Duncan

You have to have numbers for that. I served in a MSA Ward in the LA years ago and IIRC it was for all of the LA area and the criteria was if you want to drive here every Sunday (it was in Glendale) then you are welcome but they didn't want ward hopping so if you are here than you are here and not elsewhere. It seemed viable at least then

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

As to transparency - I hope I don't sound snarky (it's not my intent to be), but there should be no more specific efforts to hide any assets. Also, once upon a time (pre-1959), the Church issued financial statements showing how donor funds were used. I think they should return to that. As it stands, in many ways, the Church is a black hole into which donations flow with no disclosure to their donors (i.e. tithe-payers) on the money was used.

Yes, shell LLCs in and of themselves are legal to establish and there are legitimate uses. I commented earlier in the thread that they are frequently used for separating assets to limit liability and that real estate transactions often have layers of LLCs. But, in all cases, there has to be a legitimate business purpose. In this case, the principal reason was to hide assets from regulators. Each LLC lacked independence in fact and specific steps were taken to throw off inquiries as to their true nature.

Growing up our ward had a yearly budget meeting in which the Bishopric had a meeting with the ward and told how they spent the money for the year previously. In our ward the only one I recall is when they said that half the ward budget was spent on photocopying😬

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

That makes sense to me. I think he would be asking for trouble to make up that kind of inner dialogue for the Prophet even if Pres Kimball didn’t call him publicly on it. It would surely sour their relationship some. 
 

I think the below is more than enough to cover the fulsome comment:

“This work will bring joy and peace and happiness to its readers.”

It was a suggested foreword as well, Pres. Kimball could have added to it. I think approval of the suggested stuff would apply to not deleting or changing what was suggested, but doesn’t exclude adding stuff. 

the other thing too is I don't want to fault someone for what they said of themself in what 1977?!

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/spencer-w-kimball-journals-now-accessible?lang=eng

wow is all I can say

 I wonder what real difference tribal differences make as in aren't we all suppose to do missionary work, temple work, if it all comes out the same work, what point really are these tribal differences?

I know several people got into a big debate on Mormon Interpreter about it so maybe the Church wants to avoid wading into those waters. If people can't agree what it is or what then it's safe to avoid the issue

In wards i've been in, ward and stake mission plans go nowhere. It seems ward goals and stake goals conflict with each other, as in say the stake wants to baptize 100 people but if you add up all the ward goals it doesn't add up to 100. The same goes for advancements in the priesthood and what is more there is Area Presidency goals, which don't coincide with ward, stake, and mission goals. Everybody is running around doing their own thing. I remember years ago now we had our WMP but somehow it got superseded with this "Nauvoo Commitment" and when asked what that is nobody knew exactly, "some mission thing"

I don't know if it was the earliest but an early talk about comes from Elder William J. Critchlow Jr. in 1962 General Conference

"Now if in the process of repenting we follow these six steps, represented by the six " R's " -- may I list them: Recognition, remorse, relating, restitution, resolution, and reformation we should have placed ourselves in a position to enjoy the seventh step represented by another great big " R " which stands for realization -- realization of the happiness that comes from righteous living. "

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I found a short, 3 part video series called "Patterns of Light." I could not find a longer associated talk if one exists. In the context of the videos I found, I think Elder Bednar was focused mostly on how "dawning light" is an analogy for personal revelation. I could not find anything in the short video presentation I found to suggest that Elder Bednar believes that it applies to the church as a whole or its leaders.

That said, I think these kind of "growing light" models seem to do fairly well (in hindsight) of describing what happened. The biggest problem I have with these models (or maybe more with they way they play out) is that we seem to be very bad at discerning when we are drawing conclusions from looking through a misty fog. Brigham Young, when he implemented the ban did not say something like, "Boy this twilight fog is thick and hard to see, but I think I see something looks like God wants us to stop ordaining blacks to the priesthood and withhold temple ordinances from black men and women. The reasons I am hazily seeing seem related to some way that skin color is a sign of divine displeasure somehow." Brigham Young implemented and justified the ban with the certainty of a prophet who feels like he had seen it all by the clear light of a mid-day sun. Likewise, Elder Petersen makes no mention of darkness or fogginess in coming to his conclusions. While I think these growing light models seem to be good descriptions of what happens, we need to be able to acknowledge that sometimes we deceive ourselves into believing what we saw with a lot more certainty than is justified.

Again, it seems accurate. The main concern with the idea that we must wait for change to happen is that the church gets accused of being slower than broader culture. I note that the Elder Petersen's talk linked earlier was given in Aug. of '54 -- 3 months after SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board. Because Elder Petersen made a special not of interracial marriage early in the talk, '54 was also six years after California repealed its miscegenation laws, which eventually leads to Loving v. Virginia in '67, 13 years after the talk. Yes, change comes slow, but it seems to come slower to the church than it does to broader society. As long as we can acknowledge that the church will drag its feet when it comes to change, then maybe it shouldn't bother us, but I don't think we like to talk about the rock of revelation as a conservative weight that slows us down.

Elder McConkie shared something similar about the restoration but I don't know if Elder Bednar got the idea from him, i'd have to find it and share it Here is something that maybe in my haze I am remembering but I could be thinking of another talk he gave

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1978/04/the-morning-breaks-the-shadows-flee?lang=eng

51 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference on October 1, 2022, President Nelson said, “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.”

That's a heartwarming soundbite, but what if some statements of prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear now qualify as abuse and/or hate speech according to dictionary definitions in 2023? Should it no longer matter because we've moved on?

the term hate speech and abuse are legal concepts and should be dealt with by legal authorities, if someone were to use these old quotations to justify hate speech or abuse today. If they do or don't "qualify" that's for the law to work out. I don't see a current leader in 2023 trying to perpetuate hate speech or abuse, as evidenced by your quotation. So, in my mind, should anyone care? the legal authorities should be involved if it did happen and local church leaders, if something became illegal.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Have you ever received a prompting to change your password on this site because it was suspected of being compromised?   That happened to me not long ago.  That is the only other possible way I can think of as to how he got my information - if they are hacking this site, ha ha! 

oh! no, I have never felt that prompting!

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think I have even visited his website.  I honestly have no clue how he got my email.  This is really the only place I go to discuss things related to Mormonism.   

As I was typing this, I just had an epiphany.   I did create an account at the other Mormon discussion board (I honestly can't think of the name of it right now - the anti one), just to see if it could really be as bad as everyone suggested.  I lasted about 1 week there.  I would not be surprised in the least if they are in cahoots with Dahlin, supplying him with email addresses.     What is the name of that other board?

If you know what I am talking about, have you or Duncan ever had an account there?

 

i've never had an account

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I know several people like you who got it and who have no clue how he got their names.

Duncan, I vaguely remember you getting a request to use your story for something that was being published, but you had never submitted it,  There was a guess that someone had submitted something under your name and email.  Does that ring a bell?

 

that sounds eerily familiar but I can't remember any details

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What about the guy who is now in the stake presidency?

Personally, I like to approach people who avoid me, sounds like he might be open to repentance and apologizing to your son.

that is the guy in the stake presidency! honestly, I could care less about him, I know they are FB friends so who knows if they talk, I can ask him

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Just a thought -- perhaps contacting this former YM leader and letting him know of the effect he has had on your son might prompt him to apologize to your son, repent, etc. once he realizes the family has conclude that their best hope is in the next life and not this one.

oh I have! One, abruptly stopped coming and they later moved away somewhere, not sure where or what and the other one I can't recall what he said exactly-although last year I saw him at a move for someone and I think he felt guilty and was avoiding me and stuff-so I dunno.

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

None of us are in your shoes so we don't have the right to judge you for what you felt was the right thing to do. 

thanks!!!!

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Your statements sound contradictory.  You should make up fake names and provide exact details if you
want a realistic answer.

As for the contradictions ... if it's not illegal and no one is in harm's way, then it is not serious enough for
someone to be released or exed.

Your "last piece of the puzzle" is all speculation.  You never even explain why you think the SP could figure
it out and you cannot.

I got a "realistic answer" 

it is absolutely seriosu enough for someone to get exed or disfellowshipped for. I know two people who have, I don't know the specifics of each situation but the overall seriousness of the situation was the same and potentially was the same in this case

I don't have access that the SP has, I have no authority to ask the couple the final part and he does. What information that was missing isn't publicly available, unless you ask the people involved or have access to the records-which I don't. So, as I say the SP investigated and it went the way we all wanted and not the other way which would lead to discipline. Where I the SP I would have contacted a lawyer to look through and make sure I had my ducks in a row prior to going to the couple , which he may have done I don't know. But it's all resolved now.

I read a few things about it but am hardly an expert

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

A) He asked for advice and then voted it down 

B) I think it's mean to torpedo someone's marriage 

But you're right I was mean.

SORRY DUNCAN.

 

this isn't a case of torpedoing someone's marriage at all

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is why I say I’d likely approach the offender and give them opportunity to begin the healing asap by confessing themselves to their spouse.  
plus the shame involved with the offender at being called out by a church authority could IME force a detrimental outcome. 
of course Duncan says this is not an affair, but if it were , this is my position. 
I can’t think of an alternative scenario that would have me going to church authorities unless children were in danger.  But that was made clear that is not the issue. 

I also know that when people are told by friends that their spouse is cheating, it generally affects the friendship negatively.  No one wants to hear it, and yet everyone wants to be told.  No one wins.  Always best if the offender comes clean. 

no affairs, no cheating, no children but as I say in past situations like this I Know 2 people who were exed, as to what will happen now is in the very capable Stake Presidency's hands

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Fairness is important to you.  Maybe affairs hit a chord.  That makes sense. 

I never said anything about any affairs. What happens now is the Stake Pres. business

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

So you are interested in justice? 

 i'm interested in judges in israel getting to the bottom of it, whatever that is or how that is, fine by me