longview

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not the one making the argument that surgery should not be allowed because of removal of healthy body parts. Smac was.  Why would I be the one to defend a position I have never claimed or promoted?

It is a simple question. Just answer it. Are you trying to gaslight the board?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Are the folks trying to inject circumcision into this discussion opposed to circumcision[gender affirming care?]?  It seems like an attempt at Whataboutism:

Not really.  It appears to me a major part of your argument is founded on being opposed to elective removal of healthy body parts.  That is why you included the discussion on the woman who wants her healthy legs to be remove or paralyzed, I thought.

Am I correct in thinking that one of your major concerns with surgical transitioning is the elective removal of healthy body parts?  If not, why did you bring up the example of the woman and ask if someone was okay with removing of her limb (or whatever the specifics of your question was)?

How interesting that you are carefully skirting around an important question:

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you you see any distinctions between male circumcision and a penectomy?  Or a mastectomy? 

Please answer this question!

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Calm said:

without providing the help to do what one sees as right is not sincerity, but a power trip in many people’s eyes. 

Perhaps we should ask people like Longview what he thinks about such things.

@longview, can you weigh in here?  Are you opposed to therapy for minors dealing with Gender Dysphoria and such issues?

I just posted a response to Calm on "power trips."

I believe there are excellent counseling services with genuine and wise helpers. But I agree with Zealous here:

43 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Great idea except that states have made laws banning "conversion therapy"- making them broad enough to bar psychologist from pretty much anything that hints at trying to get people to rethink their homosexuality.

Sadly the psychologist profession has been greatly politicized for several decades. Consider how mental institutions have literally been "emptied out" soon after the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" came out. Advocates romanticized this movie. Now we are faced with a massive problem of "homeless" people refusing to get help or take their medicine.

Now the profession is running "interference" against the best interest of society by greasing the skids for enabling radical procedures on gullible children. As I mentioned earlier, there are many radical teachers secretly grooming children into the "lifestyle." Too many "power-trippers" getting into the act. Institutions such as colleges and sport organizations are violating the original spirit of Title IX by severely endangering women's right to sport venues of their own and being subjected to brutal abuses by unfair and violent "pretend-women."

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just assuming one has the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do without providing the help to do what one sees as right is not sincerity, but a power trip in many people’s eyes. 

These days, we are seeing a strange phenomena on both sides. People being given long prison sentences merely for praying on the sidewalk across the street from abortion "clinics." On the other hand, we see viscous attacks on pregnancy assistance centers by abortion advocates. Why can't women consult and explore options for dealing with unplanned pregnancies? They help with finding adoption services, arranging for living with potential adoptees, free sonograms, social counseling, and so forth. Why are opponents so dead set against the help centers? Because it could greatly impact the lucrative abortion industry revenue? Why are taxpayers and medical insurance companies forced to subsidize late term abortions? Who is power-tripping here?

From Google:

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Actually, I think your “care for children” is a thinly disguised veil for your religious disgust towards those made differently from you. But nice dodge of the question.

Oh no! You have passed judgement on me. What method of execution will be imposed? 😵

10 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

To me this smells like woke. 

Thank you , Dario. Big upvote to you!

The scary thing about woke is the hysteria and the herd mentality of rushing to try the latest social engineering fad.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is it the transitioning itself, or the age that happens, that is the problem in your eyes?

For the most part, both. If the person happens to be a faithful member of the Church, hopefully that person will strive to live the Gospel and being chaste and walk with God in all circumstances. Trusting that God will make things right in this life or the next world. In the end there will be incredible joy unimaginable.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you completely support adults as they transition then? I had no idea. I’m sorry. 

I do NOT support the butchering of children. But you knew that. Beware the derangement of wokism. 😢

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but their religious hatred of trans people existing

You are slandering people who are feeling deep concern for the well-being of children and do grieve for their butchered bodies not being able to procreate and make a family unit.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 I also believe that having a doctor, a neutral party in the decision process

It is difficult to be neutral when the medical/industrial complex has made gender transitioning a billion dollar gravy train. It is unconscionable for many radical public school teachers to secretly groom impressionable children into taking on dangerous alternative lifestyles.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

I am putting my trust that the parents of the child and the doctor responsible for the care of that child are the only ones qualified to make medical decisions

I am pretty sure that you would agree that there is a segment of those people that do NOT always make rational decisions. Some do it to gain acclaim from their woke and/or radical associates. The child do it for the excitement or praise from people around him/her/it. The point is surgical mutilation or chemical castration are IRREVERSIBLE and a lifelong desolation of abominations. @smac97 has documented numerous examples that call into question their poor judgement.

This made me think of massive holocaust of certain religions in the past. Such as Baal requiring parents to sacrifice their children or making them walk thru fire. Terah sacrificing his son Abram (Abraham) being a well-known example.

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Conspiratorial nonsense about how all the experts and professionals are lying to us will be the death of us all. 

Maybe you can use Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum as your last resort for truth verification. "The day will come the people will eat BUGS and be happy about it."

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why? Intuition? A need to believe that to maintain your worldview?

Or because the data supports this? Which it doesn’t.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

National Institute of Health? Yeah. Go ahead and put your utter trust in the system. If those various agencies and world bodies have been shown to let down the people during covid, our only choice is to look over our options three times over.

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

The only people who should be involved in this decision is the parents of the child, the child and the doctor.  Otherwise it is no one else business deciding what any medical procedure is done or what is best for the child.

 

Surgical mutilation and chemical castration are NOT what's best for the child. Let the child at least grow out of that phase until the mid-twenties. Don't fall for the suicide concerns for confused people. I would say suicide is a GREATER risk for transitioned people.

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The reason we are encouraged to go to the temple is now more often framed as a personal enrichment of one's spiritual strength than it used to be. 

Pres. Nelson touched on the reason in his concluding talk Sunday. Yes, he did mention individual benefits but he emphasized the need for the Church to continue progressing and rise up and become a Zion people. Like the City of Enoch. After going thru much tribulation and being tried and tested, Zion will be prepared and adorned as the Bride of Christ.

18 hours ago, gmormon said:

I would like to see the 3 hour block reinstated. I miss having both priesthood and Sunday school everyweek

Back when the change was made, it was explained that the home needs to be the center of study and learning. Then covid hit. So interesting how the members were authorized to perform the Sacrament in the home. When the "excrement hits the fan" and violence runs rampant and civilization collapses, members will have to go out into the wilderness with the body of the Church. We may need to conduct services in small groups.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I assume the goal is to attempt to defuse the tension between Greece and Turkey by giving them a common enemy to hate? Also poor Russia has to see their credibility as the “Third Rome” take even more of a tumble and that credibility was weak from the start.

Greece is supportive of Israel but Turkey is NOT. Thus the reason for sending an embassy to Israel. (I hope you grieve at the atrocities committed on Oct 7, 2023).

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You’re just setting yourself up for an East-West Schism. 

Nah. The problem for the Catholics was because Europe was TOO close to Constantinople. They were constantly bickering over jurisdiction of the Levant.

The LDS has the advantage of clear boundaries of the American continent (i.e. Western Hemisphere).

The news report indicates that Orange county has more stringent rules than the city of Orlando.

Interesting that Farmland Reserves is an investment arm of the Church. There's Ensign Peak Advisors. How many other arms are there?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Second Quorum of the Twelve Apostles announced. They will be put in charge of the eastern hemisphere.

The Second Quorum will lead a massive assault on Instanbul (formerly known as Constantinople). Upon taking control, the city will be renamed Nelsonipol and an embassy will be sent to Jerusalem.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Despite the Church’s arguments to the contrary, there is and never has been a dispute about what “tithing” means; the issue isn’t and never was whether “invested tithing” is or is not "considered tithing."

Your statement is confusing (see the bolded). I will break the bolded into two separate statements. Then please indicate if the two parts are both true or only one. Which way?

1. there is a dispute about . . .
2. there never has been a dispute about . . .

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing. Back then, most Saints thought the Church didn’t indirectly use tithing because as they understood him, Hinckley said they didn’t use tithing, which implies they didn’t use it directly and didn’t use it indirectly.

I would say the overwhelming majority of Church members were and still are comfortable with distinctions between tithing used for Church needs and surplus used to invest in secular companies. Shouldn't you and Huntsman be focusing on a deeper underlying issue? Is it appropriate for the Church to invest unused surplus to purchase shares of secular profit-making companies? The prevailing sentiment is yes. This is a very wise course for the Church to build reserves.

If there was substantial income being generated from secular companies to fund City Creek, then Pres. Hinckley was correct in his attempt to reassure the few that were nervous about commercial aspects. In other words, the usual dispositions of tithing was NOT impacted in any degree on the normal day to day operations of the Church. EPA had a range of options for further investments in additional shares of secular companies using income from secular companies (compound effect). The Church made a directive for channeling some of that secular income to City Creek. Which was a worthy project for which you kindly indicated appreciation.

Your next bolded statement is blatantly false. You pulled that out of thin air. As others have asked, you have no way of knowing the extent of member sentiments. @smac97 says you are mind-reading.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

For the record, if the Church is going to use its reserves to capitalize for-profit companies, it makes more sense to use it to capitalize City Creek

Thank you for taking a positive perspective on the reasons for supporting the City Creek endeavor. Too many critics were trying to paint a lurid picture of this effort. You may have been playing up this aspect to add grounds for condemning the Church. It is strange how you change your posturing. You have been accused by others of trying shift the goal post around.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

than use it to capitalize Apple and Nvidia.

I think the use of the word "capitalize" is correct in the case of City Creek. The funds were used to hire companies to start the work and the indirect employment of managers and laborers. However, this word does NOT apply to buying shares of companies that are listed in the stock market. Buying shares is merely the means for owning a fraction of a company. Also buying shares means you bought them from other share holders where the money (transaction) does NOT go directly to the company, just the share-holder.

Companies are capitalized when they make a "initial public offering" (called an IPO). Then they receive direct cash. Then all who bought shares become owners of the company.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

And I’m pretty confident that the real underlying grievance of Huntsman et. al. is not that the Church diverted some of its investments away from Amazon and Microsoft and towards City Creek and Beneficial Life.

Diverting is NOT what happened. The point is that previous investments in secular for-profit companies was sufficient to provide funding for City Creek.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The real grievance consists of two parts: 1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members. The problem is they don’t have a legal basis to sue on those grounds. However, they do have a case about what was said about City Creek.

1- according to what moral authority? You? James Huntsman? The communists? If the Church is going to have major plans in the future, it is supernally wise to build up reserves.

2- sez who? You? Huntsman?

Now you are changing your position again, making City Creek a negative. Pres. Hinckley was VERY straightforward in stating that NO funding was taken out of tithing. There was plenty of interests and dividends from for-profit enterprises (a very successful bucket) to fund City Creek. This secular bucket will ALSO be beneficial for supporting even more charitable works now and in the future. The LORD continues to guide and direct the prophet of HIS Church.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ensign Peak Advisors are the direct recipient of tithing funds.

No. There are numerous requirements for the "disposition" of funds that the Church has to care for maintenance of ward and stake houses, supporting missions, building temples, Bishop's Storehouses, Welfare Squares, and on and on. The Church also sends money "out of house" to other organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Red Cross, and numerous other aid societies. Even Stakes and Wards will send out support to local entities and non-members. EPA has NO role in any of that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Every year, about $1 billion of “tithing funds” that were collected that year are sent from the Church’s treasury to Ensign Peak Advisors,

Why did you use the word "treasury" ? To make the Church sound bad? Why demonize EPA for helping the Church act as wise stewards for building reserves?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

where they are invested fairly aggressively.

That's good, isn't it?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The overwhelming majority of funds in Ensign Peaks consists of tithing money that was sent from the Church, which has grown with interest.

Are you implying that too little money was used for Church dispositions? What do you think the ratio is between tithing used and tithing left over per year?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Whether we call all or part of the funds in City Creek “tithing”, “tithing that has grown with interest”, “reserves”, “principal”, “interest”, “rainy day fund,” “reserves on the reserves,” or anything else is really just semantics.

Did you read my previous post about the history of economic activities in Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, and the great settlement/development of State of Deseret? Why argue about terminologies of various buckets managed by EPA? I will say it again: "The point is that previous investments in secular for-profit companies was sufficient to provide funding for City Creek." People KNEW that the Church was making investments in for-profit companies such as Proctor and Gamble and Bank of America, etc as well as many other endeavors. Most could easily accept that funding was sufficient in the for-profit bucket and did NOT need to know the minute details of accounting systems at EPA.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hinckley's comments were vague and misunderstood at best, deliberately misleading at worst. I’m simply explaining why people understood him the way they did.

I seriously do not consider Hinckley's comments to be vague. I think he was addressing a "few" people's concerns back in 2003 about the "commercialization" aspects of City Creek development. I think the first and primary consideration of the Church was to help reverse "urban decay" along Main Street south of Temple Square in order to safeguard and maintain the beauty of Temple Square. To hold it sacred.

I have absolutely no problem with the Church engaging in many varied "economic" ventures such as welfare farms, land holdings, canneries, and YES certain commercial enterprises. This was true in the days of Joseph Smith where there were extensive dynamic and necessary intermingling of religious and "secular" activities. As shown in Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo. This was massively the case in Brigham Young's settlement and development of the State of Deseret. My great grandfather, an immigrant from Norway, used his skills to do fine cabinetry and deluxe staircases for various temples and he operated a lumber mill with the backing of the Church.

As I was reading through this thread, I keep wondering about how the new (current) Nauvoo temple was built. If I remember correctly, the Church only consented to build it due to the urging of a group of very wealthy members. I wonder if the Nauvoo temple was NOT a priority at that time because it has a slate of more urgent needs in many places around the world. This group provided ALL the funding. The Church only needed to oversee and administer the new temple. Was it built with tithing money? No. Was the funding provided by people who were living the "Law of Consecration" above and beyond the "Law of Tithing"? Yes.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I fell on my face too often reaching for that hand to believe that it is reliably there.

You already know this but keep forgetting this fundamental, the ultimate purpose of this stage of creation and the Fall. For experiencing all kinds of oppositions.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also I don’t buy that God is meting out anything approaching justice in this life.

God dealt justice plenty of times throughout human history. Just NOT in accordance with your expectations and requirements.

Last Friday my wife and I got to see the amazing production of Queen Esther in Branson Missouri. It was hilarious how the wicked Haman's expression quickly changed from eagerness to plot the destruction of Mordecai to realizing he was going to have to lead the public proclamation for honoring Mordecai instead.

Your attitude reeks of ingratitude.

Nuthin' beats Chuck-A-Rama.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is both and ethanol and high fructose corn syrup use are pushed by the corn lobby.

Ethanol is a niche product. For some things it is very good but we use a lot of it in places it isn’t optimal. There are tax incentives to use it pushed by (shocked face) the corn lobby.

I agree with you that there is a "corn lobby". But it is much broader than that. There is cronyism rampant between various government agencies, the legislators, and private interests. There is an ever increasing unwarranted interference by government against the agriculture business that is driving too many small farms and family businesses out. We see this in multiplying protests by farmers in many countries around the world. Shades of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum?