Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[ERCougar]

In the end, good seems to be coming out of it. The new procedures will help prevent what happened or at least prevent it from happening as often.

Society is slowing awakening to the frequency of the abuse situations. I thought we learned something in the 80s, but apparently that was the tip of the iceberg. Society may go too far and ignore rights of those accused, but ultimately a zero tolerance attitude is shaping up.

The Bishop situation is tragic, and a corporation will use its legal advantages to minimize exposure. The Board of Trustees have a fiduciary duty of loyalty, due care and obedience to ensure the assets of the corporation are preserved and dedicated to its charitable purpose. Many of these people are former lawyers and will think in these terms. It should come as no surprise that corporate Mormonism reacts in a corporate manner. It also allows the Corporation to negotiate from a position of legal strength, even if it is not negotiating from a position of PR strength. Seattle Ute would do what he could to destroy the Defendant, as would Funk.

Ok, I can see that as a guiding ethic. I'm not as sold as I used to be on the idea of either ends justifying means, or that corporate representatives' (of any kind--Boards to attorneys) highest ethical duty is to the survival and well-being of the corporation. I know neither of those questions are clear cut, but I do fall more on the anti-corporate side than I used to. I think both standards have been used to justify really bad things, historically. It's an interesting ethical question, at the very least.

[MartyFunkhouser]

In the end, good seems to be coming out of it. The new procedures will help prevent what happened or at least prevent it from happening as often.

Society is slowing awakening to the frequency of the abuse situations. I thought we learned something in the 80s, but apparently that was the tip of the iceberg. Society may go too far and ignore rights of those accused, but ultimately a zero tolerance attitude is shaping up.

The Bishop situation is tragic, and a corporation will use its legal advantages to minimize exposure. The Board of Trustees have a fiduciary duty of loyalty, due care and obedience to ensure the assets of the corporation are preserved and dedicated to its charitable purpose. Many of these people are former lawyers and will think in these terms. It should come as no surprise that corporate Mormonism reacts in a corporate manner. It also allows the Corporation to negotiate from a position of legal strength, even if it is not negotiating from a position of PR strength. Seattle Ute would do what he could to destroy the Defendant, as would Funk.

This is all true. The reason for criticism though is the church puts out a public persona that it doesn't act like a business and that it is a church. It is business and its financial interests are first and foremost.

[tooblue]

This is all true. The reason for criticism though is the church puts out a public persona that it doesn't act like a business and that it is a church. It is business and its financial interests are first and foremost.

Not sure you are aware of this, but the church is both a religious institution and a business. So, ya it protects the business side in order to ensure it's faith motivated charitable actions are continually possible.

[Bo Diddley]

This is all true. The reason for criticism though is the church puts out a public persona that it doesn't act like a business and that it is a church. It is business and its financial interests are first and foremost.

Yeah, those fat cats are living it up!

[tooblue]

Yeah, those fat cats are living it up!

I'm woke to those Toyota Avalons

[creekster]

This is all true. The reason for criticism though is the church puts out a public persona that it doesn't act like a business and that it is a church. It is business and its financial interests are first and foremost.

You can not be (and in fact I am quite certain you are not) that naïve. And, as I think you said earlier, this isnt the church putting its financial interests "first and foremost." In fact, I would be disappointed if the church paid every claim made by anyone without rather strict due diligence. If they did, there would be no church.

[ByronMarchant]

The Bishop situation is tragic, and a corporation will use its legal advantages to minimize exposure. The Board of Trustees have a fiduciary duty of loyalty, due care and obedience to ensure the assets of the corporation are preserved and dedicated to its charitable purpose. Many of these people are former lawyers and will think in these terms. It should come as no surprise that corporate Mormonism reacts in a corporate manner. It also allows the Corporation to negotiate from a position of legal strength, even if it is not negotiating from a position of PR strength. Seattle Ute would do what he could to destroy the Defendant, as would Funk.

This is a very honest post.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You can not be (and in fact I am quite certain you are not) that naïve. And, as I think you said earlier, this isnt the church putting its financial interests "first and foremost." In fact, I would be disappointed if the church paid every claim made by anyone without rather strict due diligence. If they did, there would be no church.

