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

[Craig Speechly]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?

Here was what I asked. The question is quite qualified: “ 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? 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Craig Speechly said:

Here was what I asked. The question is quite qualified: “ 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? 

You really don’t engage with posters and just keep repeating accusations as much as you can as if this is meaningful conversation.  I am not interested in answering questions from someone who refuses to provide answers themselves.  What a double standard.

[Craig Speechly]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

🤔 Huh???? What does OUR have to do with the post you quoted other than being the subject of the Davis County State assigned investigation?

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Gee,  we are in full agreement.  

Regarding those two opinions yes. 

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Because that would make no logical sense.  If they were wealthy tithe payers they can decide to donate to whichever causes they support.  They don't need Church authorities playing middle men.

The very idea that General Authorities would provide wealthy tithe payer lists to anyone is still unethical.  I doubt it's true.

Even if they gave permission I would find it just as troubling.

[Calm]

Imagine if you will you are a wealthy member who lives prudently, so no one has ever suspected you are rolling in it.  You get a call or a visit from a charity who you have had no contact with and they laid out a massive sales pitch. (Surely if this was a special list the charity would just use the typical cold call or envelope in the mail approach as that would be a waste of the info.). Eventually you wonder how they got your info and you ask….

And this supposedly happened how many times and yet no one has squawked about it before?

And the only way this gets to public notice is a third hand accusation with no reference stuck in a pile of other accusations, all of which were denied, given in a state investigation?

——

Again how do you tell the difference between a list of names harvested from LDS Philanthropies’ big donors’ list, a list created from the memories of who has been met at various charity events over the decades, and a list harvested from tithing records?

Is it likely there is going to be a heading “top tithing payers”?  Or it’s on a tithing record data sheet?  Does anyone believe anyone with actual access to all the tithing records of the Church would be that stupid to pass on a list like that?

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

46 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Gee,  we are in full agreement.  

I should be clear, I doubt it happened.  I’m mostly annoyed by poor journalism. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Does anyone believe anyone with actual access to all the tithing records of the Church would be that stupid to pass on a list like that?

That's the question.

I don't believe they would.  I'll still categorically state that IF they did it would be ethically wrong.

Not sure how this hypothetical question is hard to answer.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's the question.

I don't believe they would.  I'll still categorically state that IF they did it would be ethically wrong.

Not sure how this hypothetical question is hard to answer.

Because the question on its own has multiple scenarios attached to it, at least one that would be acceptable to most people—these members were asked ahead of time and gave permission for this info to be shared with worthy causes—and others where the Church leaders would be as victimized as the members—hacked or otherwise stolen—or it was an issue of a low level leader overreaching their authority, which would be crappy, but  different than an apostle routinely handing out the info for favorite causes.  And the scenario that CS is likely wanting people to assume is what happened is so unlikely in my view, it should be demonstrated to at least be probable in this case before being addressed.  Otherwise it is just gossip.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[helix]

Nobody should be demanding apologies and condemnation for accusations or hypotheticals. Here is an example why. A few years back McKenna Denson got Fox 13 News to broadcast her accusations against the church. This particular story was then picked up by national media. McKenna Denson accused Mormons the following:

• "I had to call an ambulance," she told FOX 13. "Somebody came into my home and put Drano in my orange juice."
• Denson said she didn't drink a lot and was released from the hospital. A few days later, someone set fire to her car while a friend was visiting.
• About a week later, Denson said, she caught a man lurking in her front yard. It was dark, but she said the man was wearing a hoodie. "I jumped off my front porch. Don't ask me why I did this, but my first response was, 'What are you doing?'" she said. As she chased after him, Denson said someone tackled her from behind and took her to the ground. She suffered a broken nose, wrist and finger.
• "I think the attacks are all related to my case against the Church"

A few of us at the time recognized this was yet another in a long line of similar scams, a similar pattern of past fraudulent behavior. But for much of the world, Mormons were to blame. For example: https://np.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/bq47js/woman_suing_mormon_church_after_being_raped_by_a/

So when this accusation hit national media four years ago, should us church members have fallen over ourselves publicly with statements like: "I apologize to that poor woman. Nobody in my faith should poisoning her orange juice with Drano, lighting her car on fire, or stalking her and breaking her bones. That is wrong. And if it turns out my faith is responsible, which I should admit is very possible, I condemn my church's role in it". Of course not.

So here we are again. An accusation is made. No evidence presented. It's at best second hand hearsay.  So why all the demands for condemning all the wrong things that could be if my church leaders were to have done them?

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by helix

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because the question on its own has multiple scenarios attached to it, at least one that would be acceptable to most people—these members were asked ahead of time and gave permission for this info to be shared with worthy causes—and others where the Church leaders would be as victimized as the members—hacked or otherwise stolen—or it was an issue of a low level leader overreaching their authority, which would be crappy, but  different than an apostle routinely handing out the info for favorite causes.

