secret combinations

[_Jersey Girl]

So harm,

What it looks like to me (and I'll admit that reading commentary like that makes me zone out) is that they were screwing up left and right for a period of years, and closed the books to "conceal" the screw ups.

It seems to me, that if a church (or other type of organization) wishes to build confidence in the minds of it's contributors, it would OPEN the books and make all business TRANSPARENT.

Not shouting, just too lazy to bold here and there.

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

So harm,

What it looks like to me (and I'll admit that reading commentary like that makes me zone out) is that they were screwing up left and right for a period of years, and closed the books to "conceal" the screw ups.

It seems to me, that if a church (or other type of organization) wishes to build confidence in the minds of it's contributors, it would OPEN the books and make all business TRANSPARENT.

Not shouting, just too lazy to bold here and there.

Jersey Girl

Well, the thing is... I think we're a lot more than solvent right now. I think the reason the books are still closed has more to do with wanting to keep secret things like who gets the contracts to build and renovate church buildings, how much we really spend on the Brethren's upkeep, how much we spend on lawsuits, and how little we spend on humanitarian aid or the real business of the church: missionary work and temples. I think we would all be surprised, and it wouldn't be a nice surprise either.

[_Yong Xi]

Well, the thing is... I think we're a lot more than solvent right now. I think the reason the books are still closed has more to do with wanting to keep secret things like who gets the contracts to build and renovate church buildings, how much we really spend on the Brethren's upkeep, how much we spend on lawsuits, and how little we spend on humanitarian aid or the real business of the church: missionary work and temples. I think we would all be surprised, and it wouldn't be a nice surprise either.

Here is the irony of the lack of financial disclosure. The Church's books are probably clean. Why shouldn't they be? Organizations only "cook the books" because of the requirement for financial disclosure (ie, hide problems, drive up stock price, etc.). Since that is not demanded of the Church, what need is there to play with the financial numbers?

I am not saying that there has not been impropriety. It would be a miracle if there has not been. Financial impropriety would be expected for an organization as large as the Church. It's just easy to keep it in the family.

Church leaders can spend money in any fashion they like. Who is going to tell them otherwise?

I think when it is said in General Conference that the church has received the approval of the church's auditor, the church is merely saying, "We know how much money came in and we know where it went."

I agree that members would be shocked to find out where money was spent. In particular, the amount spent on humanitarian aid as a percent of total revenues would shake some testimonies. I would like to see how the church's charitable contributions stack up against the world's wealthiest individuals such as Gates and Buffet. I don't think it is even remotely close.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Dr. Phil's statement applies to sex very nicely. There is nothing to hide about commited sex between consenting adults. Most people prefer to do it in PRIVATE, which is a good thing, in my opinion, but it's not done in SECRET, and I think you can tell the difference. Cheaters, rapists, pedophiles, et al., are the ones who hide their actions.

With the question of sex, the difference between privacy and secrecy is a distinction without a difference. This is another semantic circus.

Okay, you can't tell the difference. I will still assume that Nehor can until he says differently.

Any time anyone asks questions of the form "why would God etc.," red flags sprout up immediately because this is an indication that someone is trying to second guess God or, more precisely, put themselves in his place (which is all they can do intellectually) and tell us what they would or would not do if they were God. Of course, neither they nor I have the slightest understanding of why he does or would do any number of things he does or why he would require certain things of us. When he does require them, we an accept them and obtain the blessings predicated, or reject them and lose those blessings. As to the Temple, the reason the sacred things there are kept from the eyes of those who do not believe, do not understand, and do not respect them are, to me, no secret (and yes, the pun was intended).

You choose to believe that God requires these things, and you seem to think that it's the only obvious choice, but there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[

quote] But why would God be taking part in all this? What Coggins is finding difficult to comprehend is that the idea of a God who doesn't deal in secrets is totally logical and intelligent and embraced by more than one belief system.[/quot

Your tempting me to post here the plethora of verses from the Old Testament and New Testament in which I can clearly demonstrate that God does indeed, deal in secrets (except for those who are worthy to receive them) and expects his people to keep them as a matte of covenant relationship. But that would be a geat deal of work for little avail. What, by the way, did the Lord command his Apostles to do regarding the things he taught them on the Mount of Transfiguration?

I know what the Bible says. Men wrote the Bible and signed God's name to it, and their fingerprints are all over it -- every fear-based verse.

I accept the Bible where it says God is Love. I don't accept anything that conflicts with that statement.

[_Mercury]

I really would suggest that you not make another remark to me like that on this board. Consider this a warning shot.

Jersey Girl

I apologize, I can only plead that I was half-delirious due to not sleeping for over 24 hours. Sorry.

Don't apologise, she was not in the right to take your lighthearted comment and slap you with it. This is jerseys MO - take an opportunity to demean someone and run with it. Typical baptist/religionist control tactics. Sigh

Shes just mad that all her top staffers are getting raked over the coals at Nuremburg.

[_Jason Bourne]

Has anybody answered why the books were once open and then became secret???????

No, no one has answered that direct question but it seems to me based on some of harmony's comments that there was some sort of mishandling of funds going on and then the books were closed. I'd like to make sure that's an accurate statement.

If it is an accurate statement, I'd like to know how closing the book would be a preventive measure against future mishandling of funds.

Jersey Girl

In the late 1950's and early 60's the church was on a very ambitious building program. The member of the FP handling this over spent and put the church in the position of deficits a number of years in a row. Keep in mind these were annual deficits and meaning spending for that year exceeded income. At no time was the church insolvent due to this/ They could have liquidated assets had they needed to. But the deficit spending did cause concerns among the brethren and among the general membership. About this time the Church stopped publishing it financials. It is supposed that the deficit spending is what caused the leader to decide to do this. Pres. J. Reuben Clark was very much opposed to such an action. Never the less the financials have not been published since then.

Closing the books was not intended to prevent mishandlign of funds. Why would you think it that was a reason?

[_harmony]

In the late 1950's and early 60's the church was on a very ambitious building program. The member of the FP handling this over spent and put the church in the position of deficits a number of years in a row. Keep in mind these were annual deficits and meaning spending for that year exceeded income. At no time was the church insolvent due to this/ They could have liquidated assets had they needed to. But the deficit spending did cause concerns among the brethren and among the general membership. About this time the Church stopped publishing it financials. It is supposed that the deficit spending is what caused the leader to decide to do this. Pres. J. Reuben Clark was very much opposed to such an action. Never the less the financials have not been published since then.

Closing the books was not intended to prevent mishandlign of funds. Why would you think it that was a reason?

Closing the books would never prevent mishandling of funds. It might cover up such mishandling, but it would not prevent. If prevention is what is needed, then using external auditors would help.

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree that members would be shocked to find out where money was spent. In particular, the amount spent on humanitarian aid as a percent of total revenues would shake some testimonies. I would like to see how the church's charitable contributions stack up against the world's wealthiest individuals such as Gates and Buffet. I don't think it is even remotely close.

I am not sure comparing what the Church give is pure and simple human aid to what Gates and Buffet do is fair. The Church has to use a significant amount of its income on revenue consuming assets such as buildings and temples. The Church is a business in a way and thus a lot of its revenues have to go to operations. After that they can give aid.

[_Jason Bourne]

Closing the books would never prevent mishandling of funds. It might cover up such mishandling, but it would not prevent. If prevention is what is needed, then using external auditors would help.

I know. I was responding the JGs comment.