Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

california boy

Contributor
  • Posts

    9,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. The problem you are having on this board is that you make assumptions and then consider those assumptions to be correct to the point where you ascribe your beliefs to God himself. For example, you said this. See how you change the IF statement to be one of fact and used God to assert that fact? There has been no revelation from God where God said that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry in the temple. If you got such a revelation, please quote it. Heck, if you have a revelation from God that says same sex relationships are a sin, then quote that one too. If you got a revelation from God saying that the Church should not recognize gay marriage, then hey quote that one too. Because all we have now is the personal opinion of fallible Church Leaders who have been dead wrong before about who should be allowed into the temple and marry and who should not. It is fine to have your own personal opinion on any doctrinal subject. It is quite wrong to assert your opinion is the same as God's when no such revelation has come. The Church has made that mistake over and over again. Can you see why people get annoyed at you for stating your own personal opinions and then ascribing those opinions as coming from God?
  2. Don't worry what Church leaders and others feel about who you should be with in this life. Find that man that you can love and hold dear to. Share a wonderful life with him. Grow and progress together. Share each others burdens. Experience love and joy. I would rather spend eternity in hell and be with the person I love than be in heaven married to a woman. It isn't even a hard choice. Besides, all the gays will be down there, and we will make it fabulous. We will have a community of love and caring for each other. Doesn't that sound more like heaven than being married to a woman for eternity? I couldn't even do it for a lifetime here on earth.
  3. I am curious. Did the missionaries tell you before you were baptized that you could never have any sexual relationship with a man? Never have any romantic relationship with a man? Never go on a date with a man? Never kiss a man? That by being baptized, the only way you could have a partner ever, both in this life and the next is with a woman?
  4. You do know your post as well as the one above is only going to be agreed to by those who already believe the SEC incident is like a traffic ticket right?
  5. Your response makes my point extremely well. While some see clear indication that managers were instructed to sign a form affirming that the form is accurate when they knew that wasn't the case, others see it as just a misunderstanding.
  6. After reading this thread, what I have become the most convinced about is that if Church leaders were caught red handed torturing puppies, there would be those defending the Church leaders coming up with excuses about how either it is not that big of deal, puppies get tortured every day. What are you expecting? Perfection in Church leaders? And there would be those calling for the death penalty for all Church leaders caught with puppy blood on their hands. Neither side would be able to see why the other side feels the way they do. So lets attack their character and motive for their position.
  7. Do you have a better term that you prefer to describe those members that will defend the Church no matter what it does?
  8. I get that you want to dismiss as much as possible. But you do realize this is exactly why the SEC fined the Church 5 million dollars right? It wasn't just about the location issue. The manager was signing the 13F form that was NOT "true, correct and complete". In fact, it was false.
  9. Interesting thoughts. I wonder if Church leaders thought they were hiding what they were doing from God. Kinda like Jonah thinking he could hide from God. I have to confess I am fascinated by what the TBM have to say and their thought process. I believe they are completely sincere in how they feel about this. I know how important the Church is in their lives and how important it is to believe.
  10. 52 pages and what I have learned is that those that love the Church, want to trust the leaders to always do the right thing either figure out a way to justify what was done, or pass it off as just a traffic ticket or forgive and move on. Pretty much the rest feel like what the Church leaders did was very serious, a complete breach of trust, immoral, or worse. For some it has caused them to question if they should ever assume they can trust the leadership again. For others, it reinforces their already loss of trust in the leaders of the Church from past issues. Whatever position people have, I doubt anything could be said to change anyone's mind. And I doubt that any future bad behavior will change anyone's mind no matter how bad or good.
  11. I think you are greatly exaggerating what people mean when asking for more transparency on financial matters.
  12. Ok. I can agree with this. I just see no evidence of mirroring since 2019 as being a big enough issue to use it as an excuse to hide the Church's assets into shell companies. From what I have read, the reasons for hiding assets have been pretty clearly revealed.
  13. Just curious why you didn't include the first part of my post which gives the actual reason for not finding any substance to your claim? Is it too hard for you to address? Here it is again in case you now want to address it.
  14. Sorry, I didn't see your first post. From what I am seeing and hearing is that the church's wealth is a problem among some of the membership. Not a problem for others. I don't think anyone has any data on what those numbers are. What has been documented is the exiting of a lot of members because of past hiding of information about the history of the Church and not presenting an honest narrative. Trust is a factor for a lot of people. That we know. I am not ever sure what percentage of the Church even knows how much wealth the Church has. This current exposure of how Church leaders hid that wealth from the members just happened. How it will affect those in the Church? Guess we will soon see. I know there is a variety of reasons for people leaving the Church. I think this will only add to those numbers.
