Open the financial records guys

[_Analytics]

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-

But you did guess why the church takes the position it did. You said,

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.

The question was, why did the church decide to conceal the truth about its finances? You said you guessed the reason why they did so was to "protect the Church and its members". What is it protecting the Church and its members from? From the details of the truth.

[_Scottie]

But you did guess why the church takes the position it did. You said,

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.

The question was, why did the church decide to conceal the truth about its finances? You said you guessed the reason why they did so was to "protect the Church and its members". What is it protecting the Church and its members from? From the details of the truth.

Even if the church were to legal in every dime spent, and if they believed they were spending it on worthwhile, Godly causes, there would be no shortage of anti-Mormons who would be decrying that they should spend less money on this and more money on that and why did they spend x dollars here when this charity needs it so much worse!!

Why, not to long ago I took the Church to task for importing stone from Italy and wood from Africa to put in the temple. I thought that was a misappropriation of the Lords money. Money that could have gone to the poor and needy

My point is, if I may speak for Wade, you don't have to be doing something wrong to be attacked.

Now, this isn't to say I think they are right for hiding the finances. I think they should open the books, at least to those who pay tithing.

Ask any apologists and they will tell you that even Joseph Smith was a weak, infallible man who was prone to temptation and made huge mistakes. Joseph Smith is revered as one of the most righteous men in the church. If he could make huge mistakes, why should we automatically trust that the current brethren wont?

[_wenglund]

[Mod Scottie: Personal attack deleted]

[_wenglund]

But you did guess why the church takes the position it did. You said,

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.

The question was, why did the church decide to conceal the truth about its finances? You said you guessed the reason why they did so was to "protect the Church and its members". What is it protecting the Church and its members from? From the details of the truth.

Please tell me that you actually do understand the obvious difference between me guessing why the leaders may have stopped publically disclosing Church finances, and me not taking a position whether the Church should publically disclose them or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

In other words, do as you say, not as you do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_ludwigm]

...
Ask any apologists and they will tell you that even Joseph Smith was a weak, infallible man who was prone to temptation and made huge mistakes. Joseph Smith is revered as one of the most righteous men in the church. If he could make huge mistakes, why should we automatically trust that the current brethren wont?

You are right that "Joseph Smith ... made huge mistakes". But, if You ask any apologists, they will tell you none of them. Joseph Smith was perfect and the current brethren are perfect, too.
Well, the dead brethren could, might, some way, less perfect than the current ones. This is the side effect (ask Your chemist or doctor) of the continuing revelation.

And, please, if I may correct You.
Joseph Smith is not one of the most righteous men in the church.
He is THE most righteous man in the world.

[_Analytics]

Please tell me that you actually do understand the obvious difference between me guessing why the leaders may have stopped publically disclosing Church finances, and me not taking a position whether the Church should publically disclose them or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay. I actually do understand the obvious difference between you guessing why the leaders may have stopped publically disclosing Church finances, and you not taking a position whether the Church should publically disclose them or not.

You are willing to guess at what their motives are, but aren't willing to say whether you agree with them. Got it.

Since you are so adament about picking at this gnat, I'll rephrase what I said. Wade guesses that the Bretheren are 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.

[_Trevor]

[Wade guesses that the Bretheren are 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.

It's about time.

[_squawkeye]

We know the Church used to give a public accounting of the money. Every conference there was a financial report. Maybe not real detailed but at least the effort was made.
Then came the shutdown. The relief society and youth groups were told they could not even hold bake sales to raise funds for summer camp or whatnot and on questioning the reason given was "Tax Consequences".
What in the world can a charitable organization be doing that a $42 bake sale would threaten their tax status?

Open reporting of donations and expenditures fosters trust. Especially now with Jesus needing a few BILLION for a shopping center.(with No Victorias Secret even)

[_harmony]

Then came the shutdown. The relief society and youth groups were told they could not even hold bake sales to raise funds for summer camp or whatnot and on questioning the reason given was "Tax Consequences".

The closing of the books in 1959 was decades prior to the shutdown of local fundraising.

When I first joined in 1970, our building had just been dedicated a few years prior. It was totally paid for and built by the members here. When the addition with the gym, kitchen, and extra classrooms was dedicated, it was again paid for by local fundraising and the members donated their time and expertise in building it. Buildings are no longer financed this way, probably because of the expansion world-wide.

In order to have a budget for ward activities, we had cake auctions, bake sales, etc. Now, the ward budget is determined by SLC and funded by SLC. No more local fundraising. I think the Scouts are still allowed to have their cake auction, but that's the only fundraiser in my ward. Later, they took away our paid janitor.

I blame correlation, the one-size-fits-all approach to wards. There is no individuality in today's wards, everything is the same from one ward to the next. The sad thing about this is SLC considers this a virtue! SLC gets its nose into the minutia of local business, including what pictures to hang in the chapel. We are rebels here; we still have the same painting of Christ that was hung there 40 years ago when the building was dedicated. We still celebrate the 24th of July with a huge ward picnic, and we have a blow-out New Year's Eve party.