MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Well...He is late on my car payment....so... But then...I do get to drive His car.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Jeanne

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yeah, I didn't think you could provide any quotes where anyone was doing a "character assassination" on a general authority.  Maybe you should withdraw that accusation if you can't back it up?

I cannot be responsible for your misinterpreting my remarks as an accusation.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I never had physical contact with the guns, but was searched spread-eagle against a bus once, and with arms raised on another occasion, both at machine-gun point. An angry gentleman pointed a pistol at me from a vehicle on the outskirts of a riot but sped off before I had much time to react. Hmm, what else... then there was the missionary who carried a pistol in a book...

So you almost lost-a you scalp-a in Tegucigalpa?

Dang! Have you mentioned where this was? Never had riots, but the Sandinistas were always shooting up the mountainous areas in Nicaragua. We heard the gunfire a couple of times but that was all.

I had six encounters with guns on my mission.

The first was at the Tegucigalpa airport when I first arrived in the mission. I had never seen real life machine-gun armed soldiers before, so I was a bit taken aback to see them patrolling the lobby. No threats, but I wondered what I had gotten myself into.

We were walking home at night In Tegucigalpa. Crossing the street to get closer to a bus stop, I stepped up on the sidewalk.  A soldier ran up out of nowhere, put his rifle in my stomach, and started shouting, "Fuera! Fuera!" I was pretty green and couldn't understand what he was shouting. Apparently we had entered a forbidden area next to a prison, but there were no warning signs....just a regular sidewalk in the city. We moved back and left quickly.

Also in Tegus we were teaching a teenaged boy the fifth discussion...the one with all the Plan of Salvation strips stuck on the felt board. A man (we later found out he was the boy's uncle and he beat the boy after we left) came in and said, "Get out!" and that he was getting his gun. We started pulling strips off. He came back and said,"I can't find my pistola, so I'm getting my machete." More strips coming down. He came back and said, "I can't find my machete, but I have this brick," and started swinging it at us. As we ran out the door, my companion paused and dusted his shoes.

In Managua, we stopped at a hotel restaurant to get something cold to drink. A man came over to our table, drew his pistola, and started shouting, "Johnson asesino! Johnson asesino!" (Johnson murderer). He was put out with LBJ and thought we were CIA. Fortunately, some of the other customers calmed him down and we left in one piece. It was not uncommon to have someone say, "CIA, CIA," as we walked around.

We did a lot of hitchhiking. Once on a trip from Managua to Masaya a man in a nice car stopped and picked us up on a country road. As we drove off, I looked at the floor and saw a 45m automatic pistola. A little concerned, I hesitantly asked him about it. He was a Nicaraguan Senator and carried the gun in case the Sandinistas tried to stop him. How Cool Is That! It occurred to me much later in life that an American hitchhiking in the war zone of a third world country was probably a really, really stupid idiot.

While working in San Jose, Costa Rica, my companion and I drove the office VW bus downtown for some business. On the way back, a guy came up behind us in a black Mercedes. He tailgated us for a while and then sped past, causing me to swerve and a car driven by a woman with kids coming the other direction to leave the road. I foolishly followed and came up beside him when he stopped at an intersection. "Donde aprendistes a manejar? En Nicaragua?" "Where did you learn to drive? In Nicaragua?" I asked. A stupid insult and a Really Bad Move. He followed us all the way to the mission office. On arrival, he shouted he was getting his pistola out of the trunk. My companion, Elder Michael Callahan, got out first and put his knee against the man's door. Michael was 6'8" and weighed almost 300 pounds. The kids called him "El Gigante." The guy couldn't budge the door, but out of the other side stepped a muscular black man almost as big as Michael. Que caramba! I thought. We are in deep caca. There were other elders coming out of the office, so we had reinforcements. Fortunately the black fellow was the most cool headed of us all. He talked his friend down and they left. 

Those are my stories and I'm sticking to them. I never told my parents.

At the time it was exciting, adventurous, and, well, somewhat fun. They made for great bragging at district meetings, But looking back, that's the sign of a guy still climbing up Fool's Hill. I'm a little closer to the top now, but from this vantage point I see that I am just in the foothills. Fool's Mountains loom all around.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's certainly possible. My understanding of parenting is based on my time and culture and I like the positive attributes of parenting that are lauded in the modern world. If parents were all acting like an old testament god this would be a pretty miserable world.

If you were studying parents in society and found parents that acted like the god being described, would you view them as a good, or bad parent? Loving or coercive? Compassionate or abusive?

Looking around, I have noticed how spectacularly effective modern parenting practices are.

 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I cannot be responsible for your misinterpreting my remarks as an accusation.

Well, when that's what you clearly stated, there was no misinterpretation.

As long as we agree that no one has done any "character assassinations" against general authorities here, I'll take that as a withdrawal of your earlier statement.  Thanks.

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Doing the right thing shouldn't be predicated on whether or not one will be criticized.

Indeed. The question becomes, what is the right thing?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It was not uncommon to have someone say, "CIA, CIA," as we walked around.

My favorite area was Halberstadt, a town of about 30,000 in the former DDR (East Germany). This was in 1995, so six years after the border opened. There was still extremely high unemployment, signs in German and Russian, etc. Men walking around in dark suits caused quite a stir.

Once, we were approaching an elderly couple, and I could see from how the wife whispered to her husband that she wondered who and what we were. As we passed them, I leaned in and said, "Stasi" (East German secret police, arguably more skilled and ruthless than the KGB). She recoiled in horror, and her husband laughed a good belly laugh (I think he had us pegged as Westerners, and wasn't worried).

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

Whether or not the embarrassing or troubling information is true is a separate matter from the rebellious action against the Church. I still think that Church disciplinary action should be taken, even if it were for a "greater good." 

I understand.  But the question is regarding your claim that by sharing information the "leakers" have potentially damaged church members' faith.

If they are sharing accurate information, how would that damage members' faith?  Or maybe you are intentionally backing away from the statement because it seems like you've avoided my question and a similar question from someone else (if I'm not mistaken).

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Looking around, I have noticed how spectacularly effective modern parenting practices are.

 

Not perfect, but we also don't see all that many mass murders where parents kill all/many of their children to teach them lessons so that may be an improvement from biblical genocide, racism, sexism, and canonized requirements to earn love from God. I don't know any parents who, when asked by their child a question, doesn't answer. I don't know any parents who, when asked for food or protection from evil, won't do everything in their power to provide and protect. From God, at best, it seems to be an attitude of "you're on your own. Good luck. I hope you still love me even though I am a distant, unresponsive parent."

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. The question becomes, what is the right thing?

Agreed.  So we should stop using the possibility of criticism as a reason for the church ceasing to disclose its finances back in 1959 to the present day.

[Jeanne]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Not perfect, but we also don't see all that many mass murders where parents kill all/many of their children to teach them lessons so that may be an improvement from biblical genocide, racism, sexism, and canonized requirements to earn love from God. I don't know any parents who, when asked by their child a question, doesn't answer. I don't know any parents who, when asked for food or protection from evil, won't do everything in their power to provide and protect. From God, at best, it seems to be an attitude of "you're on your own. Good luck. I hope you still love me even though I am a distant, unresponsive parent."

 

Personally, I can promise you, this doesn't work.  The unresponsive parent is the hardest and often the cruelest way to sustain a prophet, a doctrine and all consuming promises that only hurt the family.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understand.  But the question is regarding your claim that by sharing information the "leakers" have potentially damaged church members' faith.

If they are sharing accurate information, how would that damage members' faith?  Or maybe you are intentionally backing away from the statement because it seems like you've avoided my question and a similar question from someone else (if I'm not mistaken).

To be frank, it would/could damage some people's faith because of past ill-advised representations from the Church compared to the reality. As you said, that is "on the Church." 

But, I still don't think that leaking confidential information in order to expose this is good or right. Especially because I don't believe that any of the leakers (suppliers and distributors) are believing members who just want to encourage the Church to be more transparent. I believe that they all want to bring about massive change to Church policy, doctrine, and practices. And, I find the ____Leaks platform, whether it's political, military, or religious, to be a bad method on its face. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

To be frank, it would/could damage some people's faith because of past ill-advised representations from the Church compared to the reality. As you said, that is "on the Church." 

But, I still don't think that leaking confidential information in order to expose this is good or right. Especially because I don't believe that any of the leakers (suppliers and distributors) are believing members who just want to encourage the Church to be more transparent. I believe that they all want to bring about massive change to Church policy, doctrine, and practices. And, I find the ____Leaks platform, whether it's political, military, or religious, to be a bad method on its face. 

Thanks.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  So we should stop using the possibility of criticism as a reason for the church ceasing to disclose its finances back in 1959 to the present day.

I don't know if i agree.  Criticism almost always leads to contention, which the scriptures teach is caused by the devil.  I think there is something to be said for making decisions that will help lead to less contention among members and also members and ex-members.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

To be frank, it would/could damage some people's faith because of past ill-advised representations from the Church compared to the reality. As you said, that is "on the Church." 

But, I still don't think that leaking confidential information in order to expose this is good or right. Especially because I don't believe that any of the leakers (suppliers and distributors) are believing members who just want to encourage the Church to be more transparent. I believe that they all want to bring about massive change to Church policy, doctrine, and practices. And, I find the ____Leaks platform, whether it's political, military, or religious, to be a bad method on its face. 

My opinion is that the motivation behind the leaks is to harm the church. I think in the long run, however, the leaks will improve the church. Not that I think that justifies the leaks. But I think long term, the outcomes will be positive. Transparency is good for everyone. I just don't think the methods are ethical. Transparency should either come about as voluntary disclosure or as legislated disclosure. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Gray

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if i agree.  Criticism almost always leads to contention, which the scriptures teach is caused by the devil.  I think there is something to be said for making decisions that will help lead to less contention among members and also members and ex-members.

That's like saying I should keep my expenses a secret from my wife because discussing them might cause contention.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Really, the LDS Church's near total absence of financial disclosure is working out great from your perspective?  You honestly can't see how a bit more transparency, perhaps along the lines public companies in the US are required to disclose (in their public SEC filings, etc.) would have prevented this whole thread?

It's a "living example"--I'll grant you that.

;0)

--Erik

I can see where you are coming from. From my long experience as a highly engaged Mormon, I have confidence that our General Authorities and their assistants are not only very competent and extraordinarily good-willed administrators, but are also impeccably honest when dealing with the funds I willingly donate to the Church. I have considerable experience with finances at the ward and stake levels. If the SLC brethren and sisters are as meticulously and religiously scrupulous as the local leaders are, I am comfortable trusting their direction. Sure, nothing is perfect. Certainly, there have been some local folks who have mistreated the tithes, but that is rare. It costs you your membership and probably involves legal action.

So, when the church financial department gives its summary report at General Conference, I believe them. I believe they are trustworthy. I have no reason to suspect malfeasance. If practices changes, I'll be quite happy with that, but I don't feel the need to pick through the details of mission president pay stubs looking for whatever juicy nit I can find with which I can besmirch the Church. Based on the mini-example of the discussion in this thread, it would be a furious and never-ending distraction from anti-Mormons and unfortunately some disaffected Mormons. 

This may sound hopelessly naive to you. I'm ok with that.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's like saying I should keep my expenses a secret from my wife because discussing them might cause contention.

Not really what i meant.  I was thinking more along the lines of-if sharing the information serves no purpose other than to satisfy someone's curiosity, then asking yourself whether or not doing so will cause unneeded contention seems like a valid thing to consider.

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not really what i meant.  I was thinking more along the lines of-if sharing the information serves no purpose other than to satisfy someone's curiosity, then asking yourself whether or not doing so will cause unneeded contention seems like a valid thing to consider.

 

That's fair.  I don't think that the Church should share its financial information just to satisfy curiosity.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

My favorite area was Halberstadt, a town of about 30,000 in the former DDR (East Germany). This was in 1995, so six years after the border opened. There was still extremely high unemployment, signs in German and Russian, etc. Men walking around in dark suits caused quite a stir.

Once, we were approaching an elderly couple, and I could see from how the wife whispered to her husband that she wondered who and what we were. As we passed them, I leaned in and said, "Stasi" (East German secret police, arguably more skilled and ruthless than the KGB). She recoiled in horror, and her husband laughed a good belly laugh (I think he had us pegged as Westerners, and wasn't worried).

Having just read a book called Forty Autumns, written by a granddaughter in a family that for three generations was oppressed by the Communist regime in East Germany, I don't find the above very funny.

 

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not perfect, but we also don't see all that many mass murders where parents kill all/many of their children to teach them lessons so that may be an improvement from biblical genocide, racism, sexism, and canonized requirements to earn love from God. I don't know any parents who, when asked by their child a question, doesn't answer. I don't know any parents who, when asked for food or protection from evil, won't do everything in their power to provide and protect. From God, at best, it seems to be an attitude of "you're on your own. Good luck. I hope you still love me even though I am a distant, unresponsive parent."

 

While our loving Father does indeed leave us to our own devices from time to time, He hardly walks away in cruel, not-caring,  unresponsive rejection. I don't share such a jaundiced view of His manner of schooling us. Our agency is inviolable, no matter how painful it may be to experience and to watch. We are in the crucible of life and most of the time it is not fun. This is a perspective I have learned the hard way. There is no other way.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's fair.  I don't think that the Church should share its financial information just to satisfy curiosity.

We tend to forget that WE are the church. The church isn't a building or a leader, it's the membership. I think your analogy about a husband not sharing information with his wife is quite apt to a church not sharing information with its members. It's not merely a curiosity. Transparency can help us understand our church to which we've devoted so much trust, treasure, and time. Why would less understanding and knowledge be a good thing? People seem to be seeking continued ignorance for the sake of a counterfeit unity. Is the church unified now without transparency? I don't think so.

If the only benefit of church leaders not sharing info with church members is to reduce conflict then it would seem to be an ineffective and condescending strategy.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Having just read a book called Forty Autumns, written by a granddaughter in a family that for three generations was oppressed by the Communist regime in East Germany, I don't find the above very funny.

 

The husband in question, who probably lived under similar circumstances as the author the book, seemed to.  His wife probably didn't!

 

[Bernard Gui]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  So we should stop using the possibility of criticism as a reason for the church ceasing to disclose its finances back in 1959 to the present day.

That criticism would magnify exponentially. The criticism will never stop....comes with the territory.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People seem to be seeking continued ignorance for the sake of a counterfeit unity.

If the only benefit of church leaders not sharing info with church members is to reduce conflict then it would seem to be an ineffective and condescending strategy.

These are very insightful points.