Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

CA Steve

Members
  • Posts

    2,919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CA Steve

  1. I wonder how much of that stereotype was/is a result of how absent bishops were/are from their families? It would not surprise me that the time demands of being a bishop have an impact on their families. I have lived in both Utah and California for decades at a time and in each state, I have seen a wide disparity in how local leadership runs at both a stake level and ward level.
  2. I am not asking about those who no longer believe in Mormonism as a religion but see themselves culturally as one, I am asking about those who reject what other Mormon's consider as core beliefs, can they still be considered religiously Mormon?
  3. Can a person claim to be Mormon who does not believe that the BoM is historical, or thinks current leadership is wrong about LGBT issues, or still believes polygamy should be practiced, or ...? For example, even though the current prophet has come out in opposition to the use of the term Mormon, I still consider myself a Mormon.
  4. We are kids in a sandbox discussing which toy is better, Barbie or Tonka trucks. If you somehow discovered that exalted beings have no interest in sex would you still want to be one? Why or why not?
  5. What moral system can justify bashing children's heads in to send a signal?
  6. My Hebrew is pretty bad. All I could make out on that tablet was "Levi was here".
  7. Wow, so since the money is not coming out of their pockets, they are not responsible for the decisions made under their stewardship? I am not sure you want to go there. The "no one is getting rich off of this" is a huge strawman. I don't think anyone believes leadership is motivated by personal gain. This was done to control members actions. So do you agree with it or not? You seem to keep dodging that question. I think it is clear the lying on the forms happened. In your mind are they alleged or not? I don't even know what to say here. At this point all we are doing is going in circles and you are doing anything you can to absolve leadership of direct involvement. I don't believe they are that incompetent and I don't believe multiple low level LDS fund managers would take it upon themselves over a period of years to lie on forms just to impress their bosses. I believe leadership knew that EP was were creating those holding companies for the purpose of hiding the information from members and that they knew that those fund managers were not managing any funds. Whether or not the SEC passes moral judgement on that or, how the settlement is worded is irrelevant to how I think members should view this deception. We were lied to with the purpose of hiding information from us.
  8. I don't believe they would lie to try and impress their bosses.
  9. Given the quality of the people the church hires, especially when it comes to integrity, I doubt this is even a consideration.
  10. Given that only the 1st presidency and presiding bishopric are aware of finances, "the church" in this case can only refer to those leaders. Do you think what happened is "alleged" or not? If not. then why use the term yourself? And my response was that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How do you find that relevant to what we are talking about? The SEC's lack of moralizing does not mean the church acted morally or not.
  11. I understood the fine was broken down into parts with 1 million leveled specifically at church leadership because they were aware of the failures. Calling them "alleged" is simply spin. It happened. And, I think the lack of moral judgement on the SEC's end is irrelevant.
  12. Wasn't leadership aware of that they were lying on the form? Wasn't that why the SEC fined leadership also?
  13. I don't get this. In order for them to think this was legal they would have to be really incompetent, consistently over a long period of time. Even then I think they would have to know they were lying. I see no indication the church hires anything but the best.
  14. Could it be that an angel with a flaming sword had to appear to the Ensign Peak employees to get them to falsify reports?
  15. I thought the 60 Minute piece said that the SEC contacted Nielsen.
  16. If he did that I would laud him and I think that would be a food thing. But I an skeptical as well. All Nielsen needs to do is promise to donate less than 1% of whatever the reward is and claim what he does with the rest is confidential and that should satisfy any criticism, right?
  17. Why does it have to be a cynical assessment? The likelihood here is he is motivated by a variety of reasons. He could very well believe he is exposing wrong doing and hope to profit by doing so.
  18. I think he said something about saving it for a rainy day.
  19. We should change our name to: "The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day J Sources."
  20. It is more than a bit ironic that Nielsen is being criticized for being in it "for the money" in a whistleblower case dealing with investment funds. But, I suppose, when all else fails, attack the person with inuendo and aspersions.
  21. Using the ark of the covenant as an example of what was hidden from the public is problematic in that originally it was not thought to contain the ten commandments nor hidden from view rather it was the footstool of a cult deity named Yahweh. It was viewed as his mobile shrine. And it was carried very publicly into the Israelite war camp in their battle against the Philistines. As Francesca Stavrakopoulou points out in her excellent book God: An Anatomy By the way, Francesca Stavrakopoulou was Dan McClellan's PhD advisor.
  22. It's always fun to watch Dan debate fundamentalist. We need more scholars like Dan in Mormonsim.
  23. So you can't show any beliefs? Let me help. Those are questions. Not statements of belief.
  24. Sounds like you are not reading for comprehension. What belief did I explicitly express in that post?
×
×
  • Create New...