Church GA’s Give Confidential Tithing List to O.U.R.

[Craig Speechly]

I was both shocked and disappointed to learn that Elder Ballard and other unnamed GA’s have been accused of providing confidential lists of high tithe payers to outside organizations so these organizations can fundraise. 
 

Please correct me but I always thought this information was confidential.  The church has since 1959 kept church finances confidential, why would anyone think it is ok to pass this confidential information out to anyone, let alone outside organizations, for the purpose of fundraising.  

Please explain how this breach of confidentiality, if true, is ok? 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[bluebell]

This is being discussed in a different thread.  Some posters have suggested that we wait to see if this accusation has any merit or evidence to support it before just assuming it's correct.

[helix]

36 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I was both shocked and disappointed to learn that Elder Ballard and other unnamed GA’s have been accused of providing confidential lists of high tithe payers to outside organizations so these organizations can fundraise. 
 

No, it's hearsay.

Some Tim Ballard accusers just updated their lawsuit with simplified language with this accusation against the church. The accusers got a hold of a April 2023 document from OURs lawyers where OURs lawyers flatly rejected the notion that Elder Ballard gave OUR tithing info. In that document OUR laywers said they had a meeting with Davis County Attorney in December 2022. In that 2022 meeting Troy Rawlings made over a dozen accusations including this claim, but provided no evidence how or where he heard this tithing info. Troy Rawlings ended his investigations without any charge or releasing any evidence.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

I was both shocked and disappointed to learn that Elder Ballard and other unnamed GA’s have been accused of providing confidential lists of high tithe payers to outside organizations so these organizations can fundraise. 
 

Please correct me but I always thought this information was confidential.  The church has since 1959 kept church finances confidential, why would anyone think it is ok to pass this confidential information out to anyone, let alone outside organizations, for the purpose of fundraising.  

Please explain how is breach of confidentiality is ok? 

I think a good standard of practice would be learn if something is actually true and has been proven before being shocked and disappointed.  Anyone can accusing somebody of anything they want but that does not mean it is true.

[Craig Speechly]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think a good standard of practice would be learn if something is actually true and has been proven before being shocked and disappointed.  Anyone can accusing somebody of anything they want but that does not mean it is true.

Like I said. “ I was both shocked and disappointed to learn that Elder Ballard and other unnamed GA’s have been accused of providing confidential lists of high tithe payers to outside organizations so these organizations can fundraise”

I acknowledge that this claim has yet to be confirmed but if true is very disappointing. 

[Craig Speechly]

“Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings told OUR attorneys he had “evidence” that senior apostle M. Russell Ballard and/or other “church authorities” had provided the faith’s tithing records to OUR to help the nonprofit anti-sex-trafficking organization target large donors or wealthy Latter-day Saint congregations.”

[Craig Speechly]

“The Utah-based faith declined to comment on the court filing, pointing instead to its General Handbook, which emphasizes the “confidential” nature of such records.”

Thus it would be a major breach of confidentiality if these allegations are true. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I was both shocked and disappointed to learn that Elder Ballard and other unnamed GA’s have been accused of providing confidential lists of high tithe payers to outside organizations so these organizations can fundraise. 
 

Please correct me but I always thought this information was confidential.  The church has since 1959 kept church finances confidential, why would anyone think it is ok to pass this confidential information out to anyone, let alone outside organizations, for the purpose of fundraising.  

Please explain how this breach of confidentiality, if true, is ok? 

Explain how it is OK if not true.

How can you use the demonstrative pronoun, "this," when you are ignorant of whether a breach of confidentiality occurred in the first place?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

“Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings told OUR attorneys he had “evidence” that senior apostle M. Russell Ballard and/or other “church authorities” had provided the faith’s tithing records to OUR to help the nonprofit anti-sex-trafficking organization target large donors or wealthy Latter-day Saint congregations.”

Hopefully we'll get a chance to see the evidence.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think a good standard of practice would be learn if something is actually true and has been proven before being shocked and disappointed.  Anyone can accusing somebody of anything they want but that does not mean it is true.

Like I said. “ I was both shocked and disappointed to learn that Elder Ballard and other unnamed GA’s have been accused of providing confidential lists of high tithe payers to outside organizations so these organizations can fundraise”

No, really dude.  If you go about getting shocked and disappointed every time someone accuses someone else of something horrible, I can't imagine the kind of life that would look like.  You should listen to carbon dioxide, for your own health and quality of life.

If you're interested in being a stellar good person, you might also want to read up on the psychological harm that can befall people and their loved ones when unjustly accused of horrible things.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7838333/

No, nobody is accusing you of accusing anyone.  You're just expending effort to pass accusations along.

Edited November 4, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Craig Speechly]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

No, really dude.  If you go about getting shocked and disappointed every time someone accuses someone else of something horrible, I can't imagine the kind of life that would look like.  You should listen to carbon dioxide, for your own health and quality of life.

If you're interested in being a stellar good person, you might also want to read up on the psychological harm that can befall people and their loved ones when unjustly accused of horrible things.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7838333/

No, nobody is accusing you of accusing anyone.  You're just expending effort to pass accusations along.

With all due respect “dude”, this forum is replete with unsubstantiated claims, charges and accusations that many find credible and yes even believable so come down from your high moral rameumptom.  I can be shocked, disappointed and yes even disgusted by this accusation and while I will hope it is not true and hope Elder Ballard is vindicated, the accusation by a credible party should be investigated and if found true should be made public. We deserve to know if these very disturbing accusations are true. If unfounded Elder Ballard deserves to have his good name unblemished by this accusation. 