You wouldn't find anything objectionable in wealthy tithe paying members being willingly on a list where Church leaders could provide them to causes as potential donor?

There's something lacking in the idea that donations from wealthy members to charities be directed by Church leadership in any way.  To my mind that barely qualifies as charity on the part of the donors.

Edited November 5, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You wouldn't find anything objectionable in wealthy tithe paying members being willingly on a list where Church leaders could provide them to causes as potential donor?

There's something lacking in the idea that donations from wealthy members to charities be directed by Church leadership in any way.

If someone volunteers for something that is not dangerous to others or morally wrong and that they can afford so they won’t become a burden to others, why should I say no?  They are adults and can make their own decisions.

I can easily see wealthy members asking church leaders to direct them to worthy causes because they see that leader or others as having greater contacts with humanitarian efforts and that could be why such a list was created and the only ones on it were those who asked to be on it.

But I also see it as so highly likely that they would be directed to LDS Philanthropies—which was created in part to help members get connected with good causes, so why would church leaders not go that route—that speculation a tithing list was created and passed around is ridiculous.  Waste of effort on so many levels.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours 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. 

I respect that.  For me, There's no need to answer such a question, either.  There are questions that, for some, ought not be dignified with an answer.

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That doesn't mean they did it.  It also doesn't have any impact on the Church's truthfulness.

I agree.  I did not decline to answer in on that basis.  Instead, I declined to answer it because it was a loaded question.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with. For example, the question “have you stopped mistreating your pet?” is a loaded question, because it presupposes that you have been mistreating your pet.

This type of fallacious question puts the person who is being questioned in a disadvantageous and defensive position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or pressure them to answer in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise.

See, this is what I think Craig was trying to do: put the Latter-day Saints "in a disadvantageous and defense position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or pressure them to answer in a way that they wouldn't otherwise."

I think Craig was trying to goad faithful Latter-day Saints into speaking against the leaders of their faith by posing a question that explicitly presupposes their (the leaders') misconduct without any competent evidence that the misconduct has actually occurred.

More from the above link:

Quote

How to respond to a loaded question

To respond to a loaded question in a way that negates it, you first need to recognize the fact that the question being asked is loaded. You can recognize this type of question, as we saw above, by noticing that the question presupposes something that is unreasonable to assume.

Once you recognize that you are being asked a loaded question, there are several ways you can respond:

• Reply in a way that rejects the presupposition. This involves either an explicit or an implicit rejection of the problematic presupposition, and your response will therefore be different than what the person asking the question is trying to get you to say. For example, if you’re asked “did you stop cheating on tests at schools?”, then instead of answering using a yes/no statement, you can reply by saying “I never cheated on any tests”.
• Point out the fallacious reasoning. To do this, you should explicitly point out the issue with the question being asked, by showing that it contains an inappropriate presupposition. Potentially, you can also use examples to illustrate the issues with this reasoning, for example by asking the other person a similar type of loaded question. You can follow up on this by also answering the question in a way that rejects the presupposition, as we saw above, or by asking the person who asked the question to justify their phrasing. For example, if you’re asked “when will you stop cheating on tests?” you can reply by saying “I’ve never cheated on any test, so why are you accusing me of this?”.
• Ignore the question or refuse to answer it. In some cases, your best course of action is to explicitly refuse to answer the loaded question, or to ignore it entirely. However, note that in some cases, refusing to answer a question or ignoring it could reflect badly on you, for example by making it appear as if you support the problematic presupposition. As such, it can sometimes be better to first point out the fallacious reasoning in the question, and why you’re not answering it.

Finally, when countering loaded questions, a useful concept to keep in mind is Hanlon’s razor, which suggests that you should “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

Specifically, in this case Hanlon’s razor means that people sometimes ask loaded questions unintentionally, without realizing that they’re doing so, or without understanding the issues with what they’re doing. This is important, since it can help you understand people’s behavior better, and since it means that it’s sometimes better to reply to loaded questions in a way that doesn’t directly accuse the other person of using fallacious reasoning intentionally.

Overall, to reply to loaded questions effectively, you should first recognize that the question being asked is loaded, and consider whether the person asking the question is aware of this or not. Then, you can either reply in a way that rejects the problematic presupposition, point out the fallacious reasoning involved, or refuse to answer the question.

Giving a mu answer

A concept that is often mentioned in relation to loaded questions is that of mu or mu answer.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the original concept of mu has Japanese and Chinese origins, and plays an important role in Zen Buddhism, where it refers to “A state of voidness, nothingness, or detachment which is thought to transcend the concepts of negative and positive”.

The concept of mu is sometimes used to respond to loaded questions, and especially yes/no loaded questions, by rejecting the validity of the questions themselves. For example, if someone is asked a loaded question such as “have you stopped mistreating your pet?”, they may reply by saying “mu”, which means that they reject the premises of the question, since they have never mistreated their pet in the first place.

I, and several others, chose to reply in ways that rejected Craig's premise, pointed out the fallacious reasoning, refused to answer it, gave Craig a mu answer, or some combination of these.  

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

I think Craig thought there was utility/benefit in having the question answered since, well, he asked it, and then taunted/criticized people who declined to answer it.

I don't think Craig's question was presented in good faith.  Helix responded well: "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."  The inanity and bad faith of the question is laid bare by Helix presenting similar - but more extreme - version of it.  Craig cannot possibly think that Latter-day Saints might be on board with an apostle burying dead hookers.  Nor can he possibly think that Latter-day Saints are hunky dory with apostles secretly giving away tithing donor information to what we all see as a tainted organization.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

🤔 Huh???? What does OUR have to do with the post you quoted other than being the subject of the Davis County State assigned investigation?

Have you not been reading responses?  

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I respect that.  For me, There's no need to answer such a question, either.  There are questions that, for some, ought not be dignified with an answer.

I agree.  I did not decline to answer in on that basis.  Instead, I declined to answer it because it was a loaded question.

See, e.g., here:

See, this is what I think Craig was trying to do: put the Latter-day Saints "in a disadvantageous and defense position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or pressure them to answer in a way that they wouldn't otherwise."

I think Craig was trying to goad faithful Latter-day Saints into speaking against the leaders of their faith by posing a question that explicitly presupposes their (the leaders') misconduct without any competent evidence that the misconduct has actually occurred.

More from the above link:

I, and several others, chose to reply in ways that rejected Craig's premise, pointed out the fallacious reasoning, refused to answer it, gave Craig a mu answer, or some combination of these.  

I think Craig thought there was utility/benefit in having the question answered since, well, he asked it, and then taunted/criticized people who declined to answer it.

I don't think Craig's question was presented in good faith.  Helix responded well: "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."  The inanity and bad faith of the question is laid bare by Helix presenting similar - but more extreme - version of it.  Craig cannot possibly think that Latter-day Saints might be on board with an apostle burying dead hookers.  Nor can he possibly think that Latter-day Saints are hunky dory with apostles secretly giving away tithing donor information to what we all see as a tainted organization.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Either, You’ve got my motivations for asking the question all figured out and tied up with a blue ribbon in a loaded question box or you’ve got me completely wrong.  Honestly I wish I was that smart to be so calculated. But as I have repeatedly stated, I was simply asking a simple question. But thanks for thinking I was so cunning and shrewd. 
May I kindly ask that you drop the paranoia, I’m not out to get you or anyone else who posts here. 

[Craig Speechly]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you not been reading responses?  

Yes every one. Why?

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Yes every one. Why?

Because the connection is obvious to anyone paying attention. 

[Craig Speechly]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because the connection is obvious to anyone paying attention. 

Sorry you lost me…I have no idea what you’re referring to 

[blackstrap]

Suppose a journalist were to pose the OPs question to a dozen Saints and they answered that they would be upset. Imagine the next headline .

" LDS members outraged at GA's behavior in releasing wealthy donor's names to OUR. " 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Sorry you lost me…I have no idea what you’re referring to 

You seriously don’t know/remember/connect the many mentions that the information about the alleged tithing records came through OUR?

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours 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?

 

9 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

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

"Us" = Your interlocutors, to whom you posed the question.  "You" = Craig Speechly, the person who posed the question.  You're welcome.  I'm glad I could clear up the confusion for you on that point.

It’s a simple ethical question. Should GA’s share confidential lists of high tithe payers with anyone outside of the church?

No, it's not really as simple as you're making it out to be, because of the way you have loaded it up with presuppositions, chief among them that anyone HAS done so, a presupposition for which no one has yet provided any evidence.  But, okay, if you would like us to answer a hypothetical question for which no one has provided any evidence of a "real-world" occurrence yet, no, officers or employees of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not share confidential lists of high tithe payers with anyone outside 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?

Okay.  No, they should not.  Once anyone provides any evidence that such a thing has happened in the real, non-hypothetical world, we will be happy to respond to it.  (And please remember the old saying about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich.)

Couldn't separate out quotes to respond to them separately, even after I inserted a thousand hard returns between each piece I wanted to respond to individually.  I hope that isn't too confusing for anyone.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

... May I kindly ask that you drop the paranoia, I’m not out to get you or anyone else who posts here.

Then why ask the equivalent of a "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" question?

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

🤔 Huh???? What does OUR have to do with the post you quoted other than being the subject of the Davis County State assigned investigation?

Because OUR is the source of the information you are saying came directly from a senior leader the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!!!  Feign shock and awe that we would question your motives, then feign ignorance about why anyone might be just the teeniest bit upset about your impugning the character of one of the Church's senior leaders.

Seriously? 

You're not better than this, Craig ... really???

[Calm]

 

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

chief among them that anyone HAS done so

or ever will do so…

[Nemesis]

Not sure where this is going, but it’s kinda going nowhere.