Open the financial records guys

[_wenglund]

I don't decide what is right, proper and even ethical bases on what the government does and does not do. Tax law is a capricious thing and a tool that is often not used wisely.

You missed my point, so let me state more clearly: what the Church leaders, as a private institution, decide to do with their finances (including whether to publically disclose them or not), is their private business, not yours or mine or any ark-steadying members or former members.

What amazes my is that the Church used to publish it finances and no longer does so. Had you been an adult at that time I am sure you would have been happy about it and now you are happy about the books being closed. In other words whatever the Church does is a ok.

Actually, again, my point is that whatever the Church leaders do with their money (i.e. the money they have stewardship over), is their business, not mine. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I or other members or even non-members are okay or not with whatever the Church does with what is theirs, since it isn't our business.

You think some are busy bodies. Some may think you don't think and that you follow blindly.

And, some may think the moon is made of cheese. Your point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade---

How is it any of your business whether or not same-sex couples get married in California?

I have to tell you, with all your talk of wanted to be "productive" and "useful" and your claims that you are interested in solutions that are "workable," I was really stunned that you would be waving that sign around at Temple Square. Seriously, what did you think was "workable" about that?

[_Jason Bourne]

You missed my point, so let me state more clearly: what the Church leaders, as a private institution, decide to do with their finances (including whether to publically disclose them or not), is their private business, not yours or mine or any ark-steadying members or former members.


Actually, again, my point is that whatever the Church leaders do with their money (i.e. the money they have stewardship over), is their business, not mine. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I or other members or even non-members are okay or not with whatever the Church does with what is theirs, since it isn't our business.

Well here is where we disagree. It is not their money. One could argue it is the Lord's money. One could also argue that it is all the members money particularly those who give it. It is entrusted to Church leaders. Financial disclosure it a good way to make sure that those handling the money are doing it well and appropriately. With out disclosing at least to the members who give it allows for free license to do whatever and manage poorly the assets given. In fact due to the apparent mismanagement of the building program in the late 50s and early 60s by President Moyle the books were likely closed. During that financial crisis one way to solve it was to push for higher % of member tithing. The Church made a big push for that. But just before that in 1959 the books were closed. The Church seemed embarrassed about its fiscal problems especially while trying to increase income.

Who know but today there are not similar problems with say the Mall and City Creek project? But nobody is watching.

So yea Wade it is our business. Yours and mine at least. But I am sure we will never agree on this.

[_wenglund]

Wade---

How is it any of your business whether or not same-sex couples get married in California?

Not that it is any of your business what my business is (speaking of "busy bodies"), besides having loved-ones who are residents of California, who actively supported Prop 8, and me wishing to show my support for their beliefs and actions, there is also the plausible impact that legal battles in that state may have on those of us in other states. Ever hear of the saying: "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation"?

Also, to the reasonably minded, Prop 8 provides an excellent springboard for general discussion of gay issues that may affect societies generally. So, as a member of societies in general, it is my business in so far as the subject may impact me and those I love.

I have to tell you, with all your talk of wanted to be "productive" and "useful" and your claims that you are interested in solutions that are "workable," I was really stunned that you would be waving that sign around at Temple Square. Seriously, what did you think was "workable" about that?

Perhaps in your world it may not be "workable" for people to offer genuine expressions of gratitude for good and wholesome things as well as for them to display friendly smiles and waves to those with differing points of view, but in my world it is "workable".

Maybe for you what "works", besides being a "busy body" and "benevolent stalker", is to persist in leveling false accusations and continually misconstruing the actions and statements of others, and this in spite of repeated and authoritative corrections. That doesn't work for me.

But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You missed my point, so let me state more clearly: what the Church leaders, as a private institution, decide to do with their finances (including whether to publically disclose them or not), is their private business, not yours or mine or any ark-steadying members or former members.


Actually, again, my point is that whatever the Church leaders do with their money (i.e. the money they have stewardship over), is their business, not mine. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I or other members or even non-members are okay or not with whatever the Church does with what is theirs, since it isn't our business.

Well here is where we disagree. It is not their money. One could argue it is the Lord's money. One could also argue that it is all the members money particularly those who give it. It is entrusted to Church leaders. Financial disclosure it a good way to make sure that those handling the money are doing it well and appropriately. With out disclosing at least to the members who give it allows for free license to do whatever and manage poorly the assets given. In fact due to the apparent mismanagement of the building program in the late 50s and early 60s by President Moyle the books were likely closed. During that financial crisis one way to solve it was to push for higher % of member tithing. The Church made a big push for that. But just before that in 1959 the books were closed. The Church seemed embarrassed about its fiscal problems especially while trying to increase income.

