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

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

What would be the rational for a county district attorney to lie or make this up?

I am not saying he had to have lied or made it up.  I am saying we have no way of knowing if he bothered to check a claim about this out or even if he understood correctly what the claim was.  There is nothing illegal as I understand with him repeating a claim he isn’t aware is false, but hasn’t verified to be true….at least outside of court as part of negotiations.

But if he had evidence that came out in the investigation, where is it?  It does not apparently appear anywhere in the documents that were released.  Why didn’t he show it to OUR as that would have been a much stronger pressure tactic as they wouldn’t want to cause issues for the Church.  Instead they called BS on his claims.

We have seen that much of the investigation were interviews.  Do we have evidence that Rawlings or those that worked for him consistently followed up all claims to verify them?

We also know, I believe, that OUR has misrepresented somethings.  The misrepresentation could have been done on OUR’s side as it is their report of Rawlings’ accusations that is being used as documentation. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not saying he had to have lied or made it up.  I am saying we have no way of knowing if he bothered to check a claim about this out or even if he understood correctly what the claim was.  There is nothing illegal as I understand with him repeating a claim he isn’t aware is false, but hasn’t verified to be true….at least outside of court as part of negotiations.

But if he had evidence that came out in the investigation, where is it?  It does not apparently appear anywhere in the documents that were released.  Why didn’t he show it to OUR as that would have been a much stronger pressure tactic as they wouldn’t want to cause issues for the Church.

We have seen that much of the investigation were interviews.  Do we have evidence that Rawlings or those that worked for him consistently followed up all claims to verify them?

We also know, I believe, that OUR has misrepresented somethings.  The misrepresentation could have been done on OUR’s side as it is their report of Rawlings’ accusations that is being used as documentation. 

When a DA say he has evidence, what would the information have to be to rise , at least in the mind of the DA, to be called evidence?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

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

Not automatically in my view.  Were tithing records searched to obtain the info?  How would one know if just given a list of names?  It is not that hard to figure out who is wealthy in a ward or stake without access to tithing records.  It is not that hard to come up with possible donors’ names by looking at who you run into at fundraising events.

So how would someone know for sure the info was from tithing records if just names?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

When a DA say he has evidence, what would the information have to be to rise , at least in the mind of the DA, to be called evidence?

Wouldn’t that depend on the DA?  Are you asking me to mindread someone?

And you are ignoring this went through OUR as well.  Do you trust OUR not to misrepresent or even lie about something?  Not to fake outrage, inflate claims to make their outrage seem reasonable?

Edited November 4, 2023 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not automatically in my view.  Were tithing records searched to obtain the info?  How would one know if just given a list of names?  It is not that hard to figure out who is wealthy in a ward or stake without access to tithing records.  It is not that hard to come up with possible donors’ names by looking at who you run into at fundraising events.

So how would someone know for sure the info was from tithing records if just names?

***edited because I revealed too much***

As the Trib stated…the assertion is Jaw-Dropping 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[helix]

As mentioned in the other thread, one plausible option is that Elder Ballard referred OUR to some common donors with LDS Philanthropies. Then the rumor chain twisted that into "tithing" info. 

The problem is that we're hearing at best second hand hearsay. We don't know where Rawlings got his info. The SL Trib contacted him and Rawlings refused to comment more. Everything started with him and he's not talking or presenting anything.

My bet is someone in OUR had a casual vague conversation with Rawlings. Rawlings used that to scare OUR and Rawlings puffed up the story a bit for intimidation. OUR rejected that assertion as false. OUR then complained to the state about this. Then the accusers got a hold of that complaint. Then accusers then exaggerated it a bit, as OUR left their statement vague with "or"s in it, but the accusers changed or omitted the "or"s to "and"s. 

Right now trying to figure out exactly what happened is like trying to make sense of a Junior High School rumor mill. It's second hand hearsay.

Edited November 5, 2023 by helix

[Craig Speechly]

2 minutes ago, helix said:

As mentioned in the other thread, one plausible option is that Elder Ballard referred OUR to some common donators with LDS Philanthropies. Then the rumor chain twisted that into "tithing" info. 

The problem is that we're hearing at best second hand hearsay. We don't know where Rawlings got his info. The SL Trib contacted him and Rawlings refused to comment more.

My bet is someone in OUR had a casual vague conversation with Rawlings. Rawlings used that to scare OUR and Rawlings puffed up the story a bit for intimidation. OUR rejected that assertion as false. OUR then complained to the state about this. Then the accusers got a hold of that complaint. Then accusers then exaggerated it a bit, as OUR said left their statement vague with "or"s in it, but the accusers changed or omitted the "or"s to "and"s. 

