Where does Gordon live?

[_rcrocket]

To me, whether it be individuals or organizations of any type (for profit or charitable), the issue of finacial disclosure falls under the right to privacy, and may only be violated when there are more compelling interests, such as trust issues and accountability.

This statement is total TBM-speak. As a corporation the presidency is a holding company, not a church. Through creative accounting practices finances are shifted to close parties and associates of the LDS elite.

Trust and accountability are created by transparency. If there werent anything funny going on then they would be transparent. Since they are not we are forced to assume there is something going on that we are unaware of.

The LDS corporation has gone to court to protect its financial transparency and claimed that on religious grounds it should be protected. This is a move that is ridiculous and further clarifies that there is something fishy going on with the books.

If you are a Mormon who stands behind the blockade on financial transparency then you need to examine why you believe this and stop making silly assertions of privacy. They are transparent TO YOU even. This is either grossly ignorant or blindly following your leaders.

Have you been effective at praying the gay away Wade?

I'd get a refund on your GED course, my friend. If English is not your first language, I apologize for that slight.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

All else equal, of an organization refuses to open its books, is it more reasonable to assume that it has something to hide or that it does not?

"Something to hide?" Of course; its finances.

"Something nefarious going on?" Cite me the rule that leads to that implication, because my law firm would be in big trouble, as well as all the major accounting firms and many private universities.

[_rcrocket]

Okay, Jason. But the Church is not under the same laws as solely charitable institutions such as Red Cross, etc. I am sure the Church does have a 501(c)3 designation (or some other IRS status) so that our contributions will be tax deductible. That does not mean its primary purpose is a charity.

There are a number of types of charities and organization can be in order to qualify under Sec, 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Sec. 170 provides some guidelines for what type of charity in organization is. It can be a public charity, a private charity a foundation and so on. Typically the type of contributions that the organization will receive for it primary support determine this.

The Red Cross and other simlar organizations are public charities because most of their support is from the public. Churches are typically public charities as well.

An exempt organization must also spell out its purpose and that purpose must qualify under the law in order to obtain tax exemption. If it does not operate within it stated purpose an exempt organization can lose its exemption or it can also be subject to a tax.

The LDS Church is a public charity. It stated purpose is more likely then not its religious mission. Thus it is a charitable organization. Sure it has as its primary mission the promotion and maintenance of it faith and its organization. That includes building, temples, missionary work, fast offering assistance, humanitarian aid and so on. So while that purpose is different from the Red Cross it is still a charity.

Untrue. The Church is not a charity.

For tax purposes, to qualify for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization, one must have as its purposes "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." One may be a "scientific" organization, for example, and not be "charitable." The Consumers Union (Consumers Reports) is just such an example; it is not charitable. Similarly, one may be "religious" and not "charitable."

Once one claims to be a "religious" organization, the First Amendment kicks in and disclosure requirements do not apply. So, there is no US law which requires religious organization disclosure.

The First Amendment does not exist in other countries. They may require disclosure and there is limited disclosure about what goes on in those countries.

People who are apostates, such as yourself, really have no dog in the race. If you think the church is financially corrupt, then you are a fool to continue to contribute to it.

rcrocket

[_guy sajer]

All else equal, of an organization refuses to open its books, is it more reasonable to assume that it has something to hide or that it does not?

"Something to hide?" Of course; its finances.

"Something nefarious going on?" Cite me the rule that leads to that implication, because my law firm would be in big trouble, as well as all the major accounting firms and many private universities.

I'm not suggesting anything nefarious. I am merely asking that if a large charity refuses to disclose financial statements whether it is more reasonable to assume that it is or is not trying to hide something.

Privately held firms have no obligations for public disclosure of finances, that I know of.

Most private universities, I am pretty sure, disclose what they do with the money in their endowments.

Most large, mainstream charities make financial disclosures.

[_GoodK]

Sheeesh. No need to be rude. I am sorry you feel that way. Why so strident?

Only because I've wasted some of my time time trying to get you to be more specific, cite your sources, and justify my intentions to you. I guess I was just a little low on patience, and I figured you were trying to impede my inquiry.

But thanks for your help, I do appreciate your feedback.

GoodK

[_wenglund]

To me, whether it be individuals or organizations of any type (for profit or charitable), the issue of finacial disclosure falls under the right to privacy, and may only be violated when there are more compelling interests, such as trust issues and accountability.

This statement is total TBM-speak. As a corporation the presidency is a holding company, not a church. Through creative accounting practices finances are shifted to close parties and associates of the LDS elite.

Trust and accountability are created by transparency. If there werent anything funny going on then they would be transparent. Since they are not we are forced to assume there is something going on that we are unaware of.

The LDS corporation has gone to court to protect its financial transparency and claimed that on religious grounds it should be protected. This is a move that is ridiculous and further clarifies that there is something fishy going on with the books.

If you are a Mormon who stands behind the blockade on financial transparency then you need to examine why you believe this and stop making silly assertions of privacy. They are transparent TO YOU even. This is either grossly ignorant or blindly following your leaders.

I can see how, from your highly distrusting, binary, and sopolistic mindset, you might think that. I don't happen to share your opinion. To each their own.

Have you been effective at praying the gay away Wade?

I am sorry, but your question contains multiple false presuppositions, and thus doesn't make sense as asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Sheeesh. No need to be rude. I am sorry you feel that way. Why so strident?

Only because I've wasted some of my time time trying to get you to be more specific, cite your sources, and justify my intentions to you. I guess I was just a little low on patience, and I figured you were trying to impede my inquiry.

But thanks for your help, I do appreciate your feedback.

GoodK

Perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. Just a suggestion.

[_GoodK]

Sheeesh. No need to be rude. I am sorry you feel that way. Why so strident?

Only because I've wasted some of my time time trying to get you to be more specific, cite your sources, and justify my intentions to you. I guess I was just a little low on patience, and I figured you were trying to impede my inquiry.

But thanks for your help, I do appreciate your feedback.

GoodK

Perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. Just a suggestion.

Who is us and what assumptions have I made?

[_harmony]

Sheeesh. No need to be rude. I am sorry you feel that way. Why so strident?

Only because I've wasted some of my time time trying to get you to be more specific, cite your sources, and justify my intentions to you. I guess I was just a little low on patience, and I figured you were trying to impede my inquiry.

But thanks for your help, I do appreciate your feedback.

GoodK

Perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. Just a suggestion.

Who is us and what assumptions have I made?

Jason is a regular here. He's been part of "us" for a long time, since near the beginning of "us". You're a newcomber, at least using your current nickname. You've only been here a short time. You assumed some things about Jason that you might not have, had you known him a bit longer. He was trying to be helpful. You jumped on him like Tigger on Pooh. Now you're saying you wasted your time. You figured he was trying to impede your inquiry. Not at all. He was telling you what he knows. You discounted it and demanded references. Had you known him a bit better, you might not have jumped quite so quickly.

I stand by my statement: perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. It's just a suggestion.

[_rcrocket]

GoodK should be able to rip into idiots wherever he/she finds them. I am personally offended that you use the old hand attack on the newbie. Jason -- you are an idiot. I am not a newbie.