Anonymous Mormon

Thanks for being vulnerable and sharing. I find your list fascinating because it is so different than the reasons why I stay in the church and why people joined the church when I was a missionary. For example, if you flipped it around and gave the opposite reasons for why you WOULD join the church: I was baptized as an infant and believe it's important to be baptized by immersion I like fence oriented churches I think that having a secret ritual sounds cool I want a church with a strong stance on the Gift of the Holy Ghost only being available to its members I think the LDS church's life after death beliefs are exciting It's honestly not a very strong list of reasons to join. The above are all logical and none of them address the fundamental spiritual questions of whether or not God has guided you through the Holy Ghost to any of the truth claims of the church. I hope that if you join the church one day, it's because God is guiding you to do so through the Holy Ghost. That you feel His spirit when you read the Book of Mormon, attend general conference and go to church. And that God plants the doctrines of the plan of salvation and the Atonement of Jesus Christ that are unique to the LDS faith deep in your heart, so that you feel the light from God telling you they are true. And that this light brings a greater measure of joy and the love of God in your life, such that you can't wait to join with the saints. And regardless of where it takes you, I wish you the best on your faith journey

I 100% agree with this definition @bluebell. I agree with your assessment that excess tithing was used to be saved for a rainy day. The way they chose to save was to purchase stocks (a prudent savings method). Then the growth they had on this was used to purchase the mall, but none of it was the original principle amount. It seems to be how President Hinckley used the terms in his definition: But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program. I just don't agree with your definition that this growth is considered tithing any more (maybe if you dip into the principle, but definitely not if it's just the growth being sold) @Analytics - Three questions for you: 1) Regardless of if you agree with Pres Hinckley's terminology, do you agree that he was making this distinction and being honest in how he portrayed it? 2) The term salary (money paid to you by your company) is like the term tithing (money paid to the church by congregants). If you invest your salary in the stock market and the stocks increase in value and you sell the increase but keep the principle amount, when the IRS comes to tax you do you consider this as salary and pay the same taxes like you would on your salary? Would you consider salary and tithing to be any different? 3) What about a company's sales revenue - if the company invests its sales revenue and then sells some of the investment's increase, is it using its sales revenue to fund the transaction? (note: I am not an accountant but you are, so please go easy on me if I used any of the accounting terms incorrectly - hopefully you understand what I mean)

This is the quote at issue that decided this lawsuit: Saturday Morning Session -5 April 2003 The Condition of the Church President Gordon B. Hinckley https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/05/the-condition-of-the-church?lang=eng This concept of Reserve Funds comes from his previous talk two years earlier: The State of the Church - April 1991 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng President Hinckley was very clear and not at all dishonest about this. I don't know anyone at the time who was confused about this. Unfortunately, within about a decade the whole "The church used tithing funds" argument had broken out online. And the debate became a debate about what is tithing. Unfortunately, no one seemed to go back and actually read the words of President Hinckley at the time where he clearly stated that tithing and reserve funds were used. This is why the judges in a liberal jurisdiction sided unanimously with the church. Because President Hinckley was clear that the money used was tithing AND reserve funds. And he had recently defined what the reserve funds were. So there was no deception on the part of the church. Therefore, the judges could make the unanimous decision without having to define tithing and worry about church autonomy doctrine (although a few concurrences still breached the topic).

@Analytics - The highlighted statement in red is what I would like to ask you about. You have brought up in the past this same concept that "contemporaneous records show people found Hinckley’s words to be confusing." However, I am not so sure. These comments you are referring to are NOT contemporaneous. They are all taken 9 years later. They are all memories of what people remember President Hinckley saying and not what he actually said. None of the conversations make any reference to the actual quote from President Hinckley: “funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.” Here is a full review of the comments in question that I posted a few years back when we last had the conversation: So I am curious are there any "contemporaneous record that many members of the Church found Hinckley’s words to be confusing" - records that actually quote and discuss President Hinckley's words? Because I find them very straightforward as did a unanimous panel of judges in California, that Hinckley referred to two different pools - a) tithing and b) earnings of invested reserve funds.

@Analytics - Your AI re-posting is interesting. However, AI is a sycophant and it just tells us what we want to hear. In this case, you wrote a 770 words long prompt starting with the clear statement of your beliefs and the beliefs you want to oppose. Then you list your 12 best points and you ask it to expand on this. It did and wrote a decent argument (but it lost me when discussing the sealed portion - I think that was a weak point in its response). Now what would be really fascinating is for you to do a control experiment and have AI output the exact opposite - why the Book of Mormon is miraculous. Write up a new 770 word prompt. Tell AI that you are a devout Mormon and that you need to list the of strongest arguments that show the BoM is miraculous. List 12 points it should consider in this (you could include Chaismus, Lack of Reference Materials, Complex Internal Consistency for a Verbal Recitation, Testimonies of the Witnesses never recanted, etc.). Then let AI churn for 21 minutes and see how well it can argue for the miraculous nature of the Book of Mormon. Then we can compare the two of them. This would be a fascinating experiment to let us see how well AI works to repeat our arguments and whether AI has any insight into this topic. Also, I would love to see if it discusses the sealed portion in its list of miraculous point. I hope you will do this control experiment so we can see AI's other side of the argument.

Yes, if there were an abuse of power or a policy that was so awful that it would make Elder Gilbert a poor candidate to be an apostle, then I would expect some coconscious objectors. Or if it were a major purge, I too would expect someone who was fired unfairly to raise objections after the fact. But if it's just a few people who are hurt that the church isn't endorsing their political views or changing to meet their agenda, then I would expect them to make anonymous online statements and anonymous statements to Peggy at the Tribune (and of course there are lots of exmo trolls that make up fake comments on forums - some comments could be trolls posing as BYU professors just to stir the pot - there is plenty of exmo trolling around all church topics, even here on this board)

I sincerely want to understand how this ties into your dislike for Elder Gilbert? So your friend couldn't qualify for a job at BYU because of Elder Gilbert? Was it because he had to have an ecclesiastical endorsement as a professor? Was this a new policy under Elder Gilbert? (I had to have an endorsement as a student back in the day) Sorry, I am a slow learner so you may need to connect the dots more specifically here for me. On a side note, my user name is because I attend 12 step groups through the church. BYU now has a policy that they won't hire any professor who has viewed pornography in the last 6 months and it also can impact tenure and other career advancements. Amongst BYU professors in the group, it causes a lot of consternation and debate about bishop roulette, how much it helps to be honest v. lying and other factors. I am guessing that this policy was implemented under Elder Gilbert? (note: I personally have mixed feelings about this policy. I too would prefer to have a high caliber of BYU professors not addicted to porn. On the flip side, I know some great people who are still working through compulsive porn issues)

I said that all hatred of Elder Gilbert seems to come from anonymous internet quotes. I asked if there was anything more concrete and you gave me . . . anonymous internet quotes. If his policies were so bad, can you share what SPECIFIC policies they were? What were the top x3 policies he made that were so awful? Or how many people were purged during his tenure? Or is there a survey of morale that shows he ruined BYU employee morale? Is there anything other than anonymous internet quotes that has shaped your opinion of him?

I am sorry to hear that this happened. It does sound like an unfair situation and a potential abuse of power. My father worked at BYU for years and I know there are politics and issues with the honor code, etc. But how exactly does this relate to Elder Gilbert? Couldn't the story you just told also have happened before Elder Gilbert's time? Was Elder Gilbert personally involved some how and/or in favor of what happened?

I just said there were lots of anonymous quotes in news articles and forums, but no specifics. You made a very strongly worded negative comment about Elder Gilbert, so I asked for specifics. You said you know someone and then gave me 4 quotes that seem anonymous. Can you give anything more SPECIFIC about how bad it actually was at BYU? Out of the 5,000 employees, how many were fired? Is there a survey that shows the fear is real? Anything more than anonymous quotes?

It looks like this is a link to a news article that summarizes all of the other news articles of anonymous quotes and scary vague/ambiguous statements about how bad he is. I don't see any specifics of names or dates or other details. You say 'A few were fired. Some quit.' - How many? Of the >5,000 employees how many left? How bad was the purge? Who were they? Did Elder Gilbert personally fire any of them? Did he personally discuss any of them? Can you give any specifics, not just news articles and anonymous quotes?

How did he "root [people] out people not conforming to orthodoxy"???? What did he do? How many people were fired? Can you name any of them? I really want those who are so offended to give some concrete examples other than internet hearsay.

This list matches what I have read - we likely read the same articles. However, pretty much all of it is quotes from anonymous sources with vague claims. There are more than 5,000 employees at BYU. I can guarantee you that any workplace with 5K people can find at least a handful who will anonymously say bad things about its leaders. In every workplace I've ever been at, all of the worst employees constantly complained about the bosses (these employees also didn't contribute and felt like they were victims). But can you or anyone else give any specifics to back these anonymous internet claims and character assassination? (As I said, the only thing I can find is the 4 categories list from his BYU-I days. I feel that his fabulous work in creating and shepherding Pathways to become the program it is more than counterbalances this)

"Hatred of BYU," "a problem the church has created," needing to be "reigned in" by other apostles. Can you give x3 SPECIFIC and/or concrete things you do not like about him or that he has done? I read articles from the Salt Lake Tribune and Newsweek about how awful he is. All of these seem based upon primarily anonymous quotes from BYU professors and Reddit accounts. The only ones who give their names then paint broad accusations with no specifics. Lots of accusations and character assassinations about how awful he is, but I have yet to see any details. The only thing that I can find is the list of the 4 categories, which I agree seems like a strange way to rank people. But beyond the 4 categories are there there SPECIFIC that someone can name that he has done? Did he fire someone he shouldn't have? Did he execute a policy that was inhumane? What exactly makes you and others declare such strong offenses about him, besides hearsay and bandwagonning because some anonymous people on the internet don't like him?

It x-references nicely with 2 Ne 32:9 This is the other most explicit reference to Christ's attribute of Consecrator For Gain.

I've been thinking about your post for a few days. Recently I have come upon what I think is a Christlike attribute of Consecrator For Gain. It comes from 2 Ne 2: Christ takes us from where we are and what we have experienced and consecrates it for our gain. So our afflictions, hardships, and pains he can turn into goodness in us, even when others caused them out of their sins. And more importantly in my life, he can consecrate my self-afflictions (sins, mistakes, missed-opportunities, etc.) to my gain as well. I think the way we manifest this attribute of Consecrator for Gain in our lives is we accept people where they are and try to help them come closer to God, regardless or through their life experiences. Not sure if this is kind of what you are getting at or if it's even a Christlike attribute, but it's been impactful for me in my life to try to treat it as one.