Court orders Mormon church to disclose financial records

[_asbestosman]

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!

I made judgment on that. I was only saying that the one is evidence that pressure brings change and the other is often purported to be such. My personal preference is to have no polygamy and also to allow the preisthood to go to anyone (including females--I always wanted visiting teachers ;) ).

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.

????
Not sure I understand what you mean.

Even Jesus knew there was more to life than just helping the poor. He was perfectly fine with having money spent on ointment for Him before His crucifixion instead of on the poor.

[_harmony]

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.

Temples, publishing, etc isn't what worries me. Shopping malls, apartment buildings, city parks, and edifices of glory (a.k.a., the Conference Center)... those bother me. The 3-fold mission of the church doesn't bother me. Spending church money on anything else (and all of that shopping mall list above) is inappropriate. And I want to know who gets the contracts, and how they're related to those who control the pursestrings.

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).

Less? LESS? Hell's bells! Less shopping malls! More welfare squares! Less money spent on trying to reconstruct society in their own image. More money spent on humanitarian aid!

[_asbestosman]

Less? LESS? Hell's bells! Less shopping malls! More welfare squares! Less money spent on trying to reconstruct society in their own image. More money spent on humanitarian aid!

Q.E.D.

[_harmony]

Less? LESS? Hell's bells! Less shopping malls! More welfare squares! Less money spent on trying to reconstruct society in their own image. More money spent on humanitarian aid!

Q.E.D.

Yeah, the idea of giving someone shelter and a meal is so much less holy than buying a shopping mall in downtown SLC. Right.

[_Mercury]

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).

I don't give a damn about what the hell they spend it on. At this point I do not contribute to the Mormon racket. They have been by to shake me down with kindness, pulling out the three big sucker shell games:

Temple Covenants
Eternal Families
the loss of a testiphony

These three things are paraded out among the exmo, showing truly the weapons the church uses at its core to blind and spite its fleeced flock.

In its entirety the LDS church does have lay clergy. Problem is, all the lay clergy brings in the money and the Mormon mafia get to decide who gets to spend it. A pittance goes to operational costs while the multi generational wealth behind the Mormon church is divided up amongst the small, exclusive clubhouse of the Mormon elite. Its right in front of your face carcinogen boy, pluck it and gain freedom from the shakedown you get every sunday telling you that those who pay the "god tax" so teh church will protect you. Get control of your life, and if you are a convert then get control back.

The point is that if you saw FOR A FINANCIAL FACT, something commonplace in every major church of this day you will find transparency. Its a wall at the bishops office and it does not yield. Hincley lies, literally and on recorded media. The Mormon corporation is about to lose its shirt in the mall hopefully and membership numbers are dwindling fast right about the time reliable information became highly available. At least jump ship man. Its the only way to retain your integrity.

I'm pulling for you, Jason and Nehor, though Nehors been reading too much Heinlein.

[_asbestosman]

Yeah, the idea of giving someone shelter and a meal is so much less holy than buying a shopping mall in downtown SLC. Right.

I never said otherwise. I only meant that your criticism is evidence to support my point that disclosing finances would hinder the church's goals. I happen to have a different view on the intent behind the shopping mall even though I too question the wisdom. I just question it for other reasons namely that I'm not sure how effective (or cost-effective) it will be at the desired goal of trying to keep the area arounds significant church buildings from deteriorating. I mean come on. Would you really like significant religious buildings righ in a red-light district as is the case in Amsterdam?

As for the rest of that debate, I currently have little desire for it. I only wanted to demonstrate that the church has an interest in keeping some financial information private and think you have helped me demonstrate said point.

[_asbestosman]

I'm pulling for you, Jason and Nehor, though Nehors been reading too much Heinlein.

What about Steuss, Cogs, and Gaz?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm pulling for you, Jason and Nehor, though Nehors been reading too much Heinlein.

What about Steuss, Cogs, and Gaz?

I'm pulling for them....and Liz and the rest of the gals too. ;)

[_asbestosman]

I'm pulling for them....and Liz and the rest of the gals too. ;)

Oh, now I see why you, a never-mo, is interested in Mormonism. With good ol' Mormonism you don't have to choose between them. ;)

[_Mercury]

I'm pulling for you, Jason and Nehor, though Nehors been reading too much Heinlein.

What about Steuss, Cogs, and Gaz?

Cogs is in too deep. Its kind of pathetic actually.

Steuss is a new addition to my !=s***list.sh shell program (that's right, a linux AND a math joke). I am indeed pulling for him too, especially sionce we have several similarities.

Gaz will forever be a chapel Mormon. The codes buried too deep in his brain for it to be purged. Maybe one day.