Notatbm

Video from the shooting scene. No blood or anything gory , just chaos. don’t know if fb links work. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DH5KeWuqu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

tell us how to address it if the security and policing isn’t directed at who is murdering people. I suppose everyone else but the Tongans should get the additional security and police attention as we wouldn’t want them to get offended … or you for that matter. This is a Tongan-specific gang issue where the participants happen to be Mormon as well. Enforcement should be focused on the problem, not what makes you feel good. This should be interesting to watch how the church handles this. I predict they will do nothing and this will continue in some form…and that would be racism to not protect them and root out the troublemakers. Maybe there are a certain amount of casualties among the Tongan members the church leadership will be ok with.

Another murder at a funeral in Utah today. What is the deal with the Tongan’s? Does the church need to provide armed security at meetinghouses where Tongans attend? Since January this is homicide number two at an lds funeral. sad

Exactly. I agree... Mormon church leaders have stated many times the GAs get a "living stipend," but any time they get up and talk about compensation for clergy they default to "no paid clergy" or some such verbiage. They themselves are paid so they cannot honestly state that. A more transparent approach would be to say; "while we as general authorities of the church are compensated financially for our work, the remaining balance of lay clergy and other volunteers in our church perform their duties for no monetary compensation." I'm sure there is a smart man somewhere in the COB (Id include women too, but we all know the the church makes all decisions independently of anything a woman might have to say) who can wordsmith this in such a way to make it very clear. Problem is, the GA leadership wants to keep the rank and file believing they don't get paid-IMHO. Here are some examples that lead to confusion: President Thomas S. Monson in 2006: Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1979: Elder Larry Y. Wilson in 2012: Ensign Article in 2013: Mormon Newsroom in 2009: Elder Derek A. Cuthbert in 1985: Carlfred B. Broderick in 1979: Dale M. Valentine in 2008: Preach My Gospel I have heard the definition of "Clergy" argued in the past that the General Authorities are not Clergy. Yea right they arent.

Here is the Eyering paystub along with the memo from the presiding bishopric that was leaked several years ago. Y'all can decide if this is financial compensation. It sure looks like it as it is taxed both federally and by the state of utah except for the "Parsonage." Pyreaux would likely agree it is "financial compensation" as he is the one who stated it is compensation if it is taxed....well looks like it is taxed and the Seventy is lying.

My understanding is those who enroll in pathways (even if they are not members) it is mandated to take institute classes. How many and what the classes are I have no idea. I’m pretty sure most of those non lds students would not enroll in any institute classes if it wasn’t mandatory for their education program. I’m open to being wrong, but that is how I understand how pathways works. it is also my understanding that ALL lds youth are auto-enrolled in seminary whether they ever attend or not. If that is the case, the numbers of “students” enrolled in these programs is not accurate and dare I say… purposely misleading. I lived down the street from an inactive member in our ward growing up. He never once darkened the doorway of a seminary class in four years of high school. If back then he had been auto-enrolled , how accurate would it have been to say he was a seminary student and be counted as such? It would be clearly false.

Several years ago a paystub and a memo belonging to Elder Eyering were leaked to "Mormon leaks" and it became public knowledge at the time how much some general authorities were paid and who was paid. It would seem the folks getting paid are all the full-time GAs. Elder Steven S Shumway of the Seventy gave a talk in General conference and made the following statement: "We do not receive financial compensation for serving. Instead, scripture teaches that for our “labor [we are] to receive the grace of God, that [we] might wax strong in the Spirit, [have] the knowledge of God, [and] teach with power and authority from God.” That is a very good trade! " I pulled up the talk this came from to see if in context he actually explained the the "We" doesn't really include himself or the senior leadership of the church, but it really only applies to the worker bees below him. Nope- no disclaimer. Do these guys still not get it that every word is scrutinized? I'm sure he meant "we" as in the collective membership of the church but even then the statement still is not true. The senior leadership of the church IS compensated. I don't have a problem with these guys being paid, but I do have a problem with them lying about it or talking about it in such a way as to convey the understanding that they themselves (looking at you Shumway) do not get paid. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/42shumway?lang=eng

I live in gilbert az area and we have ton of drivers here in SUVs with blonde hair and a pile of kids. All in a hurry to get to the three schools five different kids attend. Smoking red lights, tailgating, cutting people off and generally recklessly occupying the road. Driving here just before and just after school should come with combat pay. Ohhh and lots of em are from Utah lol.

Good thing that’s not what ur saying. he ran a red light and wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. given he has a track record of recording while driving and not wearing a belt I imagine the crappy Utah drivers had little to do with his demise.

Yep… lazy learners, lax disciples, taffy pullers, rehearsing doubts, doubt your doubts where have I heard all that before??? Prophets engaging in name calling and such

I believe for many to include myself the reason for some of church history being a problem isn’t so much what the history is as we now know it, but it is the lying, gas lighting, obfuscation and concealment of many aspects of church history as it was presented to us prior to the essays being published. Much different story than we know now. Some would say well that was a long time ago and they are all open about it now. That is certainly possible, but with the news and details from the SEC scandal I and many others cannot trust the senior leadership of the church ( 1st presidency) to be always telling us the truth. I mean how can I trust them when they gave the green light to supplying falsified documents to the government and also engaged in a plan of deception to ensure members continued to tithe ? If they are willing to lie and be so smug about it and leave a paper trail, what else are they lying about? - probably whatever else they feel will be a stumbling block. The leadership of the church has recently demonstrated ( at least to me) that if there is something they feel is negative about the church, it will be covered up and lied about at all costs if it can be. If it can’t be covered up or lied about all in the spirit of preserving the good name of the church, they will find a way to blame the membership’s lack of faith as the problem. Additionally still have not really taken full responsibility as a corporation to address the false teachings of the past in terms of exposing who was behind what and why. Apologies need to be made and that will never happen. Oaks said so himself. as for me, the church history isn’t all that big of a deal I always knew much of it was wack. It was when it was proven the first presidency engaged in lying to the members and the government about ensign peak was what gave me my personal permission to disengage.

So.. are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies? Buck up and commit to it or not. If not, delete your post.

You need to answer the question I asked you.

A 57 year old male who marries and has sex with a fifteen year old girl is indeed a pedophile. Even in the 1850s… yes Your turn

Are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies?

According to this guy… there is NO reason to leave: i grew up with hardliner parents, family and church leaders. They talk just like this. Perhaps people who are like this are one of the things that drive others away.. it is part of why I’m out.

I went to IG and checked out some of his posts. He has several posted of him driving while recording and not wearing his seat belt. A lesson to us all about distracted driving. I’m just glad he didn’t kill anyone by blowing a red light. Seems like he was a pretty good guy and fairly popular although I had never heard of him. RIP

I did not argue it was unusual for teenage girls to get married back in the day. Do you think the age gaps illustrated below were normal for the times? Look at Lorenzo Snow. There is a forty-two year age difference between himself and his 15 year old bride. It wasn’t normal back then. Weebles so kindly dug up a bunch of data from various periods and no where does the data show that teen brides (ages 14-15) are a “common” ( unless ten percent ish of marriages is common) thing. It does show that it happened, but not with the frequency many believe. Additionally, check out where he shows the various age differences between the bride and groom. You will also see that being married as a teenage female to a male over the age of fifty was very rare. Teenage girls married to men in their 40s wasnt al that common either. 30s and younger it was much more common. See for yourself: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67255-teen-age-marriage-ages-of-the-late-1800s/ I’ll conclude with this. You assert that the onset of puberty determines adult status. Currently in the US the onset is between 8-13 for girls. In the 1880s, it was about 16 years old so pretty much the average female under the age of 16 back then was a “little girl.” Definitely not a woman ready for marriage. It takes one sick dude to marry a teenage girl back then under the age of 15-16 ish esp when the groom is as old as these guys were. Pretty likely the girl hasn’t matured yet.

https://kutv.com/news/local/audio-recording-leaked-after-accidental-shooting-in-lds-church I didn’t declare what I did or didn’t know other than if this was covered up…. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Beats me except the church leaders could possibly use lack of safety, or advertising there is absolutely no security for the membership… it is a bad look in terms of safety for the membership. Like I said it would not be the first time church leaders covered up a gun incident at a church building.

If this did happen, I would not be surprised in the least if the church covers it up... I mean it isnt like this would be the first time church leaders tried to cover up a gun incident in a church building.

You sure put in a lot of work to normalize 13-15 year old girls marrying 50+ year old males.... How young a girl could you marry and feel comfortable telling people it is normal at your current age (whatever that is) now? I'm mid 50s and the notion of someone my age (or me) marrying anyone <30 years old is ridiculous. Likely they would feel the same way. Someone my age marrying someone less than 30 years old deserves a severe parking lot counseling session.

Very much younger…

Me thinks you are taking this “offense” a bit too seriously but you do you

I’m fixated on young brides??? lol who went out and married them? It wasn’t normal back then and the caricature is of the church’s creation.