Right now trying to figure out exactly what happened is like trying to make sense of a Junior High School rumor mill. It's second hand hearsay.

I seriously doubt that a DA would consider some causal vague conversation as evidence 

[helix]

3 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I seriously doubt that a DA would consider some causal vague conversation as evidence

We don't even know what he said!

We know what OUR said they thought Rawlings said. That's it. You're putting an awful lot of stock in second hand hearsay.  

If you've ever talked with people who had to go up against DAs, you will hear stories where DAs can and will push, manipulate, exaggerate, and sometimes lie to try and get their way. DAs aren't judge and jury. This DA is literally an elected politician. He's got to present evidence just like anyone else, and Rawlings actively refuses to do that. Worse, he went to OUR with a list of complaints, threatened prosecution, and then abandoned his investigation. The saying "Put your money where your mouth is" applies, and Rawlings didn't seem to have the money.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I seriously doubt that a DA would consider some causal vague conversation as evidence 

How much experience have you had with DAs?  How many have you worked with or followed court cases and analysis by experts at least online to see how they developed evidence or questioned people?  Is your doubt based in experience or on how you learned the system should work?

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

5 hours 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.”

Okay, let's  see it.

[Craig Speechly]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

How much experience have you had with DAs?  How many have you worked with or followed court cases and analysis by experts at least online to see how they developed evidence or questioned people?  Is your doubt based in experience or on how you learned the system should work?

Actually quite afew 😊

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

My recollection is that Vice or some other media outlet got a copy of the Davis County Attorney's investigation entire file.  It looks like this investigation is the source of the allegations re: lists of tithing donors being given to OUR.  I think Vice would have cited such purported "evidence" because it would inculpate Elder Ballard.  That Vice has never mentioned any "evidence" answering to the statements from Mr. Rawlings may be an indicator that no such evidence exists, and that Mr. Rawlings was bluffing about the existence of, or was misstating/mischaracterizing, the "evidence."

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

What would be the rational for a county district attorney to lie or make this up?

Prosecutors do this all the time. Bluff.  Mischaracterize/exaggerate.  Lie. Shaking the bushes to see what pops out.

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

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. 

Conduct needn't be illegal per se to be part of a larger illegal scheme.

[Craig Speechly]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My recollection is that Vice or some other media outlet got a copy of the Davis County Attorney's investigation entire file.  It looks like this investigation is the source of the allegations re: lists of tithing donors being given to OUR.  I think Vice would have cited such purported "evidence" because it would inculpate Elder Ballard.  That Vice has never mentioned any "evidence" answering to the statements from Mr. Rawlings may be an indicator that no such evidence exists, and that Mr. Rawlings was bluffing about the existence of, or was misstating/mischaracterizing, the "evidence."

That’s certainly a possibility 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My recollection is that Vice or some other media outlet got a copy of the Davis County Attorney's investigation entire file.  It looks like this investigation is the source of the allegations re: lists of tithing donors being given to OUR.  I think Vice would have cited such purported "evidence" because it would inculpate Elder Ballard.  That Vice has never mentioned any "evidence" answering to the statements from Mr. Rawlings may be an indicator that no such evidence exists, and that Mr. Rawlings was bluffing about the existence of, or was misstating/mischaracterizing, the "evidence."

It is not even an actual statement by Rawlings.  As far as I know he has not confirmed or denied the accuracy of OUR’s report of their exchange…they certainly denied the accuracy of his part they reported.

What Craig S is actually doing is arguing we should trust OUR, a company that calls a psychic intel when he is arguing we should believe this claim….though then he is turning around and saying we shouldn’t trust them when they deny this is true.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Prosecutors do this all the time. Bluff.  Mischaracterize/exaggerate.  Lie. Shaking the bushes to see what pops out.

Conduct needn't be illegal per se to be part of a larger illegal scheme.

If this accusation is true, does it concern you that a confidential list of large tithe donors has been given to private organizations to bolster their fund drives by allegedly multiple general authorities? 

[Craig Speechly]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

What Craig S is actually doing is arguing we should trust OUR, a company that calls a psychic intel when he is arguing we should believe this claim….though then he is turning around and saying we shouldn’t trust them when they deny this is true.

I don’t think that is at all what I am asking. 
 

here is my OP:

 

“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?”

 

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Craig Speechly said:

If this accusation is true, does it concern you that a confidential list of large tithe donors has been given to private organizations to bolster their fund drives by allegedly multiple general authorities? 

Which accusation?  That someone from CHQ shared a list of wealthy donors that most likely came from LDS Philanthropies or personal knowledge (because that would be much faster, easier and much, much, much less like tithing records being mined as that would provided lots of false leads and would cause massive amounts of likely grumbling by wealthy members contacted out of the blue at the ver least) or the claim actual tithing records were shared (not just used to generate a list).

If I gave someone a list of names of US residents that all shared my first name and my date of birth, is that a census record?  What if I stated I generated the list by searching the census?

[Calm]

Quote

I don’t think that is at all what I am asking. 

Quote

the accusation by a credible party should be investigated and if found true should be made public. 

Then you spent many posts defending the possibility that Rawlings was accurate in this claim…when it was not Rawlings making it, but OUR.

Or did you mean OUR when you said “credible party”?

Whether you intended to or not, you were arguing for us to accept the reported OUR statement as credible in regards to the alleged accusation by Rawlings but were rejecting the OUR denial since you were saying the alleged accusation should be investigated (whether or not the accusation was true, not whether or not this accusation was even made by Rawlings and on what basis).

————
 

 

edited:  changed my mind about investing in this part of the conversation 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Not automatically in my view.  Were tithing records searched to obtain the info?  How would one know if just given a list of names?  It is not that hard to figure out who is wealthy in a ward or stake without access to tithing records.  It is not that hard to come up with possible donors’ names by looking at who you run into at fundraising events.

So how would someone know for sure the info was from tithing records if just names?

Actually it can be hard to tell who is and is not rich. I see them everyday…. Flashy cars, flashy wives, giant house,  brand name clothing, Louis Vuitton purse collection , trips out of country several times a year etc. they look rich to those around them and then they meet with me bawling their eyes out about how much crazy debt they are in and can’t possibly live on $25k a month… yep I see it on a regular basis. 
 

My ward is full of people like that. Six figure earners where the first digit is a 2 and they cry to their ministering folks about how stretched they are. Not surprisingly they don’t pay their full tithe either. 
 

then you have the 60 year old retiree with an old Camry or Corolla. A few mil in the bank. 
 

never can really tell till you see the books. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

If this accusation is true, does it concern you that a confidential list of large tithe donors has been given to private organizations to bolster their fund drives by allegedly multiple general authorities? 

I'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

[The Nehor]

I would be shocked and horrified if I found out that President Nelson was caught burying dead hookers in his back yard.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

 

As the Trib stated…the assertion is Jaw-Dropping 

 

Quote

here is my OP:

So when you don’t have an answer on how to tell the difference between a list of names from tithing records and a list of names from something else or to deal with that you are not actually referring to a district attorney’s comments who you believe should be assumed to be credible, you just point to the accusation again as if that is meaningful engagement….

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Actually it can be hard to tell who is and is not rich. I see them everyday…. Flashy cars, flashy wives, giant house,  brand name clothing, Louis Vuitton purse collection , trips out of country several times a year etc. they look rich to those around them and then they meet with me bawling their eyes out about how much crazy debt they are in and can’t possibly live on $25k a month… yep I see it on a regular basis. 
 

My ward is full of people like that. Six figure earners where the first digit is a 2 and they cry to their ministering folks about how stretched they are. Not surprisingly they don’t pay their full tithe either. 
 

then you have the 60 year old retiree with an old Camry or Corolla. A few mil in the bank. 
 

never can really tell till you see the books. 

So true!! And the upsetting part is when they get helped to make payments on a boat or something. BIL told this story when he was in the bishopric. Gave no names though and I don't live in Utah County or anywhere near it, so I wouldn't know who it would be. He said he saw things like that all the time. 🤬 And he's like the retiree you mentioned, saved up his money and paid off his home early.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Tacenda

[Craig Speechly]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Which accusation?  That someone from CHQ shared a list of wealthy donors that most likely came from LDS Philanthropies or personal knowledge (because that would be much faster, easier and much, much, much less like tithing records being mined as that would provided lots of false leads and would cause massive amounts of likely grumbling by wealthy members contacted out of the blue at the ver least) or the claim actual tithing records were shared (not just used to generate a list).

If I gave someone a list of names of US residents that all shared my first name and my date of birth, is that a census record?  What if I stated I generated the list by searching the census?

Ok so you refuse to answer my question. Fair enough