I promise that this will be my last post on the OR sex abuse case, at least until some real steps forward have been taken and I can report on them here. But I was wondering that if the Church is willing to settle this lawsuit, how much should it be willing to offer to make this lawsuit (and the judicial order to reveal its financial information) disappear?
I'll be using a little tool called a decision tree, and if I was more proficient with MS Office, I could probably post a decision tree here. Needless to say, to come up with any definitive answer on what the maximum settlement the Church is willing to offer, I would need a lot more information. But these should provide some tools to analyze with.
So first, we assume that there are two options for the Church- 1) settle out of court OR 2) take it to trial. I think that the case against the Church is pretty weak here and that it will probably win its defense. However, there is always some chance that the judge or jury will rule against the Church even if the Church has the facts on its side. So let's assume that the Church has a 90% chance of success. If the expected value of losing is $45 million (the damages being asked for, probably should add attorney's fees, etc.) and the expected value of winning is $3 million (attorney's fees; note: THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION), that means the weighted average value of the option to take the case to trial is 3.6 million. So the Church should only be willing to give this as a maximum settlement value.
HOWEVER...there are some other key facts to point out. The chances of the Church's success may be overstated above. As the chances for success decrease, the settlement value will rise rapidly. Also, the Church obviously places some value on keeping its financial information secret, so this would increase the expected value of losing the lawsuit (maybe dramatically). I could be completely wrong about my estimate of the attorney's fees and other costs; I don't have any real empirical evidence to back that up. Chances are that the Church will be offering something much more than 3.6 million as a settlement. If so, it probably indicates that the Church thinks its chances are poor or really values its secrecy very highly.
29 July 2007
Interpreting the scriptures vs. likening them to ourselves
Over here, I asserted a difference between interpreting the scriptures and likening them to ourselves. I wanted to explore it a little more deeply in this post.
When we liken the scriptures, we are searching for a practical application of scriptural principles to our daily lives. (how many times have we heard this is SS?) Therefore, likening the scriptures ought to be a matter of purely personal interpretation. The Spirit guides an individual in their reading of the scriptures. Because we are looking for a present and modern application, there is no need to introduce details of language/culture/context et cetera into the study of the scriptures. All such readings are on equal footing. Because of this, one should not attempt to elevate his/her understanding to "doctrine"/"testimony"/"the one true and living meaning of X scripture". Any sharing of that understanding should be done with humility and a spirit of charity rather than of authority.
Interpreting the scriptures is another matter entirely. When we interpret, we want to know what the scripture says, if indeed a scripture can say or mean anything. Though some may discount its usefulness, I personally believe that their is a scriptural injunction to perform such analysis when Christ says to "Search the scriptures; for in them ye believe ye have eternal life" (paraphrased). Jesus was not asking them to find a practical application of the scriptures; rather he wanted them to know more about the doctrinal foundation of his role as the Messiah and Son of God. The authority to interpret the scriptures is much more narrow. The question of this authority is a vexed one, as I will explore in a future post about BYU. What is clear is that the prophets and apostles have it. What is not clear is who else might have it. Also, knowing what scriptures mean for those who are not prophets and apostles ought to be a matter of consulting context, culture, language, archaelogy, etc. If we want to teach an interpretation to others, it needs to have a solid rational footing in evidence, or either be the inspired pronouncement of one of the members of the highest quorums of the Church. I know that this sounds undemocratic and elitist (because few have the resources or education to pursue this kind of study) but I think that what most people call interpreting the scriptures is really likening them to ourselves, which is open to all. Most members are satisfied with this (whether or not they should be is another question).
Any opinions out there?
When we liken the scriptures, we are searching for a practical application of scriptural principles to our daily lives. (how many times have we heard this is SS?) Therefore, likening the scriptures ought to be a matter of purely personal interpretation. The Spirit guides an individual in their reading of the scriptures. Because we are looking for a present and modern application, there is no need to introduce details of language/culture/context et cetera into the study of the scriptures. All such readings are on equal footing. Because of this, one should not attempt to elevate his/her understanding to "doctrine"/"testimony"/"the one true and living meaning of X scripture". Any sharing of that understanding should be done with humility and a spirit of charity rather than of authority.
Interpreting the scriptures is another matter entirely. When we interpret, we want to know what the scripture says, if indeed a scripture can say or mean anything. Though some may discount its usefulness, I personally believe that their is a scriptural injunction to perform such analysis when Christ says to "Search the scriptures; for in them ye believe ye have eternal life" (paraphrased). Jesus was not asking them to find a practical application of the scriptures; rather he wanted them to know more about the doctrinal foundation of his role as the Messiah and Son of God. The authority to interpret the scriptures is much more narrow. The question of this authority is a vexed one, as I will explore in a future post about BYU. What is clear is that the prophets and apostles have it. What is not clear is who else might have it. Also, knowing what scriptures mean for those who are not prophets and apostles ought to be a matter of consulting context, culture, language, archaelogy, etc. If we want to teach an interpretation to others, it needs to have a solid rational footing in evidence, or either be the inspired pronouncement of one of the members of the highest quorums of the Church. I know that this sounds undemocratic and elitist (because few have the resources or education to pursue this kind of study) but I think that what most people call interpreting the scriptures is really likening them to ourselves, which is open to all. Most members are satisfied with this (whether or not they should be is another question).
Any opinions out there?
26 July 2007
Update on Church lawsuit in Oregon
See story here. Looks like the Church is going to go the settlement route, which was really predictable. But it appears that the plaintiff really wants to see the records. With the amount of money the Church will probably offer the guy, it will take someone really stubborn to stick out just to get those Church financials.
Approaching but never reaching...
