entities that the benefits of financial transparency out weigh the costs and other potential negatives of transparency.

An honest question for the believers.  Why do you object to more financial transparency for the church? Is it simply because that is what the church does now?  If tomorrow the church decided to hire PWC to audit their financial and publish an annual report, would you object or support it?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think this is a good point.  When it came to EPA there was not transparency even among the top leadership. 

It is an odd thing to me that many of the believing members here seem to object to financial transparency.  It is fairly a given amongst financial experts that interact with tax exempt and government entities that the benefits of financial transparency out weigh the costs and other potential negatives of transparency.

An honest question for the believers.  Why do you object to more financial transparency for the church? Is it simply because that is what the church does now?  If tomorrow the church decided to hire PWC to audit their financial and publish an annual report, would you object or support it?

I’m neutral on it. I’m nosey by nature so more information on how it’s all working would be fun, but I don’t really see a plus side to it other than satisfying curiosity.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, bearhoof said:

The "Church" isn't asking him for anything. The Lord is requiring it of his followers.

Yep. Allegedly tithing is a commandment. So it seems you could not care less what the church does with your donations?  Do I have that correct.  You just obey and then the leadership can do what they want?  Is there anything that they might use your $$ for that might persuade you to no longer tithe?

Link to comment
16 hours ago, JAHS said:

It seems to me that once a member has received a testimony of the gospel and Church, that has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost, it would be very hard to get upset about what the church does with their money, once they have voluntarily given it;  unless they have already started losing their testimony for other reasons. Or they never had the correct attitude about tithing in the first place.

So for you, as an active member with what you believe is a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, is there anything the church could do with the donated money that would cause you to no longer donate your tithing? 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m neutral on it. I’m nosey by nature so more information on how it’s all working would be fun, but I don’t really see a plus side to it other than satisfying curiosity.

Same with me.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Teancum said:

So for you, as an active member with what you believe is a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, is there anything the church could do with the donated money that would cause you to no longer donate your tithing? 

Donating to a political party or cause I think is immoral might do it for me.  I would be concerned the current leaders had lost their way, but I suspect unless it went a dramatically different way, I would be waiting for the current prophet to die and a course correction to be made at which point I would resume.

I will also say I see the possibility of that happening being minute.

Possibly a heavy investment in a company that turned out to use reprehensible methods that was not changed when this was learned.  In that case I would be concerned about the financial advice they were getting.  Might put all my tithing into fast offerings or mark half for missionary work and the other half for humanitarian.

Again I find this highly unlikely (not that some company may be found to be immoral, but that nothing was done when that was learned).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 3/28/2024 at 9:44 AM, smac97 said:

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret

Note: this is the article that Smac quoted, not Smac.

Well, this article was from 2015. It didn't age all that well with the hidden hedge fund, eh?

I'm not sure what the big deal is about publishing audited financials? Why so much push back? The reasons/arguments given don't make much sense, honestly. If you're doing it in the UK, why not do it everywhere?

On 3/28/2024 at 12:27 PM, smac97 said:

But no such requirement exists for religious organizations.

Are you in the habit of voluntarily complying with laws that have no application to you?

Are you demanding that the Church adhere to a standard that you do not apply to yourself?

Note: this is Smac writing

Dioceses in the United States are required by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to have audited financials. The USCCB has voluntarily chosen to do this, above the requirements of the law. It's not a big deal.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret

Note: this is the article that Smac quoted, not Smac.

Well, this article was from 2015. It didn't age all that well with the hidden hedge fund, eh?

EPA is not a hedge fund. 

And it has been around since 1997.

And the Church has been speaking about "reserve funds" for quite a while (the key statement from the Church in the Huntsman lawsuit is from Pres. Hinckley and dates back to 2003).

And the comment in the article about "some great financial secret" was not about the Church having reserve funds, but about whether the Church had hidden some significant financial scandal or misconduct.  From the article:

Quote

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret: there’s too many accountants at the LDS Church, including some who have turned against the Church, for unethical dealings to not have been leaked by now. Enron had a much shorter life than the LDS Church, and it was dismantled by someone on the inside, not someone reading financial statements. Considering that Enron was stocked full of self interested employees, not people who grew up believing that their organization should be held to a higher standard than everything else, serious Church financial wrong doing would have come out by now.

The SEC fine arose after the 2015 article.  It was controversial, and the Church paid a fine and acknowledged that it made some errors, but nobody has alleged that this amounts to "serious Church financial wrong doing."

So yes, I think the statement in the article has held up fairly well.

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not sure what the big deal is about publishing audited financials?  Why so much push back?

I would not oppose publication.  I reject the notions that the Church is nefarious for not doing so, and that publishing financials is the metric by which the Church's integrity is gauged, and that if such statements were published our critics would then say "Oh, good.  I'm satisfied now."

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The reasons/arguments given don't make much sense, honestly. If you're doing it in the UK, why not do it everywhere?

This is addressed in the article.