[Pyreaux]

Some say it's not possible, Russel Ballard doesn't have access to tithing information.

[Craig Speechly]

27 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Some say it's not possible, Russel Ballard doesn't have access to tithing information.

Does that seem plausible? That the acting president of the quorum of the twelve apostles, doesn’t have access to a list of wealthy tithe payers?    

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Does that seem plausible? That the acting president of the quorum of the twelve apostles, doesn’t have access to a list of wealthy tithe payers?  Please, He has complete access to that information and more  

 

@helix posted this about it in the other thread.  You might find it relevant to your assumption about who has access to that information.  I was unaware of that information from the Ensign Peak leak and found it interesting--

"I would personally be surprised if this is true at face value. Once thing we saw from Ensign Peak leak is that only the First Presidency has access to tithing financials. Apparently Boyd K Packer went into Ensign Peak asking for financial to prepare in case he were to be the next church president, and they turned him away saying he wasn't authorized by the First Presidency."

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Some say it's not possible, Russel Ballard doesn't have access to tithing information.

It makes no sense to breach confidentiality so significantly with actual tithing records when names would be enough. The claim of records being involved is a red flag for me.  What would OUR do with tithing records that they couldn’t do with names?

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

the accusation by a credible party should be investigated

Is it from a credible party?  We don’t know the original source.

Are the OUR lawyers accurately understanding and representing Rawlings’ claims?  Does Rawling have actual related documented evidence or was he just passing on hearsay (given much of the info in the documents provided was hearsay from employees and others) that he possibly misunderstood?

Edited November 4, 2023 by Calm

[helix]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

@helix posted this about it in the other thread.  You might find it relevant to your assumption about who has access to that information.  I was unaware of that information from the Ensign Peak leak and found it interesting--

"I would personally be surprised if this is true at face value. Once thing we saw from Ensign Peak leak is that only the First Presidency has access to tithing financials. Apparently Boyd K Packer went into Ensign Peak asking for financial to prepare in case he were to be the next church president, and they turned him away saying he wasn't authorized by the First Presidency."

The full context. Also, the Presiding Bishopric has that info:
"Boyd K. Packer—when he was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP,
Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr. Clarke wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had
amassed and the details of its structure. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Packer that he could not
share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior
Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away
from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarke reaffirmed that
he had been instructed not to reveal that information to Mr. Packer, who went away
perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the
Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time. Mr. Packer died before he could join the
First Presidency and know the value of EPA."

I'm personally a bit skeptical of that, as much of the Ensign Peak leaker relied on lots of old recollection and 2nd hand stories. But it is what it is.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by helix

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, helix said:

I'm personally a bit skeptical of that, as much of the Ensign Peak leaker relied on lots of old recollection and 2nd hand stories. But it is what it is.

Iirc, when I looked at the documentation done by the whistleblower’s brother (apparently without his help or approval at that time) it was rather circular in that the author would reference one of his claims to “document” another.  I was not impressed.  Based on that and some other issues, it was pretty clear to me it was not a good idea to rely on just his say so.  The only things I found informative were some of his exhibits that had been allegedly produced by EPA (minus his interpretation notes), but they were out of date iirc by the time they were published if they were for real.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

@helix posted this about it in the other thread.  You might find it relevant to your assumption about who has access to that information.  I was unaware of that information from the Ensign Peak leak and found it interesting--

"I would personally be surprised if this is true at face value. Once thing we saw from Ensign Peak leak is that only the First Presidency has access to tithing financials. Apparently Boyd K Packer went into Ensign Peak asking for financial to prepare in case he were to be the next church president, and they turned him away saying he wasn't authorized by the First Presidency."

I’m aware of this. But I would also be surprised to learn that an attorney would make an unsupported accusation.   
 

Now that doesn’t make the accusations true I’m only suggesting that it’s unlikely that this attorney who made the assertion made up the accusation. He had to believe that the information was true. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

But I would also be surprised to learn that an attorney would make an unsupported accusation.   

Have you read many complaints and then compared them with the sources?  Some lawyers appear to have no problem making inflated claims on pure hearsay.

[Craig Speechly]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it from a credible party?  We don’t know the original source.

Are the OUR lawyers accurately understanding and representing Rawlings’ claims?  Does Rawling have actual related documented evidence or was he just passing on hearsay (given much of the info in the documents provided was hearsay from employees and others) that he possibly misunderstood?

All good questions but lawyers know that hearsay is inadmissible and has no value. So for a lawyer to have allegedly said that he has evidence should give pause. All of this is of course speculation but hopefully the truth come out at some point. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

He had to believe that the information was true. 

Why?  Why couldn’t he have believed it might be true, but saw it as a good pressure tactic?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

All good questions but lawyers know that hearsay is inadmissible and has no value.

They were not in court.   Police lie in interrogations to get confessions.  Lawyers may lie or rather relay lies in that they haven’t bothered to confirm the truth of a claim about evidence to avoid going to court.  They aren’t required to correct misunderstandings either, I believe.

Maybe some lawyers could speak up.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It makes no sense to breach confidentiality so significantly with actual tithing records when names would be enough. The claim of records being involved is a red flag for me.  What would OUR do with tithing records that they couldn’t do with names?

Tithing records could merely be a list of high tithe paying members. 

[Craig Speechly]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are not in court.  Police lie in interrogations to get confessions.  Lawyers may lie about evidence to avoid going to court.

What would be the rational for a county district attorney to lie or make this up? DA’s acquire evidence then weigh that evidence to see if prosecution is appropriate. I don’t think releasing a list of rich tithe payers is illegal.