Page 2 of 2
Re: struggling
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:13 pm
by fh451
Give It Time wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:54 am
I didn't know religions were excluded. Good to know. Interestingly, I've been having some discussions about what is legal and what is ethicalI, lately. Igree with you. Just like it's legal to forcibly drag a paying customer off a flight, doesn't mean it's ethical and certainly doesn't win customers.
Yeah, legal vs. ethical/moral/good PR can make for vigorous debate. Some companies seem to think as long as it's legal, who cares? As far as the church and financial disclosure goes, they've set a tradition that is hard to break without looking bad. Up until sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s, the church actually did do full financial reports. But Henry Moyle (in the first presidency at the time) nearly bankrupted the church with his Field-of-Dreams-like "build it and they will come" programs, so they stopped reporting numbers when things went south. In the 70's N. Eldon Tanner turned things around and made the church into the financial juggernaut it remains today, but they never reversed the financial secrecy policy. While the church claims that this is due to what critics and "enemies" would do or say, they really have, IMO, the most to fear from the members.
fh451
Re: struggling
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:19 pm
by Give It Time
fh451 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:13 pm
Give It Time wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:54 am
I didn't know religions were excluded. Good to know. Interestingly, I've been having some discussions about what is legal and what is ethicalI, lately. Igree with you. Just like it's legal to forcibly drag a paying customer off a flight, doesn't mean it's ethical and certainly doesn't win customers.
Yeah, legal vs. ethical/moral/good PR can make for vigorous debate. Some companies seem to think as long as it's legal, who cares? As far as the church and financial disclosure goes, they've set a tradition that is hard to break without looking bad. Up until sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s, the church actually did do full financial reports. But Henry Moyle (in the first presidency at the time) nearly bankrupted the church with his Field-of-Dreams-like "build it and they will come" programs, so they stopped reporting numbers when things went south. In the 70's N. Eldon Tanner turned things around and made the church into the financial juggernaut it remains today, but they never reversed the financial secrecy policy. While the church claims that this is due to what critics and "enemies" would do or say, they really have, IMO, the most to fear from the members.
fh451
I agree. I keep silent on a lot of things because of critics, but I've found that by speaking, I'm able to show I'm not an evil person, I use logic that is relatble and sound. On balance I think speaking up has actually been better.