Morley wrote:You replied with a link to a three-year-old news story about some officials who had stolen from a local Red Cross Chapter.
What does this have to do with your claim?
I take it, then, that any opinion you venture about Mormonism, Joseph Smith, the Church, Mormons, or Mormon charity, that is more than three years old - should be ignored?
I've said nothing to you about Mormonism. The subject is your statement about the accountability of the Red Cross.
edit to add: Once again, you said: "You don't know how much any charitable organisation uses for "bureaucracy" and "management" and "running costs", including The Red Cross, et.al."
Morley wrote: I've said nothing to you about Mormonism. The subject is your statement about the accountability of the Red Cross.
And that's what my reply to you was about. You linked a pdf Red Cross report (which Darth apparently swallowed, hook, line and sinker), and I replied giving a link as to why no one should trust them anymore than they trust, or distrust, other charities. Having an "official" sheet of "financial accountability" means bugger all, as you saw from the link I posted.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Morley wrote: I've said nothing to you about Mormonism. The subject is your statement about the accountability of the Red Cross.
And that's what my reply to you was about. You linked a pdf Red Cross report (which Darth apparently swallowed, hook, line and sinker), and I replied giving a link as to why no one should trust them anymore than they trust, or distrust, other charities. Having an "official" sheet of "financial accountability" means bugger all, as you saw from the link I posted.
I disagree. Having no " 'official' sheet of 'financial accountability' " (your term) means "bugger all" (again, your term).
Having accountability means it's much easier to catch malfeasance.
Morley wrote:I disagree. Having no " 'official' sheet of 'financial accountability' " (your term) means "b****r all" (again, your term).
Having accountability means it's much easier to catch malfeasance.
Would you disagree?
I agree that the Church could, and should be more accountable, and that would be to the benefit of all its members. By the same token, I don't believe it's a hotbed of corruption, "only interested in its own welfare", and "only out to promote itself".
RayAgostini wrote: I agree that the Church could, and should be more accountable, and that would be to the benefit of all its members. By the same token, I don't believe it's a hotbed of corruption, "only interested in its own welfare", and "only out to promote itself".
Thank you, Ray. That's pretty much all anyone else is saying.
Donations totaling $1.4 million have made The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, the largest institutional donor to the Yes on 8 campaign.
KofC is not the Catholic Church. Though yeah, the way I understand it, a KoC council in CA approached the Mormons there, and the rest of the story is known.
Time to wage war against the Catholics too, Darth.
My own personal opinion, as to why the no-to-Prop 8 people didn't go for the Catholics in CA is because CA, outside of the Bay Area, is a very Catholic population. Easier to single out Mormons, who don't have a populous support.
The Bay Area though, hasn't been slacking on trying to reduce "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom of Worship".
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
Darth J wrote:Wrong again. There are in fact organizations that measure the transparency of charitable organizations and their finances, so that people can evaluate whether their donations are being used for their intended purpose. For example:
As long as the charitable contributor is not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you'll swallow whatever they say, hook, line and sinker.
Darn me, and my foolishly swallowing a financial disclosure that was performed by an outside accounting firm and independently verified.
I would like to see a similar disclosure from the LDS Church. Link, please?
You have provided a grand total of zero data to the contrary. That means that there is nothing particularly special about Mormons and charity, which is what you have been attempting to show.
I never said, or thought, there was anything "special" or "superior" about Mormon charity. But it's a big positive in the Church you so love to persistently run down, and criticise its every doing as being motivated by greed, corruption, dishonesty, untrustworthiness and sleight of hand.
No, not everything it does. Just the great majority of what it does. I think your problem, Ray, is that I am able to support my claims about the LDS Church, whereas you are not.
But if you think there is nothing special or superior about Mormon charity, then what was the point of your linking to an article alleging that Mormons give more charity than most (a headline not supported by the substance of the article)?
Morley wrote: I've said nothing to you about Mormonism. The subject is your statement about the accountability of the Red Cross.
And that's what my reply to you was about. You linked a pdf Red Cross report (which Darth apparently swallowed, hook, line and sinker), and I replied giving a link as to why no one should trust them anymore than they trust, or distrust, other charities. Having an "official" sheet of "financial accountability" means bugger all, as you saw from the link I posted.
No, Ray, that is not what it means. A couple of officials being accused of embezzlement does not invalidate the Red Cross' financial disclosures. That is a complete non sequitur.
Since you jumped to a fallacious conclusion about Red Cross officials embezzling, what inference, if any, can we make about this LDS bishop going to prison for fraud?
Oh, and Ray? Have you ever seen the Lion House and the Beehive House? Brigham Young sure did have some nice places to live. You wouldn't happen to know how he paid for them, would you?