NOM

The DN's take on the leaks, which is an interesting one.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... cracy.html

I, of course, and many on here would have the opposite take - it is the financial secrecy that the church currently labours under that is bad for democracy (which the church isn't of course, it's not a democracy, it's the kingdom of God on the earth.) If they don't even let their shareholders know what's going on, how is the rest of the world going to trust a mega-church corporation? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and from what I see there are many who are starting to figure this out. Just check out the comments on this article. I may be naive, but isn't this a newspaper for church members? Then why are half the comments calling for more financial transparency from the church? Yowza. It would always amaze me how TBM's would give me investment advice of making sure that you do your research into a company, and then willingly give 10% of their income to a corporation that doens't disclose ANYTHING.

I never thought I would see the day where the church is getting hammered from all sides, especially as my formative years were under the media-savvy Hinckley machine, as they are now. And the only response they have is to hunker down and pretend all is well in Zion. Interesting, interesting times.

Mormorrisey wrote:(which the church isn't of course, it's not a democracy, it's the kingdom of God on the earth.)

Unfortunately for them they must exist within a democracy. If they want ensure financial opacity and tax exemption maybe they should use those tax exempt holdings to buy an island somewhere and declare themselves a sovereign nation.

Hagoth wrote:Unfortunately for them they must exist within a democracy. If they want ensure financial opacity and tax exemption maybe they should use those tax exempt holdings to buy an island somewhere and declare themselves a sovereign nation.

Not only existing within a democracy, but within a society with changing expectations and increasing distrust of institutions. People don't trust government or big businesses like they used to, and that distrust is rubbing off on churches (case in point, the Catholic church priest abuse scandal). We'll have to see to what extent members will continue to tolerate financial secrecy.

fh451

Ask your friends how they feel about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I'm guessing that your Democrat friends used to like him, but not so much since October. The Republicans in your life probably like him far more since October.

But then you might have LDS Republicans who may have liked wikileaks since October, but are quietly starting to lose sympathy for Julian Assange. This week Ryan McKnight showed up with a similar modus operandi and LDS support of keeping the secret in sacred has jumped. I'm not sure if the Democrats know what to do about this, but I doubt they are fans.

I have liked Julian Assange and Wikileaks for a long time since he has consistently been a thorn in the side of the ruling class however inconsistent his politics may or may not be. Ryan McKnight seems like he is cut from the same cloth and I expect a similar amount of facile scrutiny of his personal life. I admit that in my personal economic arrogance, an organization can either have tax exempt status or privacy. They don't get to enjoy both.

Interesting. Has the Deseret News ever had an editorial that mentioned wikileaks before this linked article?

If not, it's just a tiny bit "funny" that they don't care about leaks until the leaks have the potential to damage the beloved corporation that owns them.

Hagoth wrote:...maybe they should use those tax exempt holdings to buy an island somewhere and declare themselves a sovereign nation.

Fetch yes! In fact, they don't need an island, they could just buy a chunk of land up in Boxelder County. This guy bought 4 acres there and did it:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ounty.html

Welcome to Zionastan!

RubinHighlander wrote:

Hagoth wrote:...maybe they should use those tax exempt holdings to buy an island somewhere and declare themselves a sovereign nation.

Fetch yes! In fact, they don't need an island, they could just buy a chunk of land up in Boxelder County. This guy bought 4 acres there and did it:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ounty.html

Welcome to Zionastan!

Fun fact, they already tried to buy an island. Walter Murray Gibson was sent on a mission to the Hawaiian Islands by Brigham Young and was supposed to buy the island of Lanai as a gathering place for the Saints. Instead he took over and made himself “Chief President of the Islands of the Sea, and of the Hawaiian Islands, for the Church of Latter-day Saints.” The Saints had to select Laie on the island of Oahu as their gathering place when Gibson wouldn't give the island back, which is why the temple was built on Oahu and not Lanai. Gibson went on to become a wealthy man - but then so did Brigham Young. Don't believe me? It's on the Church website, scroll towards the bottom of the page:

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-histo ... d?lang=eng

"Fun fact, they already tried to buy an island. Walter Murray Gibson was sent on a mission to the Hawaiian Islands by Brigham Young and was supposed to buy the island of Lanai as a gathering place for the Saints. Instead he took over and made himself “Chief President of the Islands of the Sea, and of the Hawaiian Islands, for the Church of Latter-day Saints.” "


Hmmm. Yertle the Turtle. The "burp" is in the exposing. The king has not fallen, but I'm sure is feeling the vibrations.

I agree that the comments on the article are VERY telling....things are changing, and not in the church's favor. I know many of you say that Elder Eyring's (his was leaked right?) salary is modest. But it is just him and his wife & we all know he gets many other "perks." So I actually feel this comment is extremely relevant and telling. I think TBMs who are struggling to raise a family on less than the GAs make, while making big sacrifices to pay tithing are upset by this.

I paid tithing to the Church for several decades, and not once did the Church makes it finances available to me. It is unconscionable, in my view, for a Church to tell its members to tithe even if it means going hungry or skipping rent, and further telling the members that even the leaders serve without remuneration, when all the while the top Church leaders are in fact drawing a comfortable salary.

I have also read comments on other DN articles discussing the leaks asking why the top female leaders don't get paid. I have asked this on the (old) NOM board too. Even just typing this makes me angry--the general RS, YW, and Primary presidencies treat their callings as full time jobs, so why aren't they paid????

This Hitler movie clip has been refactored many times for various things and now...it's the Mormons turn!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJkB2CT ... e=youtu.be

I don't think Tommy knows what's going on anymore, let's put Oaks in Hitler's place, then it makes more sense.

The folks at Infants on Thrones have published an interview with the proprietors of MormonLeaks here: IOT - MormonLeaks. They said that the Deseret Snews offered to publish a rebuttal to their OpEd - not sure if it's been published yet or not. Also, there is supposed to be another leak coming out on Jan 16.

fh451