The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Ahab]

32 billion?  When was that, exactly?  It's likely more or less than that right now. I'm going to guess more, but who really knows.

[ksfisher]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are not serious are you?

Yes, I am.  Why should one person, a private individual, have the right to decide what private information of yours, or mine, or the church's that should be made public.  If people believe that a church's books should be made public then they should take it up with their lawmakers.

[Analytics]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that would be the worst thing in the world.  I was impressed by the recent remarks attributed to Elder Bednar (to church members in Arkansas):

Will I struggle with having only "the priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and a mango tree to sit under?"  I honestly hope not (except that I'd want the full Quad, not just the Book of Mormon, and we'd sit under pine trees, not mango trees).

Thanks,

-Smac

By itself, there is nothing wrong with that at all. Wisely spending its money to further its mission is what I would expect of any such organization. My problem arises is when they systematically save up fortunes in the good years and the bad for no other apparent purpose than the everlasting goal of increasing wealth.

[Teancum]

On 5/30/2018 at 11:06 AM, Storm Rider said:

Individuals dress their motives in noble words when the reality is far different.  Such an innocent - though screeching whine - all I want is for the church to disclose their finances.  Yeah, right.  We don't demand transparency of ourselves, quite the opposite we demand privacy.  We don't demand transparency from anything and nothing gives it to us.  Why the focus on the LDS Church?  What is the real motivation for this incessant whine about the Church and its finances?

That is the delusion - I just want honesty in the Church - yet the real reason is something different.  

The comparison of an organization the demands obedience in expecting a large amount of $$$ to be given by its members and transparency to individuals disclosing their finances is, quote frankly, one of the dumbest arguments I have seen.  

 

If I ask you to give me 10% PLUS to get to the highest rewards in heaven offered then I would be happy to disclose all my financial position to you.

Your argument is ludicrous.And stupid.

 

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

By itself, there is nothing wrong with that at all. Wisely spending its money to further its mission is what I would expect of any such organization. My problem arises is when they systematically save up fortunes in the good years and the bad for no other apparent purpose than the everlasting goal of increasing wealth.

What evidence do you have that there is "no other apparent purpose than the everlasting goal of increasing wealth?"  Attributing purely mercenary motives to the LDS Church in this way becomes problematic when we fairly examine the behavior of those who have access to the Church's funds.  Why is that the Church doesn't have equivalents to Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, and other "Prosperity Theology" advocates?  It is noteworthy that these folks all live lives which are fairly characterized as "fabulously wealthy."  The Brethren, on the other hand, . . . don't.

Folks like D. Michael Quinn and Jana Riess, both of whom are only too happy to publicly call out and find fault with the Church, have conceded that the leaders of the church are nothing like those folks.

• Quinn: "{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is 'an enormously faith-promoting story.'   If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would 'breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'"
• Riess: "The Cincinnati-based writer is also impressed with Quinn’s description of LDS leadership as a 'form of service,' she says. 'They are clearly not in it to get rich.'"

How to reconcile your critique of the Church with Quinn's?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Quinn: "{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is 'an enormously faith-promoting story.'   If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would 'breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'"

There is a way to make this happen. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

There is a way to make this happen. 

And without needing to see the dollar figures, too.  All we need to know is the main objective. 

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is a way to make this happen. 

Touché!

-Smac

[Analytics]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What evidence do you have that there is "no other apparent purpose than the everlasting goal of increasing wealth?" 

Simple logic. According to the Church's press release, they will always adjust spending so that it is less than that year's tithing revenue. Two things are implied by that:

1- Little savings are needed.

2- The amount saved increases every year.

If they are doing what they say they are doing, they are in the mode of everlasting increasing the church's financial wealth. I don't think they'd be doing that if it weren't their goal.

Quote

Attributing purely mercenary motives to the LDS Church in this way becomes problematic when we fairly examine the behavior of those who have access to the Church's funds.  Why is that the Church doesn't have equivalents to Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, and other "Prosperity Theology" advocates?  It is noteworthy that these folks all live lives which are fairly characterized as "fabulously wealthy."

Since you brought those guys up, how do you feel about the fact that because of their lifestyles, these guys require an outsized amount of police protection, legal protection, fire protection, etc., but since they are doing it in the name of religion, they don't pay taxes? Do you feel like you are subsidizing them with your tax dollars that fund the government services they receive? Do you think that is fair?