Those who frequent the Bloggernacle are sure to have noticed various references to two recent press releases posted on the Church's official website (here and here), "Approaching Mormon History" and "Approaching Mormon Doctrine." I would like to post on the content of those statements at another time, but for now I am struck first by the manner in which they were released and second, by their titles.
I have heard pleased responses to the release of these statements both in personal conversations with other Latter-day Saints and in discussions on the Bloggernacle. I count myself among that group. I do appreciate it when the Church makes clear difficult issues. In some instances, we might prefer that things are left somewhat vague in order to provide us with "wiggle room." But in both instances, I think that these statements were needed for the membership's own benefit.
I was intrigued to see that the Church chose to release them through the official Church website. To my knowledge, they were not read in sacrament meeting like other official Church correspondence and they have not (yet) been published in the Ensign, which carries most other official Church news. I am unaware whether they have been published in the weekly Church News. What a remarkable development if they have only been released through the website. Is the audience really the press? Or does the Church know that the official website gets so much use and scrutiny by members that it feels that such a location is ideal and/or sufficient? I checked briefly and discovered that it is not available in other languages or on the web pages for other countries that may be accessed through the LDS.org portal. I am concerned that it may only be intended for the Church "literati" and those who typically follow such things, and completely inapplicable to the average member of the Church (who may not speak English or visit the Church website with any frequency). It could be some kind of test run and will be published more broadly in the future. Are we being subtly encouraged to submit comments and reactions? I appreciate the Church throwing the Internet generation and the Bloggernacle a bone here. But it raises as many questions as it answers.
Moving on to the titles, I am struck immediately by two features. First, the use of "Mormon" rather than "Latter-day Saint." This use of a colloquialism (which the Church has previously (but mildly) disclaimed its use here. This seems to me another point in favor of reading this as being a release simply for the media and not for general Church membership. However, I think that most Church members have never stopped calling themselves Mormons anyway; at least I never have. The second thing is the use of the word "Approaching" in the title. To those of a post-modern bent, this seems to indicate that we can approach Mormon doctrine and Mormon history but never actually reach a true understanding of it. My impression has always been that the Church was hostile to post-modernism (perhaps unjustifiably). Mormons have always been proud of their free agency and past Church leaders (Joseph Smith and David O. McKay in particular) have rejoiced in their freedom to believe as they wished. Among the general membership, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on orthodoxy and setting down the "correct version" of Mormon doctrine (probably an outgrowth of Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith's tenure in the Quorum of the Twelve). Should I perceive some shift? I am not sure how I feel about the GAs ending vague signals through Internet press releases, but I may be reading too much into it in the first place.
Then again, perhaps very little thought went into choosing the titles and they were simply looking for something that sounded nice and catchy. I will admit that it is an equal if not greater possibility.
I have heard pleased responses to the release of these statements both in personal conversations with other Latter-day Saints and in discussions on the Bloggernacle. I count myself among that group. I do appreciate it when the Church makes clear difficult issues. In some instances, we might prefer that things are left somewhat vague in order to provide us with "wiggle room." But in both instances, I think that these statements were needed for the membership's own benefit.
I was intrigued to see that the Church chose to release them through the official Church website. To my knowledge, they were not read in sacrament meeting like other official Church correspondence and they have not (yet) been published in the Ensign, which carries most other official Church news. I am unaware whether they have been published in the weekly Church News. What a remarkable development if they have only been released through the website. Is the audience really the press? Or does the Church know that the official website gets so much use and scrutiny by members that it feels that such a location is ideal and/or sufficient? I checked briefly and discovered that it is not available in other languages or on the web pages for other countries that may be accessed through the LDS.org portal. I am concerned that it may only be intended for the Church "literati" and those who typically follow such things, and completely inapplicable to the average member of the Church (who may not speak English or visit the Church website with any frequency). It could be some kind of test run and will be published more broadly in the future. Are we being subtly encouraged to submit comments and reactions? I appreciate the Church throwing the Internet generation and the Bloggernacle a bone here. But it raises as many questions as it answers.
Moving on to the titles, I am struck immediately by two features. First, the use of "Mormon" rather than "Latter-day Saint." This use of a colloquialism (which the Church has previously (but mildly) disclaimed its use here. This seems to me another point in favor of reading this as being a release simply for the media and not for general Church membership. However, I think that most Church members have never stopped calling themselves Mormons anyway; at least I never have. The second thing is the use of the word "Approaching" in the title. To those of a post-modern bent, this seems to indicate that we can approach Mormon doctrine and Mormon history but never actually reach a true understanding of it. My impression has always been that the Church was hostile to post-modernism (perhaps unjustifiably). Mormons have always been proud of their free agency and past Church leaders (Joseph Smith and David O. McKay in particular) have rejoiced in their freedom to believe as they wished. Among the general membership, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on orthodoxy and setting down the "correct version" of Mormon doctrine (probably an outgrowth of Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith's tenure in the Quorum of the Twelve). Should I perceive some shift? I am not sure how I feel about the GAs ending vague signals through Internet press releases, but I may be reading too much into it in the first place.
Then again, perhaps very little thought went into choosing the titles and they were simply looking for something that sounded nice and catchy. I will admit that it is an equal if not greater possibility.
Humane General Authorities ???
I wish I had the references on hand, but over the past couple of weeks I have seen this adjective appear in several discussions of various Apostles and other leaders of the Church--humane.
What does this mean? Clearly, humane means the following (according to the American Heritage Dictionary-1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion; 2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education.). But does it imply that there are other GAs who are inhumane? Who are they?
What does this mean? Clearly, humane means the following (according to the American Heritage Dictionary-1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion; 2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education.). But does it imply that there are other GAs who are inhumane? Who are they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)