JCNowandForever Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 But the thread was closed because it was going nowhere. Likewise for other threads if you make a claim and cannot support that claim.No it's just plain old censorship IMO that the admin did. Other posters have their opinions and are prevented from stating their opinions because the thread is closed. I don't have hard facts, but I would assume they don't want to hear from dissenters in this forum??
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) That is why the Call for CONDITIONAL DONATIONS, to put the Church on notice that some members will no longer just take their words for it. Church needs to disclose audited financial statements, otherwise, charges of mis-appropriations will abound in this and other websites.Then the prudent response for the Church is to put such members on notice that their proffered donations do not constitute tithing as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ and that their donations will not be accepted so long as they insist on attaching strings.That would be my procedure were I a bishop confronted with such a scenario. Edited August 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
KevinG Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Here is the only article I could find from Wikipedia that sources the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, pp. 109-110."Excommunication. An individual who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the LDS Church. All of the restrictions of the disfellowshipped member also apply to excommunicated individuals. In addition, an excommunicated person is not permitted to pay tithing or fast offerings or wear the temple garment..."It says nothing of other types of donations just Tithing and Fast Offerings. I suggest asking a Bishop or Stake President if you need more clarification.
KevinG Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 No it's just plain old censorship IMO that the admin did. Other posters have their opinions and are prevented from stating their opinions because the thread is closed. I don't have hard facts, but I would assume they don't want to hear from dissenters in this forum??And yet you continue to post your nonsense uninterrupted. What a terrible job of censorship they are doing here.
JCNowandForever Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 They have done it -- and did not even use Tithing to do it. Inspired and genius. And I am grateful.I don't disagree with the intent of the church to revitalize. But what criteria they used to select just SLC? because temple square is known all over? What about LA neighborhoods will all these gang infested areas. Will they revitalize that too? is that a new policy now of the church? and where do they get these funds to revitalize when it's not even specific on the donation slip (ie, there's no term "REVITALIZE YOUR NEIGHBOR" on the tithing slip, which leads us to one conclusion where the funds are coming from, and it has been the conclusion of hundreds of posters here and other forums in the internet not just myself.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 No it's just plain old censorship IMO that the admin did. Other posters have their opinions and are prevented from stating their opinions because the thread is closed. I don't have hard facts, but I would assume they don't want to hear from dissenters in this forum??One of the threads was closed because you were using it as a forum to restate what you had already said on another thread. As a frequenter of this board, I, for one, don't want to see it cluttered with a lot of redundancy.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) I don't disagree with the intent of the church to revitalize. But what criteria they used to select just SLC? because temple square is known all over? What about LA neighborhoods will all these gang infested areas. Will they revitalize that too?Were I to speak for the Church (which I don't) my response would be: If we don't have the means to do it everywhere just now, let us at least safeguard the environs surrounding the sacred space in the headquarters city. We'll see to the rest later as we prudently can. Edited August 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
ERayR Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I disagree. CFR!!I see your CFR has been answered.
Ares Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 No it's just plain old censorship IMO that the admin did. Other posters have their opinions and are prevented from stating their opinions because the thread is closed. I don't have hard facts, but I would assume they don't want to hear from dissenters in this forum??Here are some hard facts:You broke board rules by repeatedly refusing to answer a call for references causing the thread to be closed. (it was done by another admin - I would have simply banned you from the thread and allowed others to continue discussion but I don't override other admins decisions)You also spammed several threads with the same argument, one that had been inactive for over 5 months. (I closed that one because there was no sense in making people go to three different threads to respond to one topic).You are sill posting. We are certainly doing a lousy job of censoring you.
JCNowandForever Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 "Excommunication. An individual who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the LDS Church. All of the restrictions of the disfellowshipped member also apply to excommunicated individuals. In addition, an excommunicated person is not permitted to pay tithing or fast offerings or wear the temple garment..."It says nothing of other types of donations just Tithing and Fast Offerings.Right, but Erays says ANY DONATIONS. So he/she has to retract that unless he/she can provide another CFR that states ANY DONATIONS will not be accepted by the church from an exomm. So the CFR still stands for Erays.
ERayR Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I already said I thought the church could accept donations other than tithes. No need for me to CFR because I agree with you on that point.CBH says "However, a person who has been excommunicated may not pay tithing or other offerings to the Church".
Calm Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I don't disagree with the intent of the church to revitalize. But what criteria they used to select just SLC? because temple square is known all over? How about it was because they owned the land already that need to be revitalized so it was their responsibility to do something about it. 1
JCNowandForever Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 One of the threads was closed because you were using it as a forum to restate what you had already said on another thread. As a frequenter of this board, I, for one, don't want to see it cluttered with a lot of redundancy.No. I don't see admins enforcing off-topics posts, at least not recently. That's why I created the first post about CONDITIONAL DONATIONS because it was off-topic in this particular thread. They closed. that due to a different wording thinking it's a "what if" post when it's not. So another thread for the same discussions but it got heated and everyone requesting CFR blah blah blah posting ad-homenim attacks instead of staying on-topic.
KevinG Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) CBH says "However, a person who has been excommunicated may not pay tithing or other offerings to the Church".C'mon Ray its payback time for getting JCNAF busted using a CFR on the other thread. How do we know for sure that is an accurate quote from the most recent Church Handbook of Instructions? You had best show us a photograph of the current handbook with dates included or you won't have really answered the CFR.Anything less is an Ad Hominem attack!!!!!!! P.S. JC you could use this: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG
ERayR Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I don't disagree with the intent of the church to revitalize. But what criteria they used to select just SLC? because temple square is known all over? What about LA neighborhoods will all these gang infested areas. Will they revitalize that too? is that a new policy now of the church? and where do they get these funds to revitalize when it's not even specific on the donation slip (ie, there's no term "REVITALIZE YOUR NEIGHBOR" on the tithing slip, which leads us to one conclusion where the funds are coming from, and it has been the conclusion of hundreds of posters here and other forums in the internet not just myself.Get rid of the gangs and it may be up for consideration. Disclaimer: I do not speak for the church in any capacity of authority.
CASteinman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) I don't disagree with the intent of the church to revitalize. But what criteria they used to select just SLC? because temple square is known all over? What about LA neighborhoods will all these gang infested areas. Will they revitalize that too? is that a new policy now of the church? and where do they get these funds to revitalize when it's not even specific on the donation slip (ie, there's no term "REVITALIZE YOUR NEIGHBOR" on the tithing slip, which leads us to one conclusion where the funds are coming from, and it has been the conclusion of hundreds of posters here and other forums in the internet not just myself.Its a choice. You get to spend your life in Joy or Misery. You have that power.But this was a good thing that you are upset about. Its not unlike the story from the life of the Savior:Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected: “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” ...Jesus rebuked Judas and said that she had done a good thing. I like it that the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. It was done for the Lord but many people benefited.Isaiah recorded his prophecy: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"Many times when I read the word "woe" I think of it as a promise. But in this case, I think of it as -- at least in part -- looking back on the condition of these people -- full of woe.The Book of Mormon describes the source of this feeling that leads us to condemn the good and praise the wicked: "the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good."When I think upon these things, I am motivated to praise the Good and not condemn it. Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman
ERayR Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 C'mon Ray its payback time for getting JCNAF busted using a CFR on the other thread. How do we know for sure that is an accurate quote from the most recent Church Handbook of Instructions? You had best show us a photograph of the current handbook with dates included or you won't have really answered the CFR. I can tell you its on page 125 but you will have to ask your bishop to show you the book. Best I can do.
CASteinman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 You are sill posting. We are certainly doing a lousy job of censoring you.I praise you for your gracious restraint. 1
JCNowandForever Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 CBH says "However, a person who has been excommunicated may not pay tithing or other offerings to the Church".ERayR, you stated that "ANY DONATIONS" will not be accepted from an excomm. Where's the CFR for that, or are you retracting?
why me Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 No it's just plain old censorship IMO that the admin did. Other posters have their opinions and are prevented from stating their opinions because the thread is closed. I don't have hard facts, but I would assume they don't want to hear from dissenters in this forum??But I still found it to be brow beating. What can posters do with your posts. They disagreed with you about tithing going to the mall. We have had countless threads about the mall already. You continued with your demands that are for the most part unworkable. And you had no proof that tithing went to the mall except rumor from exmormon boards. This would be considered bullying.
JCNowandForever Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) I can tell you its on page 125 but you will have to ask your bishop to show you the book. Best I can do.So you're unable to provide a CFR that say "any donation"? Retract or I will report this to the Mod.Page 125 of the 2006 HOI 1 talks about "single members and students."Are you retracting the "ANY DONATIONS?No need to report to the Moderation team. You are being watched quite closely now.Your question was asked and answered with a direct quote. Please move on. (Unless your goal is to be banned so you can complain elsewhere about how MD&D is unfair and censors critics. Keep it up and I will oblige you.) -Ares Edited August 22, 2012 by Ares
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 How about it was because they owned the land already that need to be revitalized so it was their responsibility to do something about it.A good point.It should be noted, however, that they did purchase the Crossroads Mall, directly across the street from the ZCMI Center, and soon thereafter closed down both to prepare for the City Creek Center. So they did go a bit beyond their responsibility in this regard.
KevinG Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I can tell you its on page 125 but you will have to ask your bishop to show you the book. Best I can do. Church Handbook of Instructions (Book 1, 14.4)
why me Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 How about it was because they owned the land already that need to be revitalized so it was their responsibility to do something about it.That sounds good to me. I suppose that they should have just let it go to the dogs. Then, the critics could claim that the church is destroying downtown salt lake.
ERayR Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 ERayR, you stated that "ANY DONATIONS" will not be accepted from an excomm. Where's the CFR for that, or are you retracting?Please go back and read my post #317. This time read for comprehension. I am certainly not going to copy and splash all over a discussion board a document that is not my purview to share. Bishops are authorized to share so ask your bishop. I told you where to find it. Reference provided.
Recommended Posts