The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've read the above several times and can make heads or tails of what your point is.  It's like you just want to throw out a bunch of terminology and hope it sounds good.

I know you're not responding to anything I wrote, but I couldn't resist saying that I love throwing terminology out there and preening over how smart I look!  

I understood what he was saying, however, so maybe it wasn't all that complicated.  Or maybe I'm just as confused....   having a hard time figuring that one out.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I think I understand. Accepting Mormonism is an all or nothing concept for you?  

I don't think that's what he means.  I think there are two main points:

Point #1: My sense is that the LDS Church presents some fundamental truth claims.  While interpretation of some of these are open for some interpretation, the elasticity of those interpretations is finite.  And at the end of the day, these fundamental truth claims are non-negotiable.  Consider the first three questions in the temple recommend interview:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

Another good basic introduction to the non-negotiables is the Articles of Faith:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

These are the fundamentals.  There are also mandated standards of behavior which are also non-negotiable.  Notable amongst these is the Law of Chastity, which appears to be particularly difficult for some people to accept.  Hence we have people trying to coerce the Church into fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to suit their personal preferences (Dan Reynolds is a good recent example of this).

Point #2: In matters of governance, the LDS Church is necessarily "top down."  It is not like a country club (which can tweak its rules at its own discretion or at the request of members), or a business entity (the executive board of which is answerable to stockholders), or a political entity (in which politicians are elected by their constituencies).  We believe the LDS Church is guided by revelation, by actual prophets and apostles.  So pressure tactics that may be utilized by members of a country club, or stockholders, or the electorate, to compel change within those organizations, they simply don't work in an LDS context.  

So no, it's not an "all or nothing concept."  It's not an "anything goes, do whatever you want" concept, either.  

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I know some leaders have taught that one can’t be a “salad buffet” Mormon. I can see some logic in this.  There is a sense of strong dedication and clear path most of the time.

The struggle for me (and some others?) comes when we like so many aspects of Mormonism, but struggle with others (in this case how church funds are allocated).  My faith is not ready to accept it all.  I don’t think I have to accept it all to be a Mormon.

What those "others" entail, and the extent to which you accept or reject the Church's teachings and practices, and the extent to which you speak/act against the Church, are all worth considering, but not here.  I think your bishop would be the place to go.

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I wonder if a disagreement over “having to accept” certain Mormon practices and ideas is a divisive notion in our LDS community...

What practices do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

 

I don't think there is any corruption. But philanthropy has not been an emphasis, and I don't think that would be the case if there were transparency.

Does the Church demonstrate likely higher levels of philanthropy in countries that require transparency?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does the Church demonstrate likely higher levels of philanthropy in countries that require transparency?

I recall seeing reports from Canada showing that everything they didn’t use locally went to BYU.  But I don’t know how to access those now. 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

 

I don't think there is any corruption. But philanthropy has not been an emphasis, and I don't think that would be the case if there were transparency.

As I see it, the Church is not a philanthropic organization, it is a religious organization.  All religious organizations have as a primary goal the "building up of the Kingdom of God" -- whichever god they are serving. Philanthropy might be an aspect of their work, but it is not at all the primary one.  Not even the Salvation Army's primary goal is philanthropy -- despite the bellringers -- it is salvation.  

If you want philanthropy, see the various foundations and charitable organizations that do that as their primary function.  

I suggest Food for the Poor, which I try to support in my small way.  I sometimes hear people pray during blessings on the food, asking Father to help those who have no food, but I think it is better to omit such prayers and do something about it, rather than make empty prayers -- when the means to be a help is within one's reach.  Not trying to be judgemental, just trying to promote one particular philanthropic organization.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I think I understand. Accepting Mormonism is an all or nothing concept for you? 

I believe you are coming at mfb's comments from a wrong direction.  He has a very strong philosophical approach of pragmatism (if something works for you, stick with it; if not, move on to something that more likely works for you, either in part or whole if you can't get the parts to work well enough for you....my paraphrase of pragmatism, not his).  I believe you will misinterpret his comments if you see him as an absolute traditionalist (which is how I am interpreting your "all or nothing" concept).

If you are interested in his POV, you might search on his name with "Rorty" as those posts often have explanations of his approach.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I recall seeing reports from Canada showing that everything they didn’t use locally went to BYU.

That decision was because Canadian law does not allow charitable donations to leave the country except in certain cases (my understanding is it is to avoid funding fraud, perhaps this started because of Irish republican groups getting funding...I know the US had a lot of donations  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm ) including donations to educational institutions that have Canadian students.  So Canadian money going to BYU frees up American money that can go to different countries where the Canadian funds would not have been able to.

This does not guarantee the amount of the Canadian funds is donated to nonUS needs as if Canadian Saints were paying directly to them, just explaining the likely process.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What practices do you have in mind?

They could be anything that Mormons debate, really. But, some examples of practices that some Mormons disagree about:

Women giving blessings

Caffinated soda consumption

The current level of financial disclosure

Sharing ideas about how to improve the church processes and organization with leaders (rather than silently waiting for their guidance)

Supporting the right for others to engage in sex marriage

My thought being that perhaps those within Mormonism who have a more traditional view on the above practices believe that anyone who believes differently should not be a member.

This idea (theory?) came to me after reading @mfbukowski‘s comment about how one should leave Mormonism if it’s not working for you.

Maybe I’m wrong in my interpretation and extrapolation.  Please correct me if I am. I tend to think liberally, but want to better understand those who think more conservatively.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As I see it, the Church is not a philanthropic organization, it is a religious organization.  All religious organizations have as a primary goal the "building up of the Kingdom of God" -- whichever god they are serving. Philanthropy might be an aspect of their work, but it is not at all the primary one.  Not even the Salvation Army's primary goal is philanthropy -- despite the bellringers -- it is salvation.   

If you want philanthropy, see the various foundations and charitable organizations that do that as their primary function.  

I suggest Food for the Poor, which I try to support in my small way.  I sometimes hear people pray during blessings on the food, asking Father to help those who have no food, but I think it is better to omit such prayers and do something about it, rather than make empty prayers -- when the means to be a help is within one's reach.  Not trying to be judgemental, just trying to promote one particular philanthropic organization.

I'm not suggesting that most of their money should be used for philanthropy. I'm saying they can do better than a fraction of 1%.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

That decision was because Canadian law does not allow charitable donations to leave the country except in certain cases, including donations to educational institutions that have Canadian students.  So Canadian money going to BYU frees up American money that can go to different countries where the Canadian funds would not have been able to.

This does not guarantee the amount of the Canadian funds is donated to nonUS needs as if Canadian Saints were paying directly to them, just explaining the likely process.

I understand the process.  Just pointing out that the isolated and limited reporting in select countries doesn’t really tell us much. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understand the process.  Just pointing out that the isolated and limited reporting in select countries doesn’t really tell us much. 

Which suggests that Grey has only speculation to support his claim.

There are probably many who don't understand the context of your comment as it is relatively obscure.  Best, imo, in cases where the context is not discussed frequently to include it and to be clearer about why you are bringing it up. I didn't even get your point and I was aware of the Canadian process.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not suggesting that most of their money should be used for philanthropy. I'm saying they can do better than a fraction of 1%.

I don't think your opinion is out of line, Gray.  I'd love it if they did better than that lonely fraction, too.  In fact, I'd bet that the Church (in the form of its leadership) would love to do better than that, too.  I do believe they have more fish to fry than you realize.  If I had the means, I would do a lot more, myself.  I just get grumpy about people endlessly griping about things they don't control (and probably couldn't control) when they should themselves "be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness". If more people did that and stopped worrying about what others do or don't do, I think everyone would be much better off, not to mention more positive.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Which suggests that Grey has only speculation to support his claim.

There are probably many who don't understand the context of your comment as it is relatively obscure.  Best, imo, in cases where the context is not discussed frequently to include it and to be clearer about why you are bringing it up. I didn't even get your point and I was aware of the Canadian process.

Good point... it gets confusing when there are multiple discussions in a single thread.

For context:  I think the point that was being discussed was that we should see the proposed (theorized?) benefits of financial disclosure in the countries where a certain amount of disclosure is required by law.

My counter to that is the the scope of reporting in those countries seems limited and because we have a centralized system for disbursing tithes and offerings, what gets reported in other countries doesn't offer a clear view of what is actually happening.  The case in point is Canadian law which ends us causing the church to transfer much of the tithes and offerings given by Canadian members to the BYU educational system because that is permitted by law.  Whereas, just transferring all of the donations to church headquarters in SLC would not be permitted.  Thus, we don't really get a clear view of what is happening just by looking at the required disclosure in Canada.

Hopefully that helps.  Thanks, Calm.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I think I understand. Accepting Mormonism is an all or nothing concept for you?  I know some leaders have taught that one can’t be a “salad buffet” Mormon. I can see some logic in this.  There is a sense of strong dedication and clear path most of the time.

The struggle for me (and some others?) comes when we like so many aspects of Mormonism, but struggle with others (in this case how church funds are allocated).  My faith is not ready to accept it all.  I don’t think I have to accept it all to be a Mormon.

I wonder if a disagreement over “having to accept” certain Mormon practices and ideas is a divisive notion in our LDS community...

I said nothing like that.

You believe what you have a testimony of.  I gave examples of the Book of Mormon and tithing and angels.

There are other principles too obviously.

I said nothing about it being "all or nothing".

I personally have a strong testimony of the truth at least of all the matters regarding the questions found in the temple recommend interview, which is the only actual criteria for temple entrance and therefore receiving all the ordinances the church has to offer, and all the blessings. I have a testimony of  each and every question on its own

That's quite sufficient enough for me!!