"Mercenary" is the wrong word to describe what I see happening with the LDS Church. Mercenary implies they are building the empire at the expense of all other considerations, including ethics. I'm not saying that. Rather, I'm saying that perpetually building the corporate empire is a priority. Not the highest priority. Not at the expense of ethics. Simply a priority.

Quote

Folks like D. Michael Quinn and Jana Riess, both of whom are only too happy to publicly call out and find fault with the Church, have conceded that the leaders of the church are nothing like those folks.

• Quinn: "{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is 'an enormously faith-promoting story.'   If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would 'breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'"
• Riess: "The Cincinnati-based writer is also impressed with Quinn’s description of LDS leadership as a 'form of service,' she says. 'They are clearly not in it to get rich.'"

How to reconcile your critique of the Church with Quinn's?

According to Quinn, the church's tithing receipts increase by 12.9% on average every year. Using his numbers, the church is going to take in about 89 billion in tithing in 2018. You really want to rely upon him as a source of insight into what's really going on with the church's finances?

I agree with Quinn that the church ought to be transparent. I don't believe they are taking in nearly as much as he thinks they are. I agree with him that the apostles aren't getting rich off of the system.

Quinn quotes Alan Blodgett, former assistant controller of the Church, as saying in an email:

Why then doesn’t the Church tell its financial story? I can only guess that Church leaders fear that individual members may not understand the vastness of Church resources and operations[,] and having this information might negatively influence their faithfulness and support of Church leaders. (President Monson, then a member of the Quorum of Twelve, so expressed himself once in a meeting held just prior to President Tanner’s death, [thus] putting an end to a proposal made [in 1982] to publish financial statements.) … Personally, I believe these factors are manageable[,] and more good than harm would come from the Church leaders offering an accounting of Church finances to the membership of the Church.

Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (Kindle Locations 5021-5026). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

 

I agree with Blodgett as well.

 

None of this implies that the Church doesn't have the goal of perpetually increasing its financial resources.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Analytics

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that would be the worst thing in the world.  I was impressed by the recent remarks attributed to Elder Bednar (to church members in Arkansas):

Will I struggle with having only "the priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and a mango tree to sit under?"  I honestly hope not (except that I'd want the full Quad, not just the Book of Mormon, and we'd sit under pine trees, not mango trees).

Thanks,

-Smac

As long as I can bring a blanket (pine needles can hurt), I am with you.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he’s not, I am. 

Yea I don't expect you would have one serious thought about this issue Scott.

You whole life and income is tied to the church.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, I am.  Why should one person, a private individual, have the right to decide what private information of yours, or mine, or the church's that should be made public.  If people believe that a church's books should be made public then they should take it up with their lawmakers.

Because I am not requiring you to give me 10% of your income in order to get to the highest heaven.

 

Nor do I ask you to invest your money in my company , which if I did, law requires me to disclose financial information to you.

To equate you or me having to disclose our own personal finances to a Church that demands obedience to it's law of tithe is simple ludicrous.  You and Scott seem unsophisticated enough on money issues to understand this.  

When I ask you for 10% I will be happy to disclose all my financial info.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

"What you have come to believe the church is, will go away. The people who will struggle most with that will be the people in North America."

 

This is roughly what Elder Bednar said to us in a training meeting three years ago too.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since you brought those guys up, how do you feel about the fact that because of their lifestyles, these guys require an outsized amount of police protection, legal protection, fire protection, etc., but since they are doing it in the name of religion, they don't pay taxes? Do you feel like you are subsidizing them with your tax dollars that fund the government services they receive? Do you think that is fair?

No, I don't like the idea of subsidizing the Creflo Dollars of the world.  But I also subsidize welfare cheats, tax frauds, recidivist criminals, and all sorts of yucky people.  And since the burden these folks represent far, far exceed the burden of a numerically tiny number of Creflo Dollar types, I tend to find those folks more problematic and agravating overall.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

"Mercenary" is the wrong word to describe what I see happening with the LDS Church. Mercenary implies they are building the empire at the expense of all other considerations, including ethics. I'm not saying that. Rather, I'm saying that perpetually building the corporate empire is a priority. Not the highest priority. Not at the expense of ethics. Simply a priority.

I think the objective is maintaining the overall fiscal health of the Church.  

I also think that the lack of Creflo Dollar types amongst the leaders of the Church is an extremely important consideration that usually gets a very short shrift from people complaining about the Church's finances.

