Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

First Elder Perry, Now Elder Scott


Recommended Posts

Posted

LDS NEWS

 

 

Following Elder L. Tom Perry’s visit to the hospital Wednesday for tests surrounding ‘breathing difficulties,’ Mormon Newsroom reports that he has been diagnosed with cancer in the thyroid gland and will begin radiation treatment this morning.

 

Mormon Newsroom also announced that Elder Richard G. Scott was hospitalized on Thursday evening due to gastrointestinal bleeding. At this time, he is ‘resting comfortably’ and the bleeding is under control.

 

I wish them both well, but realistically I unfortunately think we will see some new apostles in the next couple of years.

Posted (edited)

Very sad news.  They are both really great men and I wish them & their families the best.

 

What do people feel regarding putting apostles on emeritus status?  I doubt they'll release them (not sure if that's even been done before for health reasons?).  But I hope they can find some peace and will not suffer.  For these men working so hard in their late 80's & into their 90's, they are simply amazing.

Edited by ALarson
Posted

Very sad news.  They are both really great men and I wish them & their families the best.

 

What do people feel regarding putting apostles on emeritus status?  I doubt they'll release them (not sure if that's even been done before for health reasons?).  But I hope they can find some peace and will not suffer.  For these men working so hard in their 90's, they are simply amazing.

 

That would be up to the Lord. I don't think there is any evidence that any apostle/prophet in the history of earth was ever given such a status.

Posted

Elder Perry was not the Apostle I was expecting this type of news from first.

Posted (edited)

I can't wait to see a black or Hispanic or even Asian apostle. Let the diversity commence!

If God wills it, My Young Padawan; if God wills it. :)

 

What do people feel regarding putting apostles on emeritus status?

 

See the foregoing reply to My Young Padawan. :)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Posted

To me Monson, Packer, and Perry are the last of the old school apostles.  There's a ten year difference between the calling of Perry and the next apostles; Nelson and Oaks, who started the next generation.

Posted

In the spirit of the NCAA , perhaps we should start a pool as to who, from the current membership , will likely fill the next 3 apostolic positions to open up. You are not allowed to choose yourself . :diablo:  :vader:  :morg:

Posted

In the spirit of the NCAA , perhaps we should start a pool as to who, from the current membership , will likely fill the next 3 apostolic positions to open up. You are not allowed to choose yourself . :diablo:  :vader:  :morg:

why would anyone choose themselves?

we should all be prepared to be called but none of us should seek it.

Posted

LDS NEWS

 

 

I wish them both well, but realistically I unfortunately think we will see some new apostles in the next couple of years.

Well I wish them both well. Even as the evil anti Mornon apostate that I apparently have become I like these two men. I have met them both, shook their hands. Even now I love to hear Elder Perry say "GOD LIVES! JESUS IS THE CHRIST! ". Even if I have doubts he does rouse me. And Edler Scott is just a tender soul.

But they are both old men and we are all mortal and something eventually takes us. However they go I hope if now is their time it is easy and peaceful for them and their families.

Posted

are you prepared for the call?

 

If that's directed at me there are a million reasons that could never happen.

If you doubt it check my posting history.

Posted

perhaps we should look beyond the few families of Mormon royalty and expand the field of possible candidates for leadership at the senior level.  we should also decide what we want this organization to be. a church or a high end real estate investment firm.  currently we have leaders with professional degrees and the focus is on business and major investments in malls, hotels, land in Florida, etc.  much more money has in these efforts than into into humanitarian efforts.   i think it would be nice to see a change.

Posted

perhaps we should look beyond the few families of Mormon royalty and expand the field of possible candidates for leadership at the senior level.  we should also decide what we want this organization to be. a church or a high end real estate investment firm.  currently we have leaders with professional degrees and the focus is on business and major investments in malls, hotels, land in Florida, etc.  much more money has in these efforts than into into humanitarian efforts.   i think it would be nice to see a change.

You are sorely misinformed, stoned.  I see no "royalty" or dynasts within the First Presidency, Twelve, or Seventy, but rather a meritocracy which serves the Lord.  And it is absurd to suggest that the LDS Church is "a high end real estate investment firm."

 

Real estate has long been the major expense of the LDS Church, but the funds are not typically placed in speculative investments, but into meeting houses, temples, schools (CES), farms and ranches which produce free food for the needy, and into subsidiaries which provide professional services for the Church (television and film, radio, print news, publishing, etc.).

 

With all of that, the Church has the largest per capita humanitarian and philanthropic services of any church on Earth.  I sum things up in my “LDS Church Welfare Expenditures,” 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/107498713/LDS-Church-Welfare-Expenditures .

 

What specific changes would you suggest?

Posted

perhaps we should look beyond the few families of Mormon royalty and expand the field of possible candidates for leadership at the senior level.  we should also decide what we want this organization to be. a church or a high end real estate investment firm.  currently we have leaders with professional degrees and the focus is on business and major investments in malls, hotels, land in Florida, etc.  much more money has in these efforts than into into humanitarian efforts.   i think it would be nice to see a change.

 

Who is this "we," my friend?  I've REPEATEDLY been told that HF makes these decisions and neither wants nor needs input from the peanut gallery.

 

However, I do find it interesting that HF is making decisions these days a lot like someone with an MBA or JD.  In my newb days, I assumed that this had something to do with the fact that the leaders of the Church had been trained to think this way, but I once was blind and now, I see.  It's abundantly clear that the leaders are using sheer inspiration to come to the decisions that just happen to match up EXACTLY with those that would be reached by a professor at the Wharton School of Business.

 

That being said, I trust that this is just how HF wants it.  In the OT, we have gaps of decades (and some cases, centuries) in which there is no significant prophetic move of God.  HF wasn't raising up an Elijah or a David or a Daniel every generation.  Instead, he seems to have raised up generations of competent managers, who could keep His holy church afloat until the next wave of glory.  And while those men of God are lost to history, they still played a pivotal role.  I accept that our current leaders are prophets, seers and revelators after this fashion.  As a result, I don't expect that they are going to be drafted from the ranks of the shepherds, locust eaters, or bachelor-degreed.

Posted

You are sorely misinformed, stoned.  I see no "royalty" or dynasts within the First Presidency, Twelve, or Seventy, but rather a meritocracy which serves the Lord.  And it is absurd to suggest that the LDS Church is "a high end real estate investment firm."

 

Real estate has long been the major expense of the LDS Church, but the funds are not typically placed in speculative investments, but into meeting houses, temples, schools (CES), farms and ranches which produce free food for the needy, and into subsidiaries which provide professional services for the Church (television and film, radio, print news, publishing, etc.).

 

With all of that, the Church has the largest per capita humanitarian and philanthropic services of any church on Earth.  I sum things up in my “LDS Church Welfare Expenditures,” 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/107498713/LDS-Church-Welfare-Expenditures .

 

What specific changes would you suggest?

 

Robert, I missed the link to the article that substantiates the claim that we're #1.  I want to see if my beloved Baptists made it into the Top 10.

Posted

why would anyone choose themselves?

we should all be prepared to be called but none of us should seek it.

We have been too long without a caustic and sarcastic apostle. I am a shoo in.

Posted

perhaps we should look beyond the few families of Mormon royalty and expand the field of possible candidates for leadership at the senior level.  we should also decide what we want this organization to be. a church or a high end real estate investment firm.  currently we have leaders with professional degrees and the focus is on business and major investments in malls, hotels, land in Florida, etc.  much more money has in these efforts than into into humanitarian efforts.   i think it would be nice to see a change.

This Royal family garbage relies on the idea that second and third cousins to each other constitutes some kind of dynasty. In other words it relies on idiocy.

Posted

.........................................................................  

.........................................................  I accept that our current leaders are prophets, seers and revelators after this fashion.  As a result, I don't expect that they are going to be drafted from the ranks of the shepherds, locust eaters, or bachelor-degreed.

And only one PhD (David Bednar).  Instead, we currently have a church president who served as an enlistedman in the U.S. Navy, got a baccalareaute in business management, served as an advertising executive, and then managed Deseret News Press; one of his counselors is a former jet fighter pilot turned commercial airline pilot (who became the chief pilot for the company); other members of the Twelve include a former Chicago law professor who became a law school dean, then a university president, and finally a state supreme court justice; a couple more university presidents, one of whom was LDS Commissioner of Education; a noted heart surgeon; another served as an enlistedman in the USMC in the Far East, completed a baccalareaute in business at Utah State Agricultural College, and then worked in retail; the current president of the Twelve served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in WW II in the Far East, later obtaining an Ed doctorate from BYU, then taught for CES; another law school grad became law clerk to federal Judge John Sirica throughout the Watergate proceedings, before a distinguished legal career, but he also served as a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserve; etc.

 

Most of them came from very humble beginnings, worked very hard, and have some noteworthy achievments to their credit.  Unlike Hugh Nibley, none was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Posted (edited)

Robert, I missed the link to the article that substantiates the claim that we're #1.  I want to see if my beloved Baptists made it into the Top 10.

You may be thinking of Bill Marsh, re Mitt Romney’s level of charitable giving, in New York Times, Jan 29, 2012, online at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/29/sunday-review/29giving-gfx.html?ref=sunday-review  .  The New York Times shared a graph that outlines the amount of giving major religions in America contribute.  The LDS, or Mormon Church=s members give nearly twice as much as the denomination in the number two spot. Here's the breakdown of the average percentage of giving per member of each denomination:

Mormon: 5.6%
Assemblies of God: 2.9%
Nondenominational Evangelical: 2.6%
Baptist: 2%
Lutheran: 1.5%
Jewish: 1.4%
Eastern Orthodox: 1.3%
Methodist: 1.2 %
Episcopalian: 1.2%
Presbyterian: 1.2%
Catholic: .7%
Muslim: .6%
Buddhist: .6%
 
However, you may also want to consider the Chronicle of Philanthropy on Dec 10, 2003, based on IRS data for Utah giving (https://philanthropy.com/ ).
Edited by Robert F. Smith
Posted

If that's directed at me there are a million reasons that could never happen.

If you doubt it check my posting history.

darn alternate voices

Posted

 

You may be thinking of Bill Marsh, re Mitt Romney’s level of charitable giving, in New York Times, Jan 29, 2012, online at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/29/sunday-review/29giving-gfx.html?ref=sunday-review  .  The New York Times shared a graph that outlines the amount of giving major religions in America contribute.  The LDS, or Mormon Church=s members give nearly twice as much as the denomination in the number two spot. Here's the breakdown of the average percentage of giving per member of each denomination:

Mormon: 5.6%
Assemblies of God: 2.9%
Nondenominational Evangelical: 2.6%
Baptist: 2%
Lutheran: 1.5%
Jewish: 1.4%
Eastern Orthodox: 1.3%
Methodist: 1.2 %
Episcopalian: 1.2%
Presbyterian: 1.2%
Catholic: .7%
Muslim: .6%
Buddhist: .6%
 
However, you may also want to consider the Chronicle of Philanthropy on Dec 10, 2003, based on IRS data for Utah giving (https://philanthropy.com/ ).

 

 

I wonder if tithing was removed from the numbers (as it does not go to humanitarian aid) what that would look like?

Posted

I wonder if tithing was removed from the numbers (as it does not go to humanitarian aid) what that would look like?

 

I suppose by that standard all donations to a church organization would need to be deducted from all charitable giving since churches, in your view, are not humanitarian aid.  

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...