Ahab

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, you didn't answer my question - why is your 'True Believer' status more valid than theirs?

Because, in his perspective, and mine, our beliefs are more true/valid than theirs.  You've heard from us how long? and could not figure out what we would say to that question?

Here is another good one

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It was an offhand reference to a perception rather than a statement to be evaluated by a trier-of-fact.

Ah, you mean that since you see the names of General Authorities on books for sale and people buy them, apparently people are buying those books because it appears that Generally Authorities wrote them.

I've wondered about that before.  I wonder if book publishers approach them and ask them if they can print what they have said in the past, as a way to make something to sell.   No good reason any GA should say no to that.  

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are using “victimhood outrages” - Guy insisting we will soon all be jailed over pronouns based on manipulated stories.

Irony is dead. On the bright side Jim Crow is making a comeback so maybe your tactics can work.

Irony is actually not dead although some people may think it may be.  Every person on this planet is simply sharing what they think and how they feel.  Even the people who think what they say should be taken seriously.

It's things like this that help to make being alive a good thing.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it is the direction you are shelling it out that might need some modifying. 

Nah.  If you feel comfortable saying things like that to me then I think I am doing okay to say what I say. Just sharing what I think and how I think as honestly as I know how.

3 minutes ago, longview said:

Happy continues to try browbeat you into submission.  He and others are using shaming, peer pressure, victimhood outrages, contempt, and a whole array of propaganda tools of the left against any that refuse to "knuckle under" or capitulate.

Oh really.  I thought maybe but then I thought, nah, he's just telling me what he thinks.  People do that, you know.  They just say what they think and how they feel.  Doesn't mean they're trying to get us to think what they think, I don't think.  Just understand them.

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Developing some empathy is a sign of strength.

Oh I have tons already.  How much do we need?

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hate to break it to you but what you are saying sounds quite hostile.

For individuals who are transgender this is a big and important deal. Can you imagine what it might feel like if you were transgender and then heard people referring to it as "silliness, stupid and pathetic"? 

Okay, I tried the not tell you approach but now I feel like I want to tell you.

If I was a man, which I am, but I thought I was a woman, which I am not, and I heard people referring to this conundrum as "silliness, stupid, and pathetic" I would give it some serious consideration and then I would decide how I thought I should feel.

...

and now after giving it some serious consideration I think I might feel silly.

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's on the bottom of the virtual slip also.

A virtual slip.  Interesting.  It's been a while since I have donated online because my wife usually takes care of that for us.  Even though I am the professional accountant in our family.

8 minutes ago, longview said:

You sound coercive.

Only if he was persuasive.  I see him as just another person sharing his own perspective, right or wrong.  And I recognize the fact that we are all entitled to our own opinions and perspectives.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hate to break it to you but what you are saying sounds quite hostile.

For individuals who are transgender this is a big and important deal. Can you imagine what it might feel like if you were transgender and then heard people referring to it as "silliness, stupid and pathetic"? 

Sometimes maybe it is better not to tell others how I really feel, or how you really feel, or what you think, or how you see things.  Keeping one's own thoughts to one's self, and God, and maybe sometimes a spouse.

Would that make you feel better?  Would you rather just not know how I feel or what I think when I think of a man who wants to be called a woman, or a woman wants to be called a man?

I am not going to change how I feel or what I think just because someone else doesn't like what I feel or think.  My mind would be flip-flopping all over the place if I tried to do that, because we are not all in agreement and we still wouldn't be even if all of us kept changing our minds depending on who we are talking to at a particular moment.  So I just stick with what I know and what I think and how I feel, depending on God for my guidance while sometimes, a lot of the time actually, talking things out with my spouse.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect DB is very good at knowing how to package books to sell, so it may depend on how willing the GA author is to go along with the editor, etc. 

Yes, and the books Deseret Books or any other publisher sells brings in money for the publisher and publishing company as well as money for the person(s) providing the source material.

So it's basically providing an income to others, like any employer does when paying people to do a job.  One of the best things about being an employer, in my perspective.  Doing something to provide an income for others.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Your integrity is inspiring.

It actually sounds like you're just trying to be openly hostile because you don't understand transgender people and you're afraid of what you don't understand so you have to show how tough and masculine you are. If you feel that's necessary, go for it  

I am not hostile but I do not like all of this type of silliness in this world.  Silliness that isn't funny, anymore, even though at one time I thought it was or could be.  Now I see it as the stupid and pathetic silliness that it is.  And this is just me being honest.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes. I would. If a transgender person asks me to call them by a certain pronoun I will do my best to do that. Why? Because it would be totally rude and hostile to call him something she doesn't like. 

Even though I may not fully understand what it means or how it feels to be transgender, I would do my best to help that person feel accepted and respected.

The question is, why wouldn't you? What do you gain by refusing to call the person by their preferred pronoun? 

I already told you why I wouldn't call a man a woman.  Because a man is not a woman.  And transgender is a made-up word for a man who thinks he is a woman or a woman who thinks she is a man.

By calling a man a man and a woman a woman I keep my own integrity in tact rather than bending to the will of other people who want me to go against what I know is right by calling things that are what they are not..

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why is he refusing to call people by their requested pronouns? Is there a good reason or is he just a jerk?

Would you call a man a woman just because that man told you he wanted to be called a woman, and treated as a woman, and have you think of him as a woman, even when he clearly is not a woman?

