Court orders Mormon church to disclose financial records

[_Who Knows]

Ostlings opinion only. How the hell does he know this?

I guess I didn't pay enough attention. I thought someone from the church said that.

Yeah, that can't be the case.

[_Inconceivable]

Where does the line form?

I want a refund.

[_asbestosman]

That Stephen English quote is bizzare. It seems to me that the point of "free expression" is the freedom to get information into the public. Now the church wants to use that right to hide information? Bizzaro.

Actually there are times when the disclosure of information could greatly limit one's freedom. That's why we don't know everyone who works for the CIA, secret service, is an undercover cop, was a key witness at a trial.

So what would disclosed financial information cost the church in terms of freedom? Well, I suspect it may put undue pressure on the church to place more funds in projects that the public wants (pay for more welfare) than for what would further the church's goals (more temples, more translations of scriptures, etc). Then again, I don't know. Why else would the church want to hide the information? I truly suspect it's because people want the church to spend more resources supporting their particular cause over spreading the word or doing temple work for the dead (and living).

[_Mercury]

That Stephen English quote is bizzare. It seems to me that the point of "free expression" is the freedom to get information into the public. Now the church wants to use that right to hide information? Bizzaro.

The single biggest point I got out of this was the fact that hiding where the money goes is an operation OF the religion.

Maybe the Mob just needs to declare what they do to be religious so they can be protected. It works for MormonCorp.

Just thinking about this makes me sick.

[_Mercury]

That Stephen English quote is bizzare. It seems to me that the point of "free expression" is the freedom to get information into the public. Now the church wants to use that right to hide information? Bizzaro.

Actually there are times when the disclosure of information could greatly limit one's freedom. That's why we don't know everyone who works for the CIA, secret service, is an undercover cop, was a key witness at a trial.

So what would disclosed financial information cost the church in terms of freedom? Well, I suspect it may put undue pressure on the church to place more funds in projects that the public wants (pay for more welfare) than for what would further the church's goals (more temples, more translations of scriptures, etc). Then again, I don't know. Why else would the church want to hide the information? I truly suspect it's because people want the church to spend more resources supporting their particular cause over spreading the word or doing temple work for the dead (and living).

that's BS. The LDS corporation is not the CIA, FBI, etc although you believe them to be. The church does not have a right to do as they are doing and can only do so because its a private equity company. Your fantasy world where the church is exempt is spurred on by your religions grossly inflated sense of worth.

They are in effect claiming that financial obfuscation is a part of their religion, something that is laughable and legally speaking is farcical.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Hinckley made a public statement in February 2002 concerning who may see the financial records:

REPORTER: IN MY COUNTRY, THE…WE SAY THE PEOPLE'S CHURCHES, THE PROTESTANTS, THE CATHOLICS, THEY PUBLISH ALL THEIR BUDGETS, TO ALL THE PUBLIC.

HINCKLEY: YEAH. YEAH.

REPORTER: WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOUR CHURCH?

HINCKLEY: WELL, WE SIMPLY THINK THAT THE…THAT INFORMATION BELONGS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION, AND NOT TO THE WORLD. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. YES.

So which tithe payers on this board have see the financial records of LDS Inc?

Hinckley is a damn liar.

[_asbestosman]

that's BS. The LDS corporation is not the CIA, FBI, etc although you believe them to be. The church does not have a right to do as they are doing

The church has the legal right to do that. Now while many will argue that it doesn't have the moral right to do so, I still maintain that significant financial freedom would be lost if the public watched the books thinking that they'd rather have the church spend more $$$ on welfare and education than on temples, publishing, and other methods of spreading the word an fulfilling the 3-fold mission.

They are in effect claiming that financial obfuscation is a part of their religion, something that is laughable and legally speaking is farcical.

I don't think that's what they're claiming at all. I think the claim is that disclosing finances will be a hinderment to some of their freedoms--something I'm sure even you'll agree with. It then follows that with less freedom to do with the funds as they see best because there will be more pressure to focus on other things hence a hinderment to their religious expression (less temples and other things you consider worthless).

[_skippy the dead]

that's BS. The LDS corporation is not the CIA, FBI, etc although you believe them to be. The church does not have a right to do as they are doing

The church has the legal right to do that. Now while many will argue that it doesn't have the moral right to do so, I still maintain that significant financial freedom would be lost if the public watched the books thinking that they'd rather have the church spend more $$$ on welfare and education than on temples, publishing, and other methods of spreading the word an fulfilling the 3-fold mission.

They are in effect claiming that financial obfuscation is a part of their religion, something that is laughable and legally speaking is farcical.

I don't think that's what they're claiming at all. I think the claim is that disclosing finances will be a hinderment to some of their freedoms--something I'm sure even you'll agree with. It then follows that with less freedom to do with the funds as they see best because there will be more pressure to focus on other things hence a hinderment to their religious expression (less temples and other things you consider worthless).

You really think that a church, and in particular the LDS church, is beholding to the public as to how to spend funds? And that they wouldn't be able to practice their preferred religious practices if random people objected to how money was spent? People can object now, without even seeing the books (i.e., building malls, major temple building, little charity work). And what if people "pressure" the church to admit women to the priesthood. Does that mean that its freedom to exercise religion has been compromised? What about all the years where the church was pressured to give blacks the priesthood? Was it prohibited from practicing its preferred religion then?

C'mon, AB-man.

Your position is nothing less than absurd.

[_asbestosman]

You really think that a church, and in particular the LDS church, is beholding to the public as to how to spend funds? And that they wouldn't be able to practice their preferred religious practices if random people objected to how money was spent? People can object now, without even seeing the books (I.e., building malls, major temple building, little charity work). And what if people "pressure" the church to admit women to the priesthood. Does that mean that its freedom to exercise religion has been compromised? What about all the years where the church was pressured to give blacks the priesthood? Was it prohibited from practicing its preferred religion then?

C'mon, AB-man.

Your position is nothing less than absurd.

It worked for polygamy. There are also critics who claim that it happened with blacks and the priesthood too.

If the church got bad press from publishing percentage of funds donated to charity, would they change? I think they would and I don't think it'd benefit the 3-fold mission to have to make such a change.

[_Who Knows]

It worked for polygamy. There are also critics who claim that it happened with blacks and the priesthood too.

And such horrible things to have to give up!

If the church got bad press from publishing percentage of funds donated to charity, would they change? I think they would and I don't think it'd benefit the 3-fold mission to have to make such a change.

Sounds like you don't have much faith in Christ's (the leader right?) church.