Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 15 hours ago, 2BizE said: Is there a statute of limitations on counterfeiting? In the early church, there were implications of counterfeiting; however, the church organization from back then was dissolved and the church we know today was started in 1923 iirc. What a bizarre take.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: Quote Mission statements are not determinative. The Church is not a for-profit endeavor. It is a religion. The laws of the land pretty much require it to maintain a corporate form for taxation purposes, regulatory purposes, legal purposes (holding property, standing to seek redress, etc.). Google and Apple and such are for-profit endeavors selling products and services. The Church is not. Please. The IRS and the courts do not rely on "mission statements." This is ignorant and unserious. Get on a conference call of stockholders of a publicly-traded company and try to tell everyone that the business is not about making money. It's not silly at all. The Church has a wonderful track record of using its money for "purpose{s} other than making money." Oh, how I wish that were true. Well, wish granted! 'Cuz it is true. 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: I'll bet each of us have had experiences in our wards where some money was needed or equipment needed fixing or buildings needing remodeling. Yes. And the Church takes care of such things. Our building just had new carpets installed, seismic upgrades made, repairs to the roof, and substantial repairs to a portion fo the parking lot. 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: My BIL and SIL are serving in Australia and he was just called to be a Branch President in a small mining town. There are members that live 6 hours away and don't have a church building to meet in and go once a month because of the distance. Yes. And? How is this evidence against the church's track record of using its money for purposes other than making more money? 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: There are members in countries that can't attend a temple because they're too far a way. In April 2011, Pres. Monson stated that 85% of the membership of the Church lived within 200 miles of a temple. Since then, the Church has built or announced plans to build around sixty new temