Open the financial records guys

[_Trevor]

What did the membership do in the 1950's to deserve their new "none of their business" status?

It's probably more a matter of what they didn't do.

[_harmony]

My guess is though, that at some point in the future, church's will be required to file a Form 990 like all other tax exempts. The LDS church is already required to disclose this information in places like the UK and other countries. It to me is sad that they may be compelled to do so some day rather then do it on their own.

I wonder if this would be the result of the whole Prop 8 thing? If so, there could be no complaint from the church; they will have brought the change on themselves.

[_wenglund]

And this, again, is exactly how the Church has taught you to approach the problem.

Your uncharitable imagination is running away with itself. I didn't get from the Church the precept that I have been advocating. Instead, I have derived it from personal experience in the corporate world--where, as chance would have it, I was as much if not more the busy body with certain companies that I worked for as some of you are want to be with the Church.

I learned from sad experience, though, that while my intents were good (I was fiercely loyal to the companies and only wanted the very best), my view of things from the perspective of my entry level positions, were quite limited, if not distorted. Like one of the twelve blind men and the elephant, I may have been somewhat accurate in what I was personally sensing, but once my eyes were openned later in my career (having been put into leadership positions, and particularly when starting several of my own businesses), I could then begin to see the whole corporate elephant for what it really was, and I understood just how mistaken I had been in many of the criticism and bits of advise I freely voiced earlier.

I also learned that my self-appointed advisory efforts caused more harm than good. My liberal criticisms, voiced often in small groups where the powers-that-be were not present, instead of effecting positive change, earned me the reputation of a chronic discontent, whiner and complainer, which significantly undermined my credibility.

And, in a moment of open and honest introspection, I realized that my self-appointed advisory efforts were really: 1) an excuse to avoid considering and taking responsibility for the numerouos deficiencies in my own life (it is easier to tell others what they should be doing than take full charge of my own sorry life); 2) it was an artificial, or even delusional, way of endowing myself with a heightened sense of importance (presuming to be as smart if not smarter than those who were in leadership positions so as to mask my low sense of self); and 3) a dysfunctional way of encouraging my advancement in the company--advancements that weren't coming as fast and as high as I thought should have occured.

I cane to the healthy and enlightening conclusion that at the heart of each of these realizations was a control and esteem issues. My life was somewhat out of control, and I mistakenly thought that appointing myself as advisor to the leaders would be a way of regaining some semblance of control and somehow elevate me in my own mind and the minds of others.

Fortunately, I have since discovered that real control and self esteem comes from regaining personal control and making responsible and edifying decisions, rather than by attempting to control others. By integrating this newfound discovery into my interperson interactions, I have been greatly benefited, and I trust that those I work with (in my career or church or elsewhere) are better off for it as well.

Now, I don't know if some or even any of the things that drove my corporate ark-steadying is also behind the ark-steadying of some in relation to the Church (and this on obscure and somewhat hostile message board). I don't wish to project. I just mention my own personal insights in hopes of giving some pause in others for thought and self-reflection.

Besides, while I believe no good will come of criticizing the Church here, I don't see that much harm can be done either, especially since most of the few dozen who post here are already entrenched in their own opinions, and so little change one way or another will occur. So, no biggy. (This ends my thoughts on the subject)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It's a simple matter of respect. If an organization has the least regard for those who support it financially, it will gladly share information about what those supporters have accomplished with their donations.

It's sad that church most members don't even believe they deserve the minimal respect that a financial report would represent.

What did the membership do in the 1950's to deserve their new "none of their business" status?

Why are you supposing that the change was a function of the leaders not respecting Church members? My guess is that the change was precipitated out of concern for the enemies of the Church, and a desire to protect the Church and its members from the enemies. If so, then the change was actually out of respect, rather than not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Henry Jacobs]

It's a simple matter of respect. If an organization has the least regard for those who support it financially, it will gladly share information about what those supporters have accomplished with their donations.

It's sad that church most members don't even believe they deserve the minimal respect that a financial report would represent.

What did the membership do in the 1950's to deserve their new "none of their business" status?

Why are you supposing that the change was a function of the leaders not respecting Church members? My guess is that the change was precipitated out of concern for the enemies of the Church, and a desire to protect the Church and its members from the enemies. If so, then the change was actually out of respect, rather than not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My supposition is that common courtesy dictates that a NFP disclose financial information to donors. Whether they do or not says a lot about whether the organization is to be trusted. Your guess supposes that the church didn't have enemies until 1959 or that something about those enemies changed. Financial secrecy protects the church from modern enemies but not historical ones? Not sure I understand. How do you feel financial secrecy protects the church from outside criticism?

To my mind if you're doing nothing untoward, and if your money is being put where your mouth is, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by reporting your finances to anyone who asks.

[_Analytics]

To my mind if you're doing nothing untoward, and if your money is being put where your mouth is, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by reporting your finances to anyone who asks.

It seems that Wade is conceding that the truth actually supports the critics and that the best way to defend the Church and its members is to conceal the truth.

[_wenglund]

My supposition is that common courtesy dictates that a NFP disclose financial information to donors. Whether they do or not says a lot about whether the organization is to be trusted. Your guess supposes that the church didn't have enemies until 1959 or that something about those enemies changed. Financial secrecy protects the church from modern enemies but not historical ones? Not sure I understand. How do you feel financial secrecy protects the church from outside criticism?

To my mind if you're doing nothing untoward, and if your money is being put where your mouth is, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by reporting your finances to anyone who asks.

Clearly, things occured in 1959 to precipitate the change. I have no idea what-all was involved (I can only wildly conjecture). Were I to think it my business to monitor the Church leaders today or throughout history, then I might be motivated to find out. But, I am not.

However, speaking of common courtesy, those of you who presume to sit in judgement of the Church leaders, it would only be right to first find out why the change occured so as to place yourselves in better position than the peanut gallary to judge whether their decision was respectful of members or not. It is also a good way to determine if you can be trusted in your judgements or not. I will wait breathlessly for a full report of your thorough and indepth investigation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It seems that Wade is conceding that the truth actually supports the critics and that the best way to defend the Church and its members is to conceal the truth.

No one can reasonably draw that conclusion from anythng I have said. In fact, the rational and observant reader will find that over the course of this thread I have expressly NOT taken a position on whether the financial records should be publically disclosed or not--i.e. concealment.

So, here is a big fat STRAW MAN alert!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

Your uncharitable imagination is running away with itself. I didn't get from the Church the precept that I have been advocating.

I know you believe that.

[_harmony]

Clearly, things occured in 1959 to precipitate the change. I have no idea what-all was involved (I can only wildly conjecture).

Then you might want to educate yourself about it, prior to continuing your participation in this thread. It's public knowledge. No doubt someone can provide a link.

Hint: fiscal malfeasance.