I also appreciate your clarification.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to Quinn, the church's tithing receipts increase by 12.9% on average every year. Using his numbers, the church is going to take in about 89 billion in tithing in 2018. You really want to rely upon him as a source of insight into what's really going on with the church's finances?

In terms of A) the Church being financially stable, B) the Church not being in debt and living within its means, and C) the Church's leaders not emulating Creflo Dollar, yes, I'm willing to rely on him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In terms of A) the Church being financially stable, B) the Church not being in debt and living within its means, and C) the Church's leaders not emulating Creflo Dollar, yes, I'm willing to rely on him.

As a reality check, if the Church really takes in 89 billion dollars a year in tithing revenue, and if it has 30,500 congregations, that implies that on average, each congregation receives $2.9 million in tithing receipts. So if the average ward or branch worldwide has 100 families that pay a full tithing, and if the worldwide average annual income of these 100 families per ward or branch is $290,000, then Quinn's numbers make total sense.

Personally, I don't believe it. Quinn somehow does.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

What am I not seeing in Section 26 that leads you to believe that section refers to confirming the churches and holding conferences?

 1 BEHOLD, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.

  2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church*, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

 

*in the church" refers to the ecclesiastical work at hand, not to the studying, preaching, and farm work he was to be doing prior to confirming the church at Colesville and holding the next conference.

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Also, since you and I seem to agree that common consent should be requested for revelation, why do you think we have stopped doing that?

 I don't think we stopped. We sustain prophets, seers and revelators by common consent to receive revelation, and so it is at their discretion that specific revelations are proposed for publication with the canon.

Edited June 5, 2018 by CV75

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 1 BEHOLD, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.

  2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church*, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

 

*in the church" refers to the ecclesiastical work at hand, not to the studying, preaching, and farm work he was to be doing prior to confirming the church at Colesville and holding the next conference.

 

 

 I don't think we stopped. We sustain prophets, seers and revelators by common consent to receive revelation, and so it is at their discretion that specific revelations are proposed for publication with the canon.

Thanks for explaining your take on Section 26.  I don't see verse 1 as limiting verse 2 to just those two things.  Also, since common consent should take place in both establishing a new branch or at a conference, it makes sense to me that the Lord would remind them to do all things by common consent at those meetings.

It's true we still sustain our prophets, seers, and revelators but we don't bring their revelations to the body of the church for common consent.  So, really, we are just using common consent for sustaining people in callings.  I don't really see it happening for any other function.  And, it's sad to me that we haven't had the opportunity to do it for some of these major decisions and policy changes.

[Paiute]

Had $32B.

Now $64B.

Open a brokerage account for yourself and learn.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thanks for explaining your take on Section 26.  I don't see verse 1 as limiting verse 2 to just those two things.  Also, since common consent should take place in both establishing a new branch or at a conference, it makes sense to me that the Lord would remind them to do all things by common consent at those meetings.

It's true we still sustain our prophets, seers, and revelators but we don't bring their revelations to the body of the church for common consent.  So, really, we are just using common consent for sustaining people in callings.  I don't really see it happening for any other function.  And, it's sad to me that we haven't had the opportunity to do it for some of these major decisions and policy changes.

D&C 26 doesn’t limit common consent to those two things, since we have D&C 28 providing another example as well. D&C 104 calls for common consent among the orders (the “United Firm” and its successive iterations, or the Church councils and administrative bodies) directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church. And as I pointed out, sustained leaders can call for a consenting vote on various decisions, projects and initiatives among the members within the scope of their stewardship,

We do bring revelations to the body of the Church for common consent, at the discretion of the First Presidency. I’ve done it! Two in 1976 (later becoming D&C 137 and 138 in 1979 -- by administrative decision, another example of where at-large common consent is not required) and OD-2 in 1978. Yes, we sustain and empower the First Presidency to do that in line with their delegated authority from the Lord. So, you may not see common consent for revelation as often as you might find satisfactory, and according to D&C 104 you certainly would not see it for fiscal matters unless you sat on one of the councils where the Lord called for it.

Where the topic of this thread is about Church funds, and most of your posts were surrounding fiscal transparency and consent, I think D&C 70 demonstrates a principle (I emphasize principle and not a literal application to modern parallels) that helps with the level of expectation for where common consent is required in the governance of the Church’s business and financial activities:

“For I give unto them [presiding elders] a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments [the printing business] which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them; And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment. Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world; Nevertheless, inasmuch as they receive more than is needful for their necessities and their wants, it shall be given into my storehouse; And the benefits shall be consecrated unto the inhabitants of Zion, and unto their generations, inasmuch as they become heirs according to the laws of the kingdom.”

Here we have the presiding authorities as stewards who, like the scribes’ examples in Kings, are to act faithfully without publishing their reckoning to the saints or the public at large; God will reckon with them in the day of judgement; they run businesses for the benefit of Zion.

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

D&C 26 doesn’t limit common consent to those two things, since we have D&C 28 providing another example as well. D&C 104 calls for common consent among the orders (the “United Firm” and its successive iterations, or the Church councils and administrative bodies) directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church. And as I pointed out, sustained leaders can call for a consenting vote on various decisions, projects and initiatives among the members within the scope of their stewardship,

 

We do bring revelations to the body of the Church for common consent, at the discretion of the First Presidency. I’ve done it! Two in 1976 (later becoming D&C 137 and 138 in 1979 -- by administrative decision, another example of where at-large common consent is not required) and OD-2 in 1978. Yes, we sustain and empower the First Presidency to do that in line with their delegated authority from the Lord. So, you may not see common consent for revelation as often as you might find satisfactory, and according to D&C 104 you certainly would not see it for fiscal matters unless you sat on one of the councils where the Lord called for it.

 

Where the topic of this thread is about Church funds, and most of your posts were surrounding fiscal transparency and consent, I think D&C 70 demonstrates a principle (I emphasize principle and not a literal application to modern parallels) that helps with the level of expectation for where common consent is required in the governance of the Church’s business and financial activities:

 

“For I give unto them [presiding elders] a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments [the printing business] which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them; And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment. Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world; Nevertheless, inasmuch as they receive more than is needful for their necessities and their wants, it shall be given into my storehouse; And the benefits shall be consecrated unto the inhabitants of Zion, and unto their generations, inasmuch as they become heirs according to the laws of the kingdom.”

 

Here we have the presiding authorities as stewards who, like the scribes’ examples in Kings, are to act faithfully without publishing their reckoning to the saints or the public at large; God will reckon with them in the day of judgement; they run businesses for the benefit of Zion.

 

I'm glad that we agree that Section 26 doesn't limit common consent to just those two things.  And the Church's D&C manual also seems to support the idea that D&C is speaking to common consent in all things that impact the lives of the saints.

Section 70 is saying that they can keep the income from the printing business.  It isn't speaking to financial disclosure.

I guess it doesn't concern you at all that the last time we accepted a revelation via common consent was 1979.  Is that because we have stopped receiving revelation or because we've stopped practicing common consent?

Edited June 5, 2018 by rockpond

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm glad that we agree that Section 26 doesn't limit common consent to just those two things.  And the Church's D&C manual also seems to support the idea that D&C is speaking to common consent in all things that impact the lives of the saints.

Section 70 is saying that they can keep the income from the printing business.  It isn't speaking to financial disclosure.

I guess it doesn't concern you at all that the last time we accepted a revelation via common consent was 1979.  Is that because we have stopped receiving revelation or because we've stopped practicing common consent?

Section 26 limits common consent to “all things” related to “just those two things” within the text of that section, and likewise Section 28 limits common consent to “all things” related to the one thing discussed in that section, and D&C 104 also limits a limited form of common consent to the one thing. That makes four things that “all things” refers to. And of course we need to take the D&C manual in the context of these D&C passages.

That’s right, Section 70 certainly does speak to public financial disclosure. It says, in relation to the business and financial dealings, “…an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment. …Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world…” No common consent for public financial disclosure there!

The last time we accepted a revelation via common consent vote in general conference was 1979 (and that doesn't bother me at all) is not because we have stopped receiving revelation nor because we've stopped practicing common consent (I see plenty of these all the time). This gets back to “all things” that the priesthood leadership, which is set in place by a vote of common consent, determines must be brought up for common consent vote, based on the parameters I pointed out from the D&C. Section 107 describes their role, and elsewhere (e.g. the school of the prophets) the leaders are shown to give the saints “all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient [and] …instruction in all things that are expedient for them” (88:78, 127). Sometimes the Lord even gives His servants instruction “to keep these things from going abroad unto the world until it is expedient…” (45:72).