Neh.  Scratch that.  You probably would, cream puff that you are.  But I wouldn't because a man is not a woman even if he thinks he is.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In the LDS church priestcraft is about much more than preaching false doctrines. It is generally considered to be priestcraft if a person profits from selling the gospel. There are many people who write religious books, but it does tend to go a step farther when individuals who hold official office in the church benefit from that notoriety in the sale of their wares.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism...

For example, if a prophet, seer and revelator gives a talk in general conference in his official capacity and then repackages the talk and sells it for money (which is essentially what a lot of these books are), that could rightly (IMO) be considered priestcraft. The statement above uses a semi-colon and then state "but they seek not the welfare of Zion". To me, that adds confusion because whether or not something is priestcraft depends on the intent of the individual. Are they doing it to make money or are they doing it for the welfare of Zion and money just happens to be a biproduct? On the other hand, if the individual were to donate all earnings from these books back to the church I don't think that could be considered priestcraft UNLESS the person is publishing books to become popular. Paul H Dunn comes to mind as someone who might face that criticism, but there are certainly others.

The main problem with priestcraft is people selling themselves as the light others should follow, rather than pointing to Jesus Christ as the light we all should follow.  And some people who preach about Jesus Christ are not preaching the truth about him, preaching instead a lot of false information about him which those preachers think is true, but isn't.  Doing that for any reason is not a good thing to do, whether that preaching brings in some money or not.  So it's not only about intent but about what people are preaching about.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Umm no not 18 Million .about 35% of that are actual believers.

That doesn't matter.  All Church money and property belongs to all of the members, whether active or inactive or less active than some others as members.  And we even share it with others who are not members.  Generous, we are.  Truly, truly.

22 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip will protect the church.

"Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

It wasn't always there. Does anybody know when it was added to the slip?

Slip?!?  You use a slip?!?  We don't need no stinkin' slips!!  And yes when you donate your money it is no longer your money to do anything with!!

Ah, but then again, we are the Church, so when we give to the Church we are giving to all of us who our members, including ourselves.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

$100 Billion plus all the other assets is filthy rich. The wealthiest people in the world are in this range.  The Church has about as much in easily liquid assets as Apple. So yea. RICH.

The Church is a conglomerate of about 18 million people today, I think, and that works out to about $5,555 per person.  I know some of us have some cars and some boats and some houses and other stuff, but rich? 

Neh.  Not until we have about $1 million per person will I consider us to be rich.. regarding finances.

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Or perhaps someday, sooner or later, the discretionary powers are used in a corrupt manner by someone with access. It doesn't have to be someone who is called to leadership, just someone with access. Transparency helps to prevent such things.

Those at the top of the chain of command can see what is going on at every level.  Those at or near the bottom don't need to see as much or even at all for the people at the top to still be able to see all that they see. 

What I see looks like a lot of complaining from people at or near the bottom.  And I can also see that the people at the top are doing a good job.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I believe that consolidated financial statements of the entire church, including all assets and corporate holdings, should be publicly available. I believe that about all churches and non-profits that solicit donations or receive tax breaks.

We don't really solicit for funds.  That stopped when we ended our association with the Boy Scouts as friends of scouting.  Now we just tell outsiders that our Lord has commanded us to pay tithes and help to support the poor and the needy, and the latter can be done without giving money.  So you won't see any of us knocking on your door to ask for money.  Except for those of us who are also Girl Scouts trying to sell cookies.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I am also in favor of using best practices in preparing those statements, including whatever confidentiality rules that would be applicable.

I am okay with that too.

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, geez!  Let's not make this yet another thread in the Gender Wars!  Anyone who wants to do that is welcome to start another thread.

Eh, more like a spat than a war but if you don't want in on it then I will not force you into it.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For future reference and to clarify for those who are confused, and so you don't have to put in the "I know I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm going to say it anyway" speel in other posts:

• A man trying to speak about/lecture on the experiences of women = gender related pushback.
• A man disagreeing with a woman on paying tithing (or any other issue that has nothing to do with gender experiences) = no gender related pushback.

Not clear enough for someone like me.  Are you talking about how neither sex should presume to speak/lecture about what it is like to be the opposite sex?  Something neither sex should claim to know because we are only the sex we are and not both?

Well, aside from considering our chromosomes, I tend to agree with that statement regarding women.  I don't know what it feels like to have only 2 X chromosomes but I do know what it is like to have both an X and a Y.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For some. And for others it crushes faith.

No, not knowing how much money the Church has doesn't do that.

Quote

Did you see Anylytics statement about how Q15 aren't allowed access to seeing balance sheets?

Yes, did you see my response? 

It is considered a temporal (not spiritual) concern so the Presiding Bishop of the Church has that responsibility under the direction of the First Presidency.  The Quorum of Twelve Apostles are more concerned with spiritual matters.

Quote

How does that fit in with your view of the inspirational use of available funds?

Our Lord is on record as telling his apostles to basically not worry about money.  That he and God our Father and others would provide for their needs as they went out on his mission to help others.  

We, on the other hand, are commanded to pay tithes and give offerings, such as fast offerings and humanitarian aid.  And that if we do so our bishop's storehouse(s) will be overflowing with abundant blessings from heaven.

So the more we give, the more we will receive, and the better we will be able to help others as well as ourselves.  All while our Lord's apostles are not concerned with matters of money.