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

But no such requirement exists for religious organizations.

Are you in the habit of voluntarily complying with laws that have no application to you?

Are you demanding that the Church adhere to a standard that you do not apply to yourself?

Note: this is Smac writing

Dioceses in the United States are required by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to have audited financials.

A few thoughts:

First, the Church's financials are also audited, so I'm not seeing much daylight between our position and yours.

Second, the issue here is publication of financial data.  Some nebulous and never-ever-not-in-a-million-years defined or quantified notion of "transparency."

Third, a diocese is more or less comparable to a Latter-day Saint stake or region or area.  The Church has a centrally-managed financial system, so the comparison you are making here is fairly apples-to-oranges.

Fourth, a more apt comparison would be to examine whether the worldwide Catholic Church publishes financial statements.  Per ChatGPT:

Quote

Does the Catholic Church publish financial statements for itself?

 

The Catholic Church, as a global institution, does not typically release centralized financial statements encompassing all its assets and operations worldwide. However, various entities within the Catholic Church, such as individual dioceses, religious orders, and some affiliated organizations, may publish financial statements or reports. These documents provide insights into the financial activities of specific entities within the Church.

The Vatican, as the central governing body of the Catholic Church, does produce financial reports, but these are often limited in scope and may not provide a comprehensive view of the Church's finances globally. Transparency and disclosure practices regarding finances can vary between different entities within the Church and are subject to the policies and regulations of the local jurisdictions where they operate.

Given the substantial differences in structure and organization and financial management, comparing the two churches is also an apples-to-oranges kind of thing.

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The USCCB has voluntarily chosen to do this, above the requirements of the law. It's not a big deal.

I agree.  "It's not a big deal."

And yet many on this board sure are trying hard to make it one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, the issue here is publication of financial data.  Some nebulous and never-ever-not-in-a-million-years defined or quantified notion of "transparency."

Yes, I meant published financials. You can find them on diocesan websites.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, a diocese is more or less comparable to a Latter-day Saint stake or region or area.  The Church has a centrally-managed financial system, so the comparison you are making here is fairly apples-to-oranges.

Fair enough. Maybe each stake can publish their financials then :) 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, a more apt comparison would be to examine whether the worldwide Catholic Church publishes financial statements. 

The Vatican does publish financial statements for the Vatican. The Vatican doesn't control dioceses, so it can't publish their financials.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Per ChatGPT:

Careful with ol' ChatGPT. I had a student last semester submit an essay on The Crucible written by it. ChatGPT quoted Dante as saying, "For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky." That's the title of a Star Trek Original Series episode. I had a good laugh and then wondered how AI put Dante and Star Trek together in an essay on The Crucible.

Anyways, I don't really care one way or another about your church does with its financial statements. Like I said, I just don't understand the pushback, that's all.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

Third, a diocese is more or less comparable to a Latter-day Saint stake or region or area.  The Church has a centrally-managed financial system, so the comparison you are making here is fairly apples-to-oranges.

Fair enough. Maybe each stake can publish their financials then :) 

The finances of the stake are centrally managed by the Church.  Each stake is allocated a budget, and each ward is as well.  These are not "published," but the aren't really secret either.  And they wouldn't be illuminating in any meaningful sense, since wards and stakes do not hold property, investments, etc.  

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Vatican does publish financial statements for the Vatican. The Vatican doesn't control dioceses, so it can't publish their financials.

Ah.  So there are no apples-to-apples comparisons to be had between our respective faiths as regarding financial statements.  They are too differently situated, it seems.

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Careful with ol' ChatGPT. I had a student last semester submit an essay on The Crucible written by it. ChatGPT quoted Dante as saying, "For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky." That's the title of a Star Trek Original Series episode. I had a good laugh and then wondered how AI put Dante and Star Trek together in an essay on The Crucible.

I concur.  That is why I always note that I am quoting ChatGPT.  I don't want to pass it off as anything more than a what it is.  This is particularly so when I am using it for information about other groups or topics for which I am not really conversant.

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Anyways, I don't really care one way or another about your church does with its financial statements. Like I said, I just don't understand the pushback, that's all.

And I don't understand" the "push."  As you said: "It's not a big deal."

As I have noted previously:

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 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.

If the Latter-day Saints were operating in the dark about the finances of the Church, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But per the above comments, we aren't, so they don't.

If the Church had not auditing or other mechanisms for financial controls and oversight, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it does, so they don't.

If the Church had, in its recent history, a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc., I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it doesn't, so they don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
On 3/28/2024 at 2:17 PM, Teancum said:
Quote

Still no coherent definition of "transparency."  No matter what the Church does, you and yours can just move the goalposts and demand more.  

This is simply a fallacious border line lie.  But you need to tell yourself this.

You could demonstrate the "lie" of it by pointing to a coherent definition.  

I won't hold my breath.

On 3/28/2024 at 2:17 PM, Teancum said:

It plays into your over the top persecution complex and is an attempt to marginalize any and all valid criticism of the church.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...