• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Oliblish

New Member
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Oliblish

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. If you are interested in learning more about the history of the Johnson amendment, there was a podcast on KUER Radio West on the subject: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/taxes-churches-and-political-game
  2. I remember these when I was younger. At the time families were assessed a ward budget contribution to help pay for the bills of running the ward. This was above and beyond tithing. You may be assessed $500 or some other amount determined by the bishop. At the end of the year there was a joint MP meeting in the chapel where they reviewed the ward budget on an overhead projector to see how money was spent and to make a budget for the next year. I remember the announcement where they did away with this because tithing funds reached the point where it was not necessary any more. It was kind of a big deal at the time. A quick google search shows that this was discontinued in 1989. http://lds-church-history.blogspot.com/2010/06/lds-history-oct-05-1989.html
  3. I think this happens a lot. We have had a very high number of missionaries returning early in my ward. (There were 5 in a row a couple of years back). I am in a big ward with high expectations of missionary service. We had more than 20 missionaries out during the surge. I feel that most missionaries that return early would have been better off not going in the first place. My son is mission age but I know he would not do well in a structured environment like a mission. I don't think he would survive the MTC. He hasn't been to church for several years and I think high pressure to go on a mission is part of the reason for that. I don't think leaders are pushing him any more, but all of his friends are now leaving on missions and I think they push more than the leaders ever did. I am leaving the decision up to him but I think he will be better off if he doesn't go.
  4. Any married couple can be separated at death whether they are sealed or not. If one spouse dies and the other lives, they are separated (until the other partner follows in death). I think that the understanding of most people have when they hear "till death do us part" at a wedding. I don't think most would understand it to mean that God prevents them from being together in the next life if they so choose.
  5. It looks like there is precedence for this.
  6. In the past young women have prepared and passed the sacrament in church. (I think the example I saw was back in the 1930's or You are right that the only thing that requires priesthood is saying the sacrament prayer.
  7. Actually that is the same: Transposition
  8. If you own CDs of the music you want to put on the player you can rip them to MP3 files on your computer. Last I checked Windows Media Player that is included in Windows had this capability.
  9. I wasn't trying to hornswoggle anything, I promise! I agree there is not a loss of members. But membership numbers don't mean much when activity rates are so low. What good is membership growth if fewer people show up to meetings than the previous year? I think it is much more important to know how many people actually attend meetings and participate. Someone who was baptized 30 years ago and came for 2 months but hasn't been back since probably doesn't even self identify as a member. I do believe that declining units correlates with declining numbers of active members. Why else would they shut down 53 wards and branches? A blog related to cumorah.com (from the OP) made a list of countries and estimated activity rates for a number of countries around the world. The data is old (2011) and I am not exactly sure how they came up with the numbers, but Chile, South Korea and Portugal are at the very bottom of the list at an estimated 12% activity rate: Estimated activity rates I believe part of the way they come up with these stats is to look at the number of members per unit. (total membership divided by the number of units in the country.) For South Korea it is 716 members per unit. So if 12% show up on any given Sunday, there would be an average attendance of 86 people per unit. Wards would be higher than that and branches lower. These numbers seem reasonable for South Korea.
  10. The problem in South Korea is much more than a low birth rate. It has some of the worst statistics as far as active membership numbers in the world (maybe Chile would beat them out). I think the best metric we have to track changes in the number of active members is to follow the number of wards and branches (units). In spite of having 4 missions in South Korea, they have shut down 53 units (from 175 to 122) since 1999. That is a 30% loss in 15 years. During the same period the population of the country has increased 10%. These statistics and the graph below are found at cumorah.com cumorah.com South Korea Stats
  11. As a payer of both tithing and FO what you are saying is pretty much meaningless to me. I am paying for the overhead and for the aid. You can say this about any charity: "If you exclude the amount that goes to overhead, 100% of the funds go to those in need." It is true, but the reasoning is circular and does not inform us of what the overhead costs are.
  12. There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization. The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free. There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund. The actual efficiency of the operation can only be calculated if if those overhead costs are known. I am not saying that there is fraud or even that the system is inefficient. We just don't know because they keep the numbers secret. There are some charities where a wealthy donor provides matching funds to other donors. I donated to one of these once to support the Japan tsunami disaster relief. I believe it was Steve Young who was making the matching donations. I think it was a good thing but I don't think you can argue that 200% of my donations go to the cause. If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need? In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need. It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.
  13. There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization. The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free. There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund. The actual efficiency of the operation can only be calculated if if those overhead costs are known. I am not saying that there is fraud or even that the system is inefficient. We just don't know because they keep the numbers secret. There are some charities where a wealthy donor provides matching funds to other donors. I donated to one of these once to support the Japan tsunami disaster relief. I believe it was Steve Young who was making the matching donations. I think it was a good thing but I don't think you can argue that 200% of my donations go to the cause. If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need? In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need. It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.