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Section 26 limits common consent to “all things” related to “just those two things” within the text of that section, and likewise Section 28 limits common consent to “all things” related to the one thing discussed in that section, and D&C 104 also limits a limited form of common consent to the one thing. That makes four things that “all things” refers to. And of course we need to take the D&C manual in the context of these D&C passages.

 

That’s right, Section 70 certainly does speak to public financial disclosure. It says, in relation to the business and financial dealings, “…an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment. …Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world…” No common consent for public financial disclosure there!

 

The last time we accepted a revelation via common consent vote in general conference was 1979 (and that doesn't bother me at all) is not because we have stopped receiving revelation nor because we've stopped practicing common consent (I see plenty of these all the time). This gets back to “all things” that the priesthood leadership, which is set in place by a vote of common consent, determines must be brought up for common consent vote, based on the parameters I pointed out from the D&C. Section 107 describes their role, and elsewhere (e.g. the school of the prophets) the leaders are shown to give the saints “all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient [and] …instruction in all things that are expedient for them” (88:78, 127). Sometimes the Lord even gives His servants instruction “to keep these things from going abroad unto the world until it is expedient…” (45:72).

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree or we'll just start talking in circles at this point... if we haven't already ("That makes four things that "all things' refers to.")

I could just as easily say that the "all things" related to "conferences" in section 26 includes reporting church finances since that was part of those conferences.

Again, in the phrases you are quoting from Section 70 the "not give these things" refers to the profits and assets from the business.  It isn't referring to financial disclosure.  I find that to be a stretch.

Finally, regarding the fact that we no longer accept revelation by common consent, post-1979 (or we no longer receive revelation)... it sounds like your position is that the leaders who are sustained by common consent get to decide whether or not revelations, policies, and major decisions are brought forward for common consent.  And, the Brethren have apparently decided not to bring anything forward for common consent by the general church since 1979 aside from sustaining people in callings (correct me if I am wrong).  This fact, that I think we agree on, is why I have concluded that we no longer practice common consent aside from sustaining church offices.  It's been almost 40 years.

 

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree or we'll just start talking in circles at this point... if we haven't already ("That makes four things that "all things' refers to.")

I could just as easily say that the "all things" related to "conferences" in section 26 includes reporting church finances since that was part of those conferences.

Again, in the phrases you are quoting from Section 70 the "not give these things" refers to the profits and assets from the business.  It isn't referring to financial disclosure.  I find that to be a stretch.

Finally, regarding the fact that we no longer accept revelation by common consent, post-1979 (or we no longer receive revelation)... it sounds like your position is that the leaders who are sustained by common consent get to decide whether or not revelations, policies, and major decisions are brought forward for common consent.  And, the Brethren have apparently decided not to bring anything forward for common consent by the general church since 1979 aside from sustaining people in callings (correct me if I am wrong).  This fact, that I think we agree on, is why I have concluded that we no longer practice common consent aside from sustaining church offices.  It's been almost 40 years.

Circles? I haven’t even reached the 25 degree mark! :)

The issue, is, whatever “those conferences” you refer to, any common consent voting was conducted at the discretion of the presiding authorities.

The instruction to “not give these things” in Section 70 refers to the stewardships that the Lord “appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof” – that would include any of their financial records, which are certainly a part of any business.

I wouldn’t say that we no longer accept revelation by common consent, post-1979. We do and would when new revelation is brought to the vote. So, I would not conclude that we no longer practice common consent aside from sustaining church offices no matter how long it has been. And as I described earlier, we have practiced it in units I have been a member of.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea I don't expect you would have one serious thought about this issue Scott.

You whole life and income is tied to the church.

You know your protests are about as bright as someone going on a country club website and telling all the people how stupid they are for spending tens of thousands of dollars to belong so they can put a little ball in a cup.

You see the benefits you pay the money that's all there is to it.

You don't see the benefits you don't pay the money it's your own business. And it's my business.

It's just plain rude, and ridiculously unconvincing.

Edited June 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea I don't expect you would have one serious thought about this issue Scott.

No need for personal insults.

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

You whole life and income is tied to the church.

Voluntarily, yes.

My life if "tied to the Church," too.  But it's an entirely voluntary thing.  I could step away whenever I choose.  I just choose not to.

As for my "thoughts" about Church-related issues, I think I have plenty of "serious" ones.  I am persuaded of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Not because I am forced to, but because I choose to.

The same, I think, can be said of Scott and many, many other observant Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac