HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 34 minutes ago, rongo said: It can, and it sometimes it does, yes. But, the "rebel scum" (justified or not) shouldn't feel ill-used if "The Man" asserts his rights and defends himself. If Empire Strikes Back taught us anything, it's that rebels, justified or not, will face the wrath of the empire. Fear of church or legal action. Fear of hurting personal relationships with friends or family. Fear of losing their job (at the COB or CES or something else like that, in this case). Fear of losing clients. Fear of publicity. You came up with a good list. Probably more could be added. Justified or not, leakers have to count the cost. And hopefully think long and hard about whether the cost is worth it. And whether the effects are worth it. I think they do. They are aware of the consequences, hence the anonymity. It sounds like if Church or legal action follows, the fears were not misplaced. Agreed. I think the fears are legitimate. Given the above, uh, yeah [/valley girl] When you have to be anonymous for all those reasons, especially legal or Church sanctions, to me, that signals that you're on thin ice. Yeah, they may be on thin ice but that doesn't mean that the Empire is right or just in the consequences it inflicts I don't think it matters what the people leaking truly think. I think it matters what the institutional Church really thinks (as pertains to church discipline). John Dehlin and Kate Kelly "really thought" they were doing the Church and its people a real service, too. It doesn't matter in the sense that the leaker/rebel doesn't get to choose how the empire will punish them, but I believe their motives matter to God. Just because the institutional church is offended by leaks or people like Dehlin/Kelly doesn't necessarily mean God is upset with them. I view it as a possibility that God uses outside pressures like Dehlin or leakers to nudge his church in a different direction. The Church can also dish out some tough love. I think we all know that. But when the focus is on "protecting the good name of the church" love doesn't really enter into it. The primary purpose of the discipline is to protect the church, not save the sinner. It's a rather self-serving process for the church to punish people for its own benefit. Fixed it for you. Because they don't go about it the right way, and because it's confidential, sensitive, and the Church's property. How is this being used to hurt the good name of the Church? In a myriad of ways. That's why people who do not like the Church or its people are gleeful about this. Is all information about the church "church property"? Maybe some people are gleeful for that reason but not all. I'm pleased (not gleeful) about getting some actual information. I'd be gleeful if the church was responsible enough to inform its members of these things itself.
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, CV75 said: It seems that adding that to "the list" is indicative of more people becoming more dysfunctionally sensitive, contributing to the fulfillment of prophesy (their hearts shall fail them). You believe that learning truths causes or results in that? How about you hold those accountable who are responsible for these actions and those who taught incorrect information, etc.? Not those who now discover the truth (no matter how they discover it, it is still the truth). Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 18 minutes ago, CV75 said: It seems that adding that to "the list" is indicative of more people becoming more dysfunctionally sensitive, contributing to the fulfillment of prophesy (their hearts shall fail them). It's more like a scale or balance. On one side are all the faithful reasons to believe and trust the church. On the other are the reasons not to believe or trust the church. When item after item gets added to the side of disbelief the natural consequence is for the scale to favor the side of disbelief. It has nothing to do with being "dysfunctionally sensitive". It's a dismissive term that fails to acknowledge that for some people honestly trying to weigh the issues, the balance shifts. The additional weight to the side of disbelief often seems to be added by the church itself via its changing narrative. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I'd be more interested in leaks about who the apostles thought go to the 2 lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom. That would likely require a leak of minutes from the Quorum of the 12 and FP meetings. Now THOSE would be interesting. 2
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Over the past few years, many members have been facing continual "hits" against things they thought they knew about the church: What they were taught about how polygamy was practiced - wrong. What they learned about the reasons for the priesthood ban - disavowed. How they understood the Book of Mormon to have been translated - false. Origins of the Book of Abraham - not what they were told. Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many) can now be added to that list. I would agree with you. Members are facing continual hits against their faith by learning things about the Church they didn't know. It's almost like God wants their faith to be tried to its very core to see if they can stand. It reminds one of all the trials of faith the early saints went through. All the apostasy, all the doubts, all the persecutions. Kind of like testing the faith is required. Nah...that couldn't be it. God doesn't like our faith tried. He wants us to be happy, confident and perfectly content in all things. Right?
Duncan Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 isn't leaking people's personal financial info against the law? like couldn't these no good deed doers be looking at criminal charges?
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 3 hours ago, JulieM said: And again, that information was already given (the actual name of the person to contact for "all questions" regarding their "family finances" and the person's phone number and other contact info). So why the need to specifically name those they should NOT discuss or talk to about the money they are receiving? A timely reminder. Plus, none of those folks had any official business advising the person on employee finances. IMO.
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, CV75 said: I wouldn't be able to keep up with the $... or is it ₡...? We had to close and evacuate our mission (due to violence). It was closed for several years, and only a couple of those allowing stake missions. Open now though, with multiple missions! Hooray! I was in Costa Rica as an exchange student in the early 70s. Beautiful country, great adventure with only minor injuries; visited Panama at the same time, stepped off the plane in Nicaragua. Stepping off the plane in those days might have been too much time in Nicaragua. It was not the best place to be, but we loved the people and there was a lot of beauty in the country. Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: A timely reminder. Plus, none of those folks had any official business advising the person on employee finances. IMO. Who is the employee? The mission president?
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I would agree with you. Members are facing continual hits against their faith by learning things about the Church they didn't know. It's almost like God wants their faith to be tried to its very core to see if they can stand. It reminds one of all the trials of faith the early saints went through. All the apostasy, all the doubts, all the persecutions. Kind of like testing the faith is required. Nah...that couldn't be it. God doesn't like our faith tried. He wants us to be happy, confident and perfectly content in all things. Right? As Neil Maxwell prophesied in 1978, the time will come when the Saints will have to choose whether they will stand with the First Presidency or not. Quote But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21). President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life" (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ....... We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage. Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities--when faced with clear alternatives--would make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide. Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people's opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened. In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play--especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat's burden, you see. Am I saying that the voting rights of the people of religion are in danger? Of course not! Am I saying, "It's back to the catacombs?" No! But there is occurring a discounting of religiously-based opinions. There may even be a covert and subtle disqualification of some for certain offices in some situations, in an ironic "irreligious test" for office..... If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it? It may well be, as our time comes to "suffer shame for his name" (Acts 5:41), that some of this special stress will grow out of that portion of discipleship which involves citizenship. Remember that, as Nephi and Jacob said, we must learn to endure "the crosses of the world" (2 Nephi 9:18) and yet to despise "the shame of [it]" (Jacob 1:8). To go on clinging to the iron rod in spite of the mockery and scorn that flow at us from the multitudes in that great and spacious building seen by Father Lehi, which is the "pride of the world," is to disregard the shame of the world (1 Nephi 8:26–27, 33; 11:35–36). Parenthetically, why--really why--do the disbelievers who line that spacious building watch so intently what the believers are doing? Surely there must be other things for the scorners to do--unless, deep within their seeming disinterest, there is interest. If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other human relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash. Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even these, however, must leave a record so that the choices before the people are clear and let others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, that others will step forward, having been rallied to righteousness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds--a majority which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves "summer is nigh" (Matthew 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat. Have I come today only to add one more to the already long list of special challenges faced by you and me? Not really. I have also come to say to you that God, who foresaw all challenges, has given to us a precious doctrine which can encourage us in meeting this and all other challenges. The combined doctrine of God's foreknowledge and of foreordination is one of the doctrinal roads least traveled by, yet these clearly underline how very long and how perfectly God has loved us and known us with our individual needs and capacities. Isolated from other doctrines or mishandled, though, these truths can stoke the fires of fatalism, impact adversely upon our agency, cause us to focus on status rather than service, and carry us over into predestination. http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Maxwell, Neal A/MaxwellNA_MeetingTheChallengesOfToday-MoreDeterminedDiscipleship.html Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: As Neil Maxwell prophesied in 1978, the time will come when the Saints will have to choose whether they will stand with the First Presidency or not. Pretty safe prophesy since it has always been so.
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: As Neil Maxwell prophesied in 1978, the time will come when the Saints will have to choose whether they will stand with the First Presidency or not. This reminds me of a prophecy by President Daniel H. Wells of the First Presidency: And if we, as a people, do not hold ourselves on the altar ready to be used, with our means and ALL that God has bestowed upon us, according to the Master's bidding, for the upholding of His kingdom upon the earth, He will pass on and get somebody else; because he will get a people that will do it. I do not mean to say that He will pass on and leave this people; no, THERE WILL COME UP FROM THE MIDST OF THIS PEOPLE THAT PEOPLE WHICH HAS BEEN TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT, for the kingdom will not be taken from us and given to another people, it is too late in the day, as it has already commenced to grow, and it is growing and will continue to grow. --Des. News, Dec. 9, 1882. The Church will never fall, but there will likely be a select group that will come out of the current Church membership who are willing to follow him.
CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Stepping off the plane in those days might have been too much time in Nicaragua. It was not the best place to be, but we loved the people and there was a lot of beauty in the country. I was a teenager and impulsive. I wasn't supposed to get off (it was a pit stop) but made my way onto the tarmac for a few seconds. I wanted a photo of the soldier with the machine gun... and got away with it.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I would agree with you. Members are facing continual hits against their faith by learning things about the Church they didn't know. It's almost like God wants their faith to be tried to its very core to see if they can stand. It reminds one of all the trials of faith the early saints went through. All the apostasy, all the doubts, all the persecutions. Kind of like testing the faith is required. Nah...that couldn't be it. God doesn't like our faith tried. He wants us to be happy, confident and perfectly content in all things. Right? Does that sound like the behavior of a loving parent? Make it hard for your child to communicate with you and know that you love them. Then, when they are feeling confident that you love them, throw them a curve ball or 5 to cause them to doubt so you can see how much they really love and trust you? Sounds like a neurotic parent who is in continual need of validation. What parent requires a child to prove their love and trust? I can strengthen my children without causing them to wonder if I love them or if I even exist. Seems like a silly idea that I would continually test my children's faith in me and then when they are doing well, pull the rug out from under them. Sounds like an abusive parent and I choose not to think of God as abusive. Frankly, I don't think we have a clue about the nature of God. 1
CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: You believe that learning truths causes or results in that? How about you hold those accountable who are responsible for these actions and those who taught incorrect information, etc.? Not those who now discover the truth (no matter how they discover it, it is still the truth). I’m not about to rank “the list” accusations in order of severity, but putting this item (family support confidentiality) right up there with them represents a bit of over-something. I don’t see this leaked item speaking to truth and as such exposing the teaching of incorrect information. There are some facts, but nothing that merits putting it right up there on “the list.” 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: It's more like a scale or balance. On one side are all the faithful reasons to believe and trust the church. On the other are the reasons not to believe or trust the church. When item after item gets added to the side of disbelief the natural consequence is for the scale to favor the side of disbelief. It has nothing to do with being "dysfunctionally sensitive". It's a dismissive term that fails to acknowledge that for some people honestly trying to weigh the issues, the balance shifts. The additional weight to the side of disbelief often seems to be added by the church itself via its changing narrative. A legitimate scale would include the pros and cons for each item on “the list, with the list-maker's internal and external evidences. When that doesn’t happen, of course item after item will be added to “the list” as the makers of “the list” become more dysfunctionally sensitive and less functionally resilient to new information.
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Does that sound like the behavior of a loving parent? Make it hard for your child to communicate with you and know that you love them. Then, when they are feeling confident that you love them, throw them a curve ball or 5 to cause them to doubt so you can see how much they really love and trust you? Sounds like a neurotic parent who is in continual need of validation. What parent requires a child to prove their love and trust? I can strengthen my children without causing them to wonder if I love them or if I even exist. Seems like a silly idea that I would continually test my children's faith in me and then when they are doing well, pull the rug out from under them. Sounds like an abusive parent and I choose not to think of God as abusive. Frankly, I don't think we have a clue about the nature of God. Considering the sacrifice God required of his only begotten Son I think perhaps your understanding of a loving parent might be where the flaw lies. 1
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 17 minutes ago, CV75 said: I’m not about to rank “the list” accusations in order of severity, but putting this item (family support confidentiality) right up there with them represents a bit of over-something. Where was "family support" listed? Are you referring to this? "Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many)"
2BizE Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 On 1/24/2017 at 3:27 PM, JulieM said: The instruction for mission presidents not to pay tithing on the money they receive from the church (stipend I guess?) is kind of interesting but maybe that's standard? Here is the quote: "Do not pay tithing on any funds you receive from the Church." Mission presidents pay tithing as the Lord has commanded. They pay it on their surplus as defined in D&C 119. Their cost of living expenses are subtracted from the tithing they would pay. If they have other revenue-generating investments they should pay tithing on that.
Jeanne Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 25 minutes ago, 2BizE said: Mission presidents pay tithing as the Lord has commanded. They pay it on their surplus as defined in D&C 119. Their cost of living expenses are subtracted from the tithing they would pay. If they have other revenue-generating investments they should pay tithing on that. Shoot..I was paying way too much. I was trying to live off what was left from my living expenses...surplus? What is that?
JAHS Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 On a related issue, looks like Comcast will air Kargers ads after all "Ads asking for documents and other information harmful to the tax status of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will run on Comcast after all, the ads' producer said Wednesday. Fred Karger said he has continued negotiating with Philadelphia-based Comcast and it has agreed to broadcast the advertisements in the Salt Lake City market, provided Karger amends the script. Karger said Comcast is requiring him to reword part of the ad and graphic alleging the LDS Church has more than $1 trillion in assets. Karger said that portion of the ad will say something to the effect that it is thought that the church has that much in assets. "I'm very excited about it," Karger said Wednesday. Karger plans to reshoot and edit the 30-second ad on Monday and Tuesday and wants to give it to Comcast the next day. Comcast issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying it had wanted substantiation for five claims made in the ad, and Karger had been unwilling to provide those. Karger provided substantiation for four of those claims last week, the Comcast statement said. "For the one unsubstantiated claim, they agreed to modify the statement/visual," the statement said. "We are waiting for them to send us a revised 30-second ad to review." While Comcast had refused to broadcast the ad over what Karger said were concerns over statements about the LDS Church's holdings, Karger said a Provo cable company has been running the ad. Karger said he has been receiving tips on a phone number and email published in the ads, but has not received any internal church documents yet." Comcast to air ads pursuing Mormon church tax status after all, organizer says
Bernard Gui Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JulieM said: Who is the employee? The mission president? The ones who were advised not to talk with folks who did not need to know about their salary or who had no business finding out the details. If I had questions about my paycheck, I would go to the payroll office, not the band teacher next door. If I wanted to complain about my paycheck, I would go to him. Edited January 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 This thread is the living example why the Church chooses not to disclose finances and personnel information such as salaries and benefits. 2
JulieM Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The ones who were advised not to talk with folks who did not need to know about their salary or who had no business finding out the details. If I had questions about my paycheck, I would go to the payroll office, not the band teacher next door. If I wanted to complain about my paycheck, I would go to him. So you consider a Mission President to be a church employee?
JLHPROF Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 17 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Shoot..I was paying way too much. I was trying to live off what was left from my living expenses...surplus? What is that? Do you not remember the story of the widow's mite? Or that of Ananias and Saphira? Everything is God's. Nothing belongs to us.
Bernard Gui Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I was a teenager and impulsive. I wasn't supposed to get off (it was a pit stop) but made my way onto the tarmac for a few seconds. I wanted a photo of the soldier with the machine gun... and got away with it. Yeah. The soldiers with the machine guns. One of them put his in my stomach on a street in Tegucigalpa.
Recommended Posts