Who know but today there are not similar problems with say the Mall and City Creek project? But nobody is watching.

So yea Wade it is our business. Yours and mine at least. But I am sure we will never agree on this.

I am not sure how you can rationally conclude that when you GIVE your money to the Lord/Church, that somehow the money is still YOUR'S?

And, I am not sure why you think you and I are stewards over the Lord's money, or even stewards over the stewards of the Lord's money (i.e in a position to "make sure that those handling the money are doing it well and appropriately"), rather than the men the Lord has chosen and duly ordained, in part, to that end.

Did I mis the part in General Conference where your name was presented for the sustaining vote of the general membership as steward of the Lord's money and steward over the stewards of the Lord's money, or perhaps as general advisor over the handling of the Lord's money?

For my own part, I have enough of a stewardship of my own to concern myself with, which I have been chosen and ordained to preside over, and I think all will be better served for me to focus my attentions on my own business and leave the business of the Lord and his money between he and his chosen leaders.

But, hey, you are entitled to presume to usurp whatever authority you see fit, just as I am free to see it otherwise. I am sure, though, that vocalizing your opinion on this relatively obscure discussion board will go a long way in affecting a return of the Church to its former practice of publically disclosing its finances. [Thumbs Up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade---

How is it any of your business whether or not same-sex couples get married in California?

Not that it is any of your business what my business is (speaking of "busy bodies"), besides having loved-ones who are residents of California, who actively supported Prop 8, and me wishing to show my support for their beliefs and actions, there is also the plausible impact that legal battles in that state may have on those of us in other states. Ever hear of the saying: "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation"?

Well, Wade---I support the openness and honesty of the LDS Church. As someone whose roots in the Church go back many generations, I think I have a clear say in this. Further, as voting American, I think I ought to have a say in just how powerful religious organizations are allowed to operate in my country. I pay taxes; I attend jury duty; and so I certainly think that I have a right to weigh in on whether a very powerful minority religion (to which I have very deep, pioneer ties) should continue to keep secret the very finances which are altering the country in which I live.

Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Busy-Body?

Also, to the reasonably minded, Prop 8 provides an excellent springboard for general discussion of gay issues that may affect societies generally. So, as a member of societies in general, it is my business in so far as the subject may impact me and those I love.

Wade: I dare you to put your "lock-key" syllogism on a poster board and parade it around during a protest in Los Angeles or San Francisco. I double dare you. I triple dare you. If the spirit is really on your side, then you should have no problem doing this.

I have to tell you, with all your talk of wanted to be "productive" and "useful" and your claims that you are interested in solutions that are "workable," I was really stunned that you would be waving that sign around at Temple Square. Seriously, what did you think was "workable" about that?

Perhaps in your world it may not be "workable" for people to offer genuine expressions of gratitude for good and wholesome things as well as for them to display friendly smiles and waves to those with differing points of view, but in my world it is "workable".

Yes, marriage is "good and wholesome". Too bad you helped deny it to a great number of people---people who do not even live in your state, I might add. And you have damned yourself with your MAD post, by the way.

Maybe for you what "works", besides being a "busy body" and "benevolent stalker", is to persist in leveling false accusations and continually misconstruing the actions and statements of others, and this in spite of repeated and authoritative corrections. That doesn't work for me.

But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Feel free to demonstrate your false accusations, Wade. You know how much it pains you when people stand outside the temple with signs pertaining to DNA or blacks and the priesthood. Why did you seek this opportunity to exact revenge? That's not very Christ-like at all.

[_wenglund]

Well, Wade---I support the openness and honesty of the LDS Church. As someone whose roots in the Church go back many generations, I think I have a clear say in this. Further, as voting American, I think I ought to have a say in just how powerful religious organizations are allowed to operate in my country. I pay taxes; I attend jury duty; and so I certainly think that I have a right to weigh in on whether a very powerful minority religion (to which I have very deep, pioneer ties) should continue to keep secret the very finances which are altering the country in which I live.

Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Busy-Body?

I can't imagine that there would be much harm with you sticking your nose whereever it doesn't belong and spouting off about this issue here. I mean really....there are what?....a handful of people on this board that pay you any mind, and none of whom, including yourself (your alleged pioneer ancestry notwithstanding) are in a position to exert even the least influence in affecting the kind of change you may propose on this issue.

Whatever the case, I see little value in arguing with you further about it.

Wade: I dare you to put your "lock-key" syllogism on a poster board and parade it around during a protest in Los Angeles or San Francisco. I double dare you. I triple dare you. If the spirit is really on your side, then you should have no problem doing this.

I am sorry, but I matured beyond the "dare" game many decades ago when I left junior high. Perhaps in your advanced age it may be time for you to move beyond it as well--not that it is any of my business?

Yes, marriage is "good and wholesome". Too bad you helped deny it to a great number of people---people who do not even live in your state, I might add. And you have damned yourself with your MAD post, by the way.

Speaking of false accusations, no one has been denied marriage (as that word is traditionally, and now constitutionally, meant). Any man or woman in California, regardless of sexual orientation, can legally marry someone of the opposite sex.

As for me supposedly being damned by my MAD posts, I don't view you as in a position to be my judge--not that it is any of your business.

Feel free to demonstrate your false accusations, Wade. You know how much it pains you when people stand outside the temple with signs pertaining to DNA or blacks and the priesthood.

Speaking of false accusation, it comes as news to me that I am supposedly "pained" by those things.

Why did you seek this opportunity to exact revenge?

Speaking again of false accusations, your question is based on a false presupposition (I didn't exact revenge), and thus can't reasonably be answered as asked.

That's not very Christ-like at all.

Not that it is any of your business, but again I don't view you as in a position to make that judgement.

Anyway, as intimated earlier, this is not worth arguing with you about. So, I will let you have the last word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

Wade, it is certainly nice to have you back.


.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am not sure how you can rationally conclude that when you GIVE your money to the Lord/Church, that somehow the money is still YOUR'S?

The Church is my church and yours as members. It is not mine per say to use as I wish but it is the responsibility of the fiduciaries over that money to manage it wisely. Transparency helps avoid mismangement. It does not prevent it but it is a great step in promoting it. Plus it helps the stewards because it helps them show that they are managing things in the best and right way.

And, I am not sure why you think you and I are stewards over the Lord's money, or even stewards over the stewards of the Lord's money (i.e in a position to "make sure that those handling the money are doing it well and appropriately"), rather than the men the Lord has chosen and duly ordained, in part, to that end.

If I communicated that I misspoke. I am not the steward over the money. But I do believe those who are should disclose to those who give how and what they do with the money. It does not make me a steward over them but it makes them better stewards.

Did I mis the part in General Conference where your name was presented for the sustaining vote of the general membership as steward of the Lord's money and steward over the stewards of the Lord's money, or perhaps as general advisor over the handling of the Lord's money?

Cute.

For my own part, I have enough of a stewardship of my own to concern myself with, which I have been chosen and ordained to preside over, and I think all will be better served for me to focus my attentions on my own business and leave the business of the Lord and his money between he and his chosen leaders.

This is ludicrous. You have time to look at financial disclosures if you wish. But if you don't that does not mean others might not take the time. Reviewing an annual report might take a few hours a year at max.

But, hey, you are entitled to presume to usurp whatever authority you see fit, just as I am free to see it otherwise. I am sure, though, that vocalizing your opinion on this relatively obscure discussion board will go a long way in affecting a return of the Church to its former practice of publically disclosing its finances. [Thumbs Up]

It is discussion board to discuss things LDS. It clearly will make no inroads to changing the poor disclosure practices of the LDS Church. If there were a means where I could influence this in real life without putting my membership status in jeopardy that would be a wonderful thing. But open dissent about such things is not allowed. That said I oculd vote with my pocketbook and not give. But that has other repercussions too.

That said, while this bothers me some it does not bother me enough to not donate so I continue. What surprises me is how strident so many members are about the idea of disclosure as you seem. It really is a good practice and many other Church's follow it.

[_Henry Jacobs]

So who's business is it, anyway? Aren't we all "the church". Certainly when the church is challenged we are all made to feel personally challenged. When the church is attacked, it's the same as a personal attack. (So claims my wife) When the church wants something, I guess it's only our business to comply, but that's where it stops. It's not our business to know any of the why's or what for's, let alone have any of the say.

Is that sort of like blind obedience, a term that members always bristle at?

Sad is the fact that members by and large are so de-humanized as to feel that what the kingdom does with their money is none of their business. The answer to any question the church wishes not to answer becomes, in effect, none of the members' business, even if they are brushed off with other words like "the lord's ways are not our ways". Most have come to think so little of their own place in this kingdom as to slink away and tell themselves to think twice before asking such prideful questions ever again.

For the folks putting up all the money and time, it IS their business. For 130 years it was the membership's business. It was certainly our parents and grandparents' business, why not ours? Now it's only the business of a handful of members at the top? Is it prideful to see that as a problem?

Now days it would be prideful of me to ask if tithing money was spent to purchase land from wealthy connected members for twice the market value in Arizona. In the good old days, I wouldn't need to ask.