Edited June 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that's what he means.  I think there are two main points:

Point #1: My sense is that the LDS Church presents some fundamental truth claims.  While interpretation of some of these are open for some interpretation, the elasticity of those interpretations is finite.  And at the end of the day, these fundamental truth claims are non-negotiable.  Consider the first three questions in the temple recommend interview:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

Another good basic introduction to the non-negotiables is the Articles of Faith:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

These are the fundamentals.  There are also mandated standards of behavior which are also non-negotiable.  Notable amongst these is the Law of Chastity, which appears to be particularly difficult for some people to accept.  Hence we have people trying to coerce the Church into fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to suit their personal preferences (Dan Reynolds is a good recent example of this).

Point #2: In matters of governance, the LDS Church is necessarily "top down."  It is not like a country club (which can tweak its rules at its own discretion or at the request of members), or a business entity (the executive board of which is answerable to stockholders), or a political entity (in which politicians are elected by their constituencies).  We believe the LDS Church is guided by revelation, by actual prophets and apostles.  So pressure tactics that may be utilized by members of a country club, or stockholders, or the electorate, to compel change within those organizations, they simply don't work in an LDS context.  

So no, it's not an "all or nothing concept."  It's not an "anything goes, do whatever you want" concept, either.  

What those "others" entail, and the extent to which you accept or reject the Church's teachings and practices, and the extent to which you speak/act against the Church, are all worth considering, but not here.  I think your bishop would be the place to go.

What practices do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

Exactimundo!! 

You didn't know I was so skilled at foreign languages did you? 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I know you're not responding to anything I wrote, but I couldn't resist saying that I love throwing terminology out there and preening over how smart I look!  

I understood what he was saying, however, so maybe it wasn't all that complicated.  Or maybe I'm just as confused....   having a hard time figuring that one out.

 

...I just hope my explanation was what you understood it to be!

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I said nothing like that.

You believe what you have a testimony of.  I gave examples of the Book of Mormon and tithing and angels.

There are other principles too obviously.

I said nothing about it being "all or nothing".

I personally have a strong testimony of the truth at least of all the matters regarding the questions found in the temple recommend interview, which is the only actual criteria for temple entrance and therefore receiving all the ordinances the church has to offer, and all the blessings. I have a testimony of  each and every question on its own

That's quite sufficient enough for me!!

Apologies that I misunderstood.

When you posted: “If Mormonism doesn't work for you find something else.“  I thought that you meant that we have two choices - accept the current version of Mormonism, or leave the church.

I see your position clearer now, I think.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Apologies that I misunderstood.

When you posted: “If Mormonism doesn't work for you find something else.“  I thought that you meant that we have two choices - accept the current version of Mormonism, or leave the church.

I see your position clearer now, I think.

I try to be pretty precise and say exactly what I mean, no more, no less, but yes I admit that first post between us was very sloppy- it was late at  night as I recall and I was tired and grumpy- apologies! 

 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 5/30/2018 at 8:10 AM, Duncan said:

I don't understand a thing about Stocks and the Stock Market🍩

That's why you do not have alots of money😂

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I sometimes hear people pray during blessings on the food, asking Father to help those who have no food, but I think it is better to omit such prayers and do something about it, rather than make empty prayers -- when the means to be a help is within one's reach.  

It is most unfortunate that it would be impossible to do both.  

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That's why you do not have alots of money😂

my health is my wealth😛

[Paiute]

AMZN

http://schrts.co/q292Mx

Watch the Full STO - abbrv for Full Stochastics indicator. When it approaches 90, expect the price to rollover. If it's around 20, Buy Buy Buy!

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Does the Church demonstrate likely higher levels of philanthropy in countries that require transparency?

Good question. I can't quite tell from this British filing.

http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=242451&subid=0

According to the breakdown, in Britain 2.8% of LDS income goes to "charity", which is a much higher rate than the church in general, although still pretty low. However, what is meant by charity is not defined, at least that I could see.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is most unfortunate that it would be impossible to do both.  

Of course it isn't. Duh! I wasn't making the case for exclusion, or either/or.  Just that if all you're doing is praying about it, you doing something wrong, or at least incomplete.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure you're completely understanding other's point of view.  I could have missed it, but I can't think of anyone on this board who is against blanket transparency who has said that the leaders are incapable of using church money incorrectly.

Most of what I've seen are posters who are against transparency but understand that the possibility of fraud or unethical behavior is still there.  Also, even though past behavior is not a predictor of future behavior, judging someone by their past behavior and trusting their future behavior because of past experience is not blind faith.  It's still faith, but it's faith based on experience.

I think I understand fine.

I agree that those who are against transparency don't view themselves as placing a trust of infallibility on leaders, yet that's what they do when they state they don't need or want to know what the leaders are doing. Either they want to be ignorant of any misuse that might be discovered via transparency, or they don't believe mistakes will be made. It's pretty simple. If they acknowledge mistakes might be made, they don't care enough to try to prevent it.

As I've said many times, placing so much faith in people that you don't want to review their work or understand their goals, purposes, and practices, even church leaders, is placing faith in the arm of the flesh. I don't care that people do it, I just hope they can be honest enough to recognize it's what they are doing.