In the spirit of openness and transparency--

[_Some Schmo]

I don't thnk Shades should give out any financial information he doesn't want to give out. just the same as I don't t hink the Church should give out any financial information the leaders don't want to give out. I am consistent.

But if Shades is reluctant to do so, he has no call to criticize the Church for not making the books public.

But this MB is not the same thing as the church at all. If you want consistency, you're going to have to be consistent yourself, and provide consistent analogies.

Here's a better example for you, to get you started:

A public corporation is called "public" because shares in its stock are traded publicly. They have an obligation to stockholders to disclose their financial information, because those people invested their money in it.

A private corporation is called "private" because it is completely financed by the business owners, which makes them completely liable to all debts incurred by the business, and they are in no way beholden to anyone (other than the IRS) about the way they handle their cash flow.

The members of the church have a right to know how the church is allocating the funds members "invest" (which is a euphemism for "are psychologically coerced out of") because it is a publicly funded organization. No amount of rationalizing that it’s “god money” changes the fact that members out to know where all that money is going. The question is, if the church has nothing to hide, what’s the big deal?

Shade's board, on the other hand, is privately owned (as far as I know). If it is set up similar to the MB I ran for a couple years, any proceeds from donations go directly to an account that can only be withdrawn from in order to pay for the hosting service. The board admin has no access to it. So, we know where the donations from Shade's board is going even though technically, we don't have a right though investment to know.

[_charity]

Tell you what, Charity. You disclose your finances. I want to see a transcript of your bank account before we go any further. You do that, then you have something to say. If not, then you're a goose.

You don't give me any money, or add in any way to my bank account. So you don't have the right to ask. You aren't on my website helping me get ad revenues.

[_charity]

I certainly would never defend someone's adultery. Can you provide a source for your claim?

I wasn't naming you specifically. I said "critics." Southerton has been defended by many of the critics in his excommunication, saying the Church had no righ to pry into his private life.

In the spirit of consistency, are you ok with adultery, since Joseph Smith committed it?

He did not committ adultery. The Lord commanded plural marraige.

I don't thnk Shades should give out any financial information he doesn't want to give out. just the same as I don't t hink the Church should give out any financial information the leaders don't want to give out. I am consistent.

But if Shades is reluctant to do so, he has no call to criticize the Church for not making the books public.

If I were to donate a sizable amount of money to shades site (read 10% of my income) I would certainly insist on seeing financials, and having some type of independent oversight (audits). The same goes for any organization I donate money to.

No one is holding a gun to your head. If you chose to donate to an organization which provides only independent auditors' statements that the books are okay, that is your choice. If you don't think that is sufficient, you are free not to donate.

[Sledge]

Tell you what, Charity. You disclose your finances. I want to see a transcript of your bank account before we go any further. You do that, then you have something to say. If not, then you're a goose.

You don't give me any money, or add in any way to my bank account. So you don't have the right to ask. You aren't on my website helping me get ad revenues.

You haven't given Shades any money (unless you have made a donation that I don't know about :) ). Like Who Knows said already, Shades doesn't earn anything from the ads unless people actually click on the ad. Have you clicked on any ads?

And, even if you had clicked on any ads, it doesn't even give you a right to inquire about his income regarding this site (which I'm guessing is a net negative anyway). If you watch a commercial on tv, does that give you a right to demand an accounting of the tv station's financial records? If you go to a store and buy its products, does that give you a right to demand an accounting of the store's financial records?

No.

[_charity]

The members of the church have a right to know how the church is allocating the funds members "invest" (which is a euphemism for "are psychologically coerced out of") because it is a publicly funded organization. No amount of rationalizing that it’s “god money” changes the fact that members out to know where all that money is going. The question is, if the church has nothing to hide, what’s the big deal?

The members who contribute tithing are not "investing." They are giving money to God. No matter that you say that isn't important. It isn't just important, it is IMPORTANT. I don't care where God wants the money allocated. And no, the Church is not publicly funded. Tithing is only accepted from members.

Shade's board, on the other hand, is privately owned (as far as I know). If it is set up similar to the MB I ran for a couple years, any proceeds from donations go directly to an account that can only be withdrawn from in order to pay for the hosting service. The board admin has no access to it. So, we know where the donations from Shade's board is going even though technically, we don't have a right though investment to know.

So, the revenue income can outstrip the hosting expenses, and just build and build and no one can get it out? Interesting. But that doesn't sound kosher to me.

[_Some Schmo]

The members of the church have a right to know how the church is allocating the funds members "invest" (which is a euphemism for "are psychologically coerced out of") because it is a publicly funded organization. No amount of rationalizing that it’s “god money” changes the fact that members out to know where all that money is going. The question is, if the church has nothing to hide, what’s the big deal?

The members who contribute tithing are not "investing." They are giving money to God. No matter that you say that isn't important. It isn't just important, it is IMPORTANT. I don't care where God wants the money allocated. And no, the Church is not publicly funded. Tithing is only accepted from members.

Members are not part of the public? Do you really feel like that much of an outcast?

Although you think that god is somehow managing the church's money, allocating it here and there for his own pet projects, the thinking world understands that it's just men who are doing that. Again, what do they have to hide?

Shade's board, on the other hand, is privately owned (as far as I know). If it is set up similar to the MB I ran for a couple years, any proceeds from donations go directly to an account that can only be withdrawn from in order to pay for the hosting service. The board admin has no access to it. So, we know where the donations from Shade's board is going even though technically, we don't have a right though investment to know.

So, the revenue income can outstrip the hosting expenses, and just build and build and no one can get it out? Interesting. But that doesn't sound kosher to me.

The income from donations could potentially outstrip the hosting expenses if people were donating money here like crazy (assuming Shade's board is set up like mine was... we don't actually know that for sure, although I'd be surprised if it were different). But again, your beef wouldn't be with Shades; it would be with the hosting company. And I'd be willing to bet again that were you to ask the hosting company to disclose their financials, they'll be happy to oblige (assuming they are a publicly traded company).

It's more realistic to believe, however, that donations are barely covering the cost of keeping this place hosted (hence, the reason we put up with the ads).

Shades, feel free to jump in any time and clear up any misinformation I may have provided in my assumptions about how this place is set up.

[_Dr. Shades]

I am intrigued by the ads that are showing up here. Temple garments. Priesthly benediction wrist bands? Seems a sort of mixed bag.

Google ads automatically generates advertisements based on keywords in the opening post. You wrote the word "temple," so there you go.

So, since you have expressed the idea that financial records should be open and transparent, I would like to ask a few questions?

How much income is generated by these ads?

I don't know. You see, MormonDiscussions.com is a website administered by its parent company, MaverickDigitalAlliance.com, which runs a number of other sites. I don't know the exact number, but there are a lot of them.

At any rate, the human owner of Maverick Digital Alliance is Keene's landlord and boss. MormonDiscussions.com happens to be one of the websites that Keene is in charge of, technologically-speaking. Keene does everything behind-the-scenes having to do with programming code, databases, FTP, backups, etc. He has to deal with far more sites than just this one; that's why features don't often get added as quickly or as often as we'd like.

One of the duties Keene handles is the ad revenue (and donations) generated by this site. Although this site was created at my behest, after I had fronted the money out of my own pocket to get it up and running, I don't have any control whatsoever of the financial aspects. If someone makes a donation, I don't even see the amount or who made it.

How is the rate determined? By total number of visits to the site? Total number of logins? Total number of posts?

None of the above. It's determined by the amount of quality clicks on the ads. By "quality clicks," what I mean is that google ads has some sort of method to determine whether the click was just a quick one to artificially generate revenue (which doesn't work, thanks to their screening process) or one that was a genuine, interested potential customer.

Please open your books in the spirit of honest and transparency. Thanks.

Okay. The last time I talked to Keene and his boss, they told me that MormonDiscussions.com only generates enough revenue to keep itself and the other websites afloat. In other words, it pays for its own hosting, its own bandwidth charges, and those of the other sites under the MaverickDigitalAlliance.com umbrella.

They haven't made any profit from it. Of course, they could tell me anything they want, but I visit them every so often and haven't seen the slightest dent made to their home, possessions, or lifestyles over the past couple of years. I know I haven't seen a dime, nor will I. As I said, it cost me out-of-pocket money in order to get it created.

Am I not donating to the site by participating?

Nope, you're not. You're actually costing the site money by increasing the bandwidth load, if you want to get technical.

And since revenues must be determined somehow on usage of the site, then all of us posters have contributed by our use to the revenues generated.

Wrong again. See above.

[_Blixa]

All I can say is those Priestly Benediction Wristbands are not stylish at all. Hope my click helped somebody somewhere, though. That's my mitzvah for the day.

[_skippy the dead]

The members of the church have a right to know how the church is allocating the funds members "invest" (which is a euphemism for "are psychologically coerced out of") because it is a publicly funded organization. No amount of rationalizing that it’s “god money” changes the fact that members out to know where all that money is going. The question is, if the church has nothing to hide, what’s the big deal?

The members who contribute tithing are not "investing." They are giving money to God. No matter that you say that isn't important. It isn't just important, it is IMPORTANT. I don't care where God wants the money allocated. And no, the Church is not publicly funded. Tithing is only accepted from members.

Members are not part of the public? Do you really feel like that much of an outcast?

"Publicly funded" means on its face that money is provided by the government, not individual members of the general public. Charity is correct - the church is not a "publicly funded" organization. There is no corresponding right for tithe payers to see the books.

[_Who Knows]

"Publicly funded" means on its face that money is provided by the government, not individual members of the general public. Charity is correct - the church is not a "publicly funded" organization. There is no corresponding right for tithe payers to see the books.

Well, in a sense, it is funded by the government, and by default - the general public.