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

[Craig Speechly]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I would think it’s a pretty easy moral and ethical question to answer. But you too refuse to answer a pretty straight up question. Fair enough. 
 

 

[Craig Speechly]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

 

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….

There is no ambiguity in the assertion. It clearly states “LDS apostle accused of sharing church members’ tithing records with Operation Underground Railroad”. 

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I would think it’s a pretty easy moral and ethical question to answer. But you too refuse to answer a pretty straight up question. Fair enough. 
 

 

Your implication/imputation of cowardice is duly noted.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us to warn us that you're really not interested in having a good faith discussion with people who might disagree with you or with whom you might disagree?

[helix]

7 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I would think it’s a pretty easy moral and ethical question to answer. But you too refuse to answer a pretty straight up question. Fair enough. 
 

But supposing Elder Ballard did bury dead hookers in his backyard, wouldn't that concern you? I've noticed you have evaded answering this easy moral question. It's telling that you refuse to answer that question.
 

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your implication/imputation of cowardice is duly noted.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us to warn us that you're really not interested in having a good faith discussion with people who might disagree with you or with whom you might disagree?

“Us?”  This isn’t an us/them question. It’s a simple ethical question. Should GA’s share confidential lists of high tithe payers with anyone outside of the church?   The handbook is quite clear that they should not so why is it so difficult for some on this board to answer this simple question? 

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, helix said:

But supposing Elder Ballard did bury dead hookers in his backyard, wouldn't that concern you? I've noticed you have evaded answering this easy moral question. It's telling that you refuse to answer that question.
 

That question involved President Nelson and was not a serious question. Nehor was being sarcastic and hyperbolic. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

“Us?”  This isn’t an us/them question. It’s a simple ethical question. Should GA’s share confidential lists of high tithe payers with anyone outside of the church?   The handbook is quite clear that they should not so why is it so difficult for some on this board to answer this simple question? 

It might depend on the reason but I would say that no they probably shouldn't.  But we don't know if they actually did so what else is there to say?

  

[Craig Speechly]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It might depend on the reason but I would say that no they probably shouldn't.  But we don't know if they actually did so what else is there to say?

  

Thank you for answering what I thought was just a simple ethical question. For clarification,  it is the Davis County DA, who was assigned the investigation into OUR because Attorney General Reyes had a conflict of interest, that allegedly made the accusation regarding Elder Ballard. And yes, we don’t have access to the evidence so rightfully should reserve final judgment until we have all the facts and information.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[helix]

5 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

That question involved President Nelson

Exactly. See what second hand retellings do to stories?
 

5 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

was not a serious question

None of these "When did you stop beating your wife" questions are serious. Mine, Nehors, or yours.

[Craig Speechly]

12 minutes ago, helix said:

Exactly. See what second hand retellings do to stories?
 

None of these "When did you stop beating your wife" questions are serious. Mine, Nehors, or yours.

You’re exhausting. What exactly about my question was second hand or retelling?  I simply asked from an ethical and moral point of view whether or not lists of high income tithe payers should in principle be provided to anyone or any organization outside of the church. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult question for both you and others to answer.  It’s a simple question and yet I get push back from you and others by even asking it. Why is it such a difficult question to answer? 

[Stormin' Mormon]

43 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Why is it such a difficult question to answer? 

Because the general question was tied to a specific incident, an incident which was speciously sourced and unsupported by any follow-up documentation.

It'd be like asking:

"Stormin' Mormon's cousin said that Stormin routinely skips his Elder's Quorum meetings to go boating on Lake Patagonia. If true, shouldn't he be condemmend for his ungodly behavior?"

Yeah, the general question may be worth discussing, but introducing it with such a flimsy and wobbly allegation, you end up with a "have you stopped beating your wife" type situation.

There are ways to foster healthy exchange and discussion. But this ain't one of them.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Craig Speechly]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Because the general question was tied to a specific incident, an incident which was speciously sourced and unsupported by any follow-up documentation.

It'd be like asking:

"Stormin' Mormon's cousin said that Stormin routinely skips his Elder's Quorum meetings to go boating on Lake Patagonia. If true, shouldn't he be condemmend for his ungodly behavior?"

Yeah, the general question may be worth discussing, but introducing it with such a flimsy and wobbly allegation, you end up with a "have you stopped beating your wife" type situation.

There are ways to foster healthy exchange and discussion. But this ain't one of them.

Ok. While I think I see your point that isn’t my intention. You’re suggesting I’m setting up a gotcha scenario that’ll come back to bite any one who responds in the arse should the assertion turn out to be true and no one wants to be locked in in opposition to Elder Ballard. 

I’ll move on. Cheers 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Quote

 

Quote

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.

 

I would think it’s a pretty easy moral and ethical question to answer. But you too refuse to answer a pretty straight up question. Fair enough. 

I was trying to be civil in response to your patently loaded question.

Imagine me asking some person I hardly know something like this: "Hey, Jim, I've heard rumors that your father is a violent child abuser and serial rapist.  If this accusation is true, does it concern you?"

How do you think Jim ought to respond?

And if Jim declined to respond directly, would you fault him with something like: "I would think {a loaded question that presupposes, based on totally unsubstantiated rumor, terrible things about someone you admire is} a pretty easy moral and ethical question to answer. But you too refuse to answer a pretty straight up question."?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

“Us?”  This isn’t an us/them question.

Malarky.

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

It’s a simple ethical question.

Piffle.  It's a loaded question that reeks of bad faith.

If someone were going around asking loaded "questions" that presuppose you to have done terrible things, I don't think you blithely characterize them as "simple ethical questions."

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Should GA’s share confidential lists of high tithe payers with anyone outside of the church?  

Should you continue to skin puppies for fun and profit?

It's a simple ethical question.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Quote

But supposing Elder Ballard did bury dead hookers in his backyard, wouldn't that concern you? I've noticed you have evaded answering this easy moral question. It's telling that you refuse to answer that question.

That question involved President Nelson and was not a serious question. Nehor was being sarcastic and hyperbolic. 

Nor is your question "serious."  That, I think, is the point being made by several posters.

Loaded questions are inherently problematic, and often posed in bad faith.  So it won't do to taunt or criticize or fault people who decline to play along with your stacking-the-deck routine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Ok. While I think I see your point that isn’t my intention.

It sure came across that way.

36 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

You’re suggesting I’m setting up a gotcha scenario

Nobody is merely "suggesting" this.  You did set up a "gotcha scenario," and then followed up with taunts/criticisms about it being just a "simple ethical question."

And we're not buying it.

36 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

that’ll come back to bite any one who responds in the arse should the assertion turn out to be true and no one wants to be locked in in opposition to Elder Ballard. 

I’ll move on. Cheers 

Perhaps that's for the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

I'll answer honestly.

IF they did this it was absolutely ethically wrong.

There's no need to prevaricate in answering such a question.  That doesn't mean they did it.  It also doesn't have any impact on the Church's truthfulness.

I see no benefit in pretending it would be ok OR in assuming any truth to the accusations.

[MustardSeed]

If it turns out that this news story is proven true, that will be shocking and upsetting.  
 

What is shocking is how far from the line of ethics that journalism has fallen. 

[Craig Speechly]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll answer honestly.

IF they did this it was absolutely ethically wrong.

There's no need to prevaricate in answering such a question.  That doesn't mean they did it.  It also doesn't have any impact on the Church's truthfulness.

I see no benefit in pretending it would be ok OR in assuming any truth to the accusations.

Whew…thank you. I agree 1000% with every word in your post.  
I’ll respect that some feel my question was loaded or had some hidden agenda, that was never my intention. I was merely attempting to find some moral foundation that we could all agree on. But for some that’s giving in to what these same board members assume is my hidden agenda. If these same board members could enlightened me on what my hidden agenda is I would sincerely appreciate it because honestly I have no idea what it is. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[Craig Speechly]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If it turns out that this news story is proven true, that will be shocking and upsetting.  
 

What is shocking is how far from the line of ethics that journalism has fallen. 

Gee,  we are in full agreement.  

[juliann]

17 hours 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? 

Question beg much? You need to document that such a list exists. I find that ludicrous. Who would compile it? How? What is the cut off for "large?" Do you really think tithing records are listed by the amount of money? Wouldn't alphabetically be more realistic, or geographically, if there are such lists?

Even more ludicrous is that some GA would first, have access and second, plow through thousands of tithing records to find the big rollers. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Ok so you refuse to answer my question. Fair enough 

How can I give judgment when you provide a contextless question that has endless possibilities?

How did they get the tithing records?  Who gave them to them?  Why did they give them?

Did a fanatic tech employee hack into the records and pass them on to OUR because they wanted to go on a ‘op’?  Were they found in a waste can by a visitor because someone forgot to shred them?  Were they given by an overzealous GA who was never invited to charity events and so didn’t know the big names that way?  Were they handed over by Elder Ballard because he trusted too much?  Were they handed over by Pres. Nelson because he had heard that Harrison had blessed Tim Ballard to become the President of the Church, so he though TB had a right to them?  Did the members whose tithing records were shared give permission for them to be shared?

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's no need to prevaricate in answering such a question.

How do you know they weren’t given permission by those whose names were on the list?

[Craig Speechly]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Question beg much? You need to document that such a list exists. I find that ludicrous. Who would compile it? How? What is the cut off for "large?" Do you really think tithing records are listed by the amount of money? Wouldn't alphabetically be more realistic, or geographically, if there are such lists?

Even more ludicrous is that some GA would first, have access and second, plow through thousands of tithing records to find the big rollers. 

I mine data and create lists all the time. Compiling a list would be a very simple task, easily done with a simple computer search. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Thank you for answering what I thought was just a simple ethical question. For clarification,  it is the Davis County DA, who was assigned the investigation into OUR because Attorney General Reyes had a conflict of interest, that allegedly made the accusation regarding Elder Ballard. And yes, we don’t have access to the evidence so rightfully should reserve final judgment until we have all the facts and information.

How convenient to leave out yet again that the source of this alleged accusation is OUR, a company now known for pretty dramatic misrepresentation for their own benefit.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm