zeezrom wrote:Has the Mormon prophet ever stopped to ask himself if his farming operations in Florida are sustainable over the long term?
The state's most serious environmental concerns are growth, groundwater contamination, and control of runoff water quality. These concerns are related to the changes in farming practices in the state.
Do you honestly think the church hasn't been preparing for years for this?
Chap wrote:Of course it is impossible that President Hinckley was trying to mislead the viewers into thinking that members of the CoJCoLDS do have access to their church's accounts (they do not).
What about the statement could possibly lead to the idea that he was saying anything close to "the books are open to the members who pay tithing"? This isn't a difficult comment to interpret. The reporter asked why it was not possible for the church to open the books and Hinckley replied that it was because the information about contributions belongs to the people making the contributions. This is quite straightforward. Where is the misinformation?
Buffalo wrote:Red herring. They don't know how it was used.
I disagree. Hinckley never said they knew how it was used. He stated that the information regarding contributions belongs to "those who made the contributions." "The contributions" is resumptive, and the only possible antecedent is "that information." Hinckley was very clearly stating that the contributions aren't released because that information belongs to those who make the contributions. If you want to complain that Hinckley didn't directly answer the question because the reporter asked about the budget and not about contributions alone then you're in a grey area, since a budget can refer specifically to expenditures and income or specifically just to income. If you want to dig deeper you're going to have to start making assertions about what was going on inside Hinckley's brain.
Chap wrote:Of course it is impossible that President Hinckley was trying to mislead the viewers into thinking that members of the CoJCoLDS do have access to their church's accounts (they do not).
What about the statement could possibly lead to the idea that he was saying anything close to "the books are open to the members who pay tithing"? This isn't a difficult comment to interpret. The reporter asked why it was not possible for the church to open the books and Hinckley replied that it was because the information about contributions belongs to the people making the contributions. This is quite straightforward. Where is the misinformation?
An honest financial accounting wouldn't be listing the names of each contributor and how much each contributed. Rather, it would list the total amount contributed and, this is important, how the leaders chose to spend that money.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Red herring. They don't know how it was used.
I disagree. Hinckley never said they knew how it was used. He stated that the information regarding contributions belongs to "those who made the contributions." "The contributions" is resumptive, and the only possible antecedent is "that information." Hinckley was very clearly stating that the contributions aren't released because that information belongs to those who make the contributions. If you want to complain that Hinckley didn't directly answer the question because the reporter asked about the budget and not about contributions alone then you're in a grey area, since a budget can refer specifically to expenditures and income or specifically just to income. If you want to dig deeper you're going to have to start making assertions about what was going on inside Hinckley's brain.
The question was about publishing their budgets, not about individual contributors. Are you saying that Hinckley gave a deceptive answer to the journalist?
Your assertions about what a budget is and isn't are not based on anything in the real world.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:An honest financial accounting wouldn't be listing the names of each contributor and how much each contributed. Rather, it would list the total amount contributed and, this is important, how the leaders chose to spend that money.
First, the question wasn't about "financial accounting," it was about the church's budget. As I said, that word means different things to different people, depending on the context and their understanding of the word. "What's our budget for this" does not mean "what are our itemized expenditures?" Second, we have the opportunity of hindsight and we are dealing with a text. Hinckley was dealing with an interviewer. I'm sure if he had time to sit down with the question written out and ponder it for some time before writing it out (like you and I do), his response would have been more comprehensive. That's not the context of his response, though. In church finances, the first thought is always the fact that this is someone's tithing. It's always for the sanctity of the source of the funds. Hinckley thinks of the church's budget in terms of sacred funds entrusted to the church by its membership. That's how he responded verbally to a verbal question. Obviously others are going to conceptualize the concept of the church's budget differently, and that's fine, but Hinckely's comments are clear and straightforward, and I find nothing at all misleading about them. It shows me that the attitude held by the people who work with the church's tithing is consistent from the levels I dealt with all the way to the president of the church.
Buffalo wrote:The question was about publishing their budgets, not about individual contributors. Are you saying that Hinckley gave a deceptive answer to the journalist?
I believe I made clear that I did not believe Hinckley gave a deceptive answer. The budget is the sum of the contributions, and Hinckley stated that the amount of the contributions belong to the contributors. Obviously that means individually and collectively.
Buffalo wrote:Your assertions about what a budget is and isn't are not based on anything in the real world.
So you mean to say a budget does not refer to moneys that are available?
Buffalo wrote:An honest financial accounting wouldn't be listing the names of each contributor and how much each contributed. Rather, it would list the total amount contributed and, this is important, how the leaders chose to spend that money.
First, the question wasn't about "financial accounting," it was about the church's budget. As I said, that word means different things to different people, depending on the context and their understanding of the word. "What's our budget for this" does not mean "what are our itemized expenditures?" Second, we have the opportunity of hindsight and we are dealing with a text. Hinckley was dealing with an interviewer. I'm sure if he had time to sit down with the question written out and ponder it for some time before writing it out (like you and I do), his response would have been more comprehensive. That's not the context of his response, though. In church finances, the first thought is always the fact that this is someone's tithing. It's always for the sanctity of the source of the funds. Hinckley thinks of the church's budget in terms of sacred funds entrusted to the church by its membership. That's how he responded verbally to a verbal question. Obviously others are going to conceptualize the concept of the church's budget differently, and that's fine, but Hinckely's comments are clear and straightforward, and I find nothing at all misleading about them. It shows me that the attitude held by the people who work with the church's tithing is consistent from the levels I dealt with all the way to the president of the church.
A budget (from old French bougette, purse) is a list of all planned expenses and revenues. It is a plan for saving and spending.[1] A budget is an important concept in microeconomics, which uses a budget line to illustrate the trade-offs between two or more goods. In other terms, a budget is an organizational plan stated in monetary terms.
In summary, the purpose of budgeting is to:
1. Provide a forecast of revenues and expenditures, that is, construct a model of how our business might perform financially if certain strategies, events and plans are carried out. 2. Enable the actual financial operation of the business to be measured against the forecast.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.