  15. As I understand it, the Church's investment portfolio has now been made pubic since 2019. Have you seen wide spread issues with members knowing what stocks the Church owns? Is the problem bigger than the one the Church has created by hiding the true wealth of the Church? Or are some grasping at straws looking for any excuse it can come up with to rationalize the deception the Church was using to hide it's wealth from members. By putting out these baseless theories, it seems to me that it only exacerbates the problem. But as you say, to each his own i suppose.
  16. Thanks for your response. I think that helps me understand where you are coming from. And it seems to be working for you. Not sure if it works for everyone though. I think Pogi makes some very valid points in why this is such a problem for him. I think others also have very valid points why just excusing bad behavior once again by Church leaders is a problem. For me, it is just one of a series of mistrust issues. Some had very serious consequences on my life and my families. I realize now that I was very naive in having an expectation of honesty. But I was 20 at the time, and until that point in my life, they had never give me a reason not to trust them. I certainly would have gone a different route and never automatically given them my trust. Maybe this is all a good thing. Maybe making it perfectly clear that members should not trust Church leaders, but to rely more on their own personal relationship with God is what should be expected. Maybe all this publicity around how Church leaders put this scheme into place is a blunt reminder that not everything Church leaders do is in sync with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
  17. So you don't think that anything I wrote has any merit? You don't think that people struggle when Church leaders do this kind of thing? And if they do then they don't really have a testimony? Trying to understand why you wrote what you wrote and why you so easily dismiss the concerns that some are having over this and other past issue as not being valid concerns.
  18. I agree with what you wrote. It is not the role of the SEC to deal with the way members and others may feel about the reasons for the deceitful way the Church hid it's assets. The SEC's only interest is to get the Church into compliance. It is up to the Church to deal with the loss of trust that others have because of this incident. How the Church handles that loss of trust some feel is totally up to the Church. They may very well sweep it under the rug and never address it again. But make not mistake, how the Church handles itself will have a profound affect on some people who are no longer willing to give the Church blind loyalty it sometimes seems to demand when it makes these breaches of trust. Some people need at least an apology from the Church for their actions. Others will probably never accept any apology. They feel like they have forgiven the Church way too many times already for past bad behavior. I can tell you this. Those apologists who have defended the Church's actions to the extreme degree, not willing to even suggest that any wrong doing has occurred have not helped one iota those that feel a betrayal of trust. If anything, it has pushed them further down a rabbit hole.
  19. I don't think you are right. But I am not going to make this a thread about gay marriage.
  20. Maybe I am wrong. It was just a minor point that I thought might be relevant to the question being raised.
  21. I really applaud your Stake getting involved in the community. It doesn't happen enough with church organizations IMO. I think it is a big part of why so many are leaving organized religion. They aren't seeing enough of this kind of work being done. They only see the self interest that religion seems to be only interested in general these days. Actions like this could change a lot of hearts and minds, especially on a local level. I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am only saying that it doesn't happen enough. Good for you guys.
  22. I was refering not to the doctrine of it, but rather the fact that the Church did not act on becoming politically involved in gay marriage UNTIL it became legal in the U.S. Just because something is legal in other parts of the world, the Church seems, at times, to only start acting when it starts happening in the U.S. My only point.
  23. There were plenty of places where gay marriage was legal. Why did the Church decide to make such a heavy handed commitment to take away. that right from California gay couples?
  24. Yet you didn't know the basic difference between a civil case and a criminal case. You have been going on for literally pages about the Church being innocent until proven guilty. I think you even stated that it was a Constitutional right. In a civil case, that is not true. Something even I knew without being a lawyer Being a lawyer does not make you an expert on all legal matters any more than being an artist does not mean I am qualified to do restoration work on the Sistine Chapel. You might want to try and understand what Tribe is trying to tell you just a little more and stop having such a knee-jerk reaction to defend the Church at all costs making legal claims that are just not true. Do you know more about the law than I do? Yes of course you do. Do you know a lot about all the laws governing SEC issues? Probably not so much, yet you seem to be constantly speaking from a position of authority. ETA Looks like you have already admitted that you didn't know what you were talking about when ranting about the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. It is all I wanted to point out.
×
×
  • Create New...