Actually, I think he can be that naive. Pretty solid body of evidence at this point.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Actually, I think he can be that naive. Pretty solid body of evidence at this point.

Dear Dude,

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

Marty

[Jeff Lebowski]

Dear Dude,

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

Marty

Funk, you can't be both bombastic/hyperbolic and thin-skinned at the same time. It's against the rules.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Funk, you can't be both bombastic/hyperbolic and thin-skinned at the same time. It's against the rules.

Not being thin skinned, a fuck you was warranted there. We can move on now.

[Green Monstah]

This thread has killed off Wuap and SIEQ. If it exterminates the Dude/Funkhouser lunch plans, the site may need to be shut down.

[Surfah]

Not being thin skinned, a fuck you was warranted there. We can move on now.

So no lunch now?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not being thin skinned, a fuck you was warranted there. We can move on now.

Fair enough.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So no lunch now?

Hey, come on. We have moved on!

[MartyFunkhouser]

So no lunch now?

I'd still grab lunch with the Dude.

The list of people that I won't get lunch with is still just falafel and old_gregg.

[Pelado]

I'd still grab lunch with the Dude.

The list of people that I won't get lunch with is still just falafel and old_gregg.

You know that going to lunch with falafel doesn't necessarily mean that you have to order falafels, right?

[MartyFunkhouser]

You know that going to lunch with falafel doesn't necessarily mean that you have to order falafels, right?

Falafel is delicious, I would happily eat one for lunch.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The church vs. business issue that vexes Funk and others probably began around 70 years ago. When I was a kid, I remember my dad talking about how the Church's financial position had recently been very precarious, with insolvency being a latter-day existential threat. People like N. Eldon Tanner (and, if I remember correctly, Thorpe B. Isaacson) were brought in for the primary purpose of getting the Church on a strong financial footing to ensure that the Church's spiritual and charitable objectives could be achieved. Reasonable minds may argue about whether too much attention and resources are allocated to the business side of things, but I appreciate its critical importance.

And although it hasn't been mentioned recently, I'll re-emphasize that the notion that the Brethren's focus on the Church's financial success is motivated, even in part, by personal financial gain is absolutely ludicrous. I continue to marvel at how those serving in the highest ranks do so at considerable financial sacrifice.

[Green Monstah]

Falafel is delicious, I would happily eat one for lunch.

Pretty sure he's not 'bout that life.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The church vs. business issue that vexes Funk and others probably began around 70 years ago. When I was a kid, I remember my dad talking about how the Church's financial position had recently been very precarious, with insolvency being a latter-day existential threat. People like N. Eldon Tanner (and, if I remember correctly, Thorpe B. Isaacson) were brought in for the primary purpose of getting the Church on a strong financial footing to ensure that the Church's spiritual and charitable objectives could be achieved. Reasonable minds may argue about whether too much attention and resources are allocated to the business side of things, but I appreciate its critical importance.

And although it hasn't been mentioned recently, I'll re-emphasize that the notion that the Brethren's focus on the Church's financial success is motivated, even in part, by personal financial gain is absolutely ludicrous. I continue to marvel at how those serving in the highest ranks do so at considerable financial sacrifice.

This is correct. In the Prince bio on David O. McKay, he said that the church went on a massive building spree (1950's?) and the people in charge weren't following the books very carefully and the church almost went bankrupt. Substantial changes were made in response.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The church vs. business issue that vexes Funk and others probably began around 70 years ago. When I was a kid, I remember my dad talking about how the Church's financial position had recently been very precarious, with insolvency being a latter-day existential threat. People like N. Eldon Tanner (and, if I remember correctly, Thorpe B. Isaacson) were brought in for the primary purpose of getting the Church on a strong financial footing to ensure that the Church's spiritual and charitable objectives could be achieved. Reasonable minds may argue about whether too much attention and resources are allocated to the business side of things, but I appreciate its critical importance.

And although it hasn't been mentioned recently, I'll re-emphasize that the notion that the Brethren's focus on the Church's financial success is motivated, even in part, by personal financial gain is absolutely ludicrous. I continue to marvel at how those serving in the highest ranks do so at considerable financial sacrifice.

I don't think the vast majority of the general authorities and apostles focus on the church's financial success is motivated by personal financial gain. I agree most serve at personal sacrifice to themselves.

[Topper]

The church vs. business issue that vexes Funk and others probably began around 70 years ago. When I was a kid, I remember my dad talking about how the Church's financial position had recently been very precarious, with insolvency being a latter-day existential threat. People like N. Eldon Tanner (and, if I remember correctly, Thorpe B. Isaacson) were brought in for the primary purpose of getting the Church on a strong financial footing to ensure that the Church's spiritual and charitable objectives could be achieved. Reasonable minds may argue about whether too much attention and resources are allocated to the business side of things, but I appreciate its critical importance.

And although it hasn't been mentioned recently, I'll re-emphasize that the notion that the Brethren's focus on the Church's financial success is motivated, even in part, by personal financial gain is absolutely ludicrous. I continue to marvel at how those serving in the highest ranks do so at considerable financial sacrifice.

I know very few of them, but from a limited perspective, it seems they are working at a sacrifice to themselves. And one would not expect them to function in their legal capacities in a naive manner, ignorant of their fiduciary duties as directors and trustees.

Perhaps an analogy. Many people wish countries would behave nicely, but countries unlike individuals behave in a manner to protect their perceived best interests, including fighting wars, spying on people, stealing information, playing shadow politics and all sorts of things deemed necessary for the benefit of a nation. I have argued it is naive to expect nations to behave like people. At a much small level, it is naive to expect corporations to behave like people. These are organisms with unique purposes and self-preservation of the organism is one of the primary functions of the leaders and managers. This may be taken to an extreme at times but to expect anything else is naive.

[Solon]

I'd still grab lunch with the Dude.

The list of people that I won't get lunch with is still just falafel and old_gregg.

I would commit unspeakable acts to have lunch with falafel and/or old_gregg.

This thread has potential but it's kind of been a bust so far.
The discussions on the nature of God and the problem of evil way back made me shake my head a little, though.
I don't think anybody should form a strong opinion on the attributes of God and the existence of evil unless he/she has spent a few years in the desert living with jackals and reading Augustine's Confessions.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would commit unspeakable acts to have lunch with falafel and/or old_gregg.

This thread has potential but it's kind of been a bust so far.

Enlighten us, brother Solon!

The discussions on the nature of God and the problem of evil way back made me shake my head a little, though.
I don't think anybody should form a strong opinion on the attributes of God and the existence of evil unless he/she has spent a few years in the desert living with jackals and reading Augustine's Confessions.

Yikes. Pass.

[Topper]

I would commit unspeakable acts to have lunch with falafel and/or old_gregg.

This thread has potential but it's kind of been a bust so far.
The discussions on the nature of God and the problem of evil way back made me shake my head a little, though.
I don't think anybody should form a strong opinion on the attributes of God and the existence of evil unless he/she has spent a few years in the desert living with jackals and reading Augustine's Confessions.

Unspeakable. You jackal.

[old_gregg]

I would commit unspeakable acts to have lunch with falafel and/or old_gregg.

This thread has potential but it's kind of been a bust so far.
The discussions on the nature of God and the problem of evil way back made me shake my head a little, though.
I don't think anybody should form a strong opinion on the attributes of God and the existence of evil unless he/she has spent a few years in the desert living with jackals and reading Augustine's Confessions.

usually the unspeakable acts come after lunch

[Bo Diddley]

I would commit unspeakable acts to have lunch with falafel and/or old_gregg.

This thread has potential but it's kind of been a bust so far.
The discussions on the nature of God and the problem of evil way back made me shake my head a little, though.
I don't think anybody should form a strong opinion on the attributes of God and the existence of evil unless he/she has spent a few years in the desert living with jackals and reading Augustine's Confessions.

[Pelado]

I would commit unspeakable acts to have lunch with falafel and/or old_gregg.

This thread has potential but it's kind of been a bust so far.
The discussions on the nature of God and the problem of evil way back made me shake my head a little, though.
I don't think anybody should form a strong opinion on the attributes of God and the existence of evil unless he/she has spent a few years in the desert living with jackals and reading Augustine's Confessions.

Sounds like many of our Vegas brethren could qualify.

[Topper]

Sounds like many of our Vegas brethren could qualify.

What's wrong with a few jackals? You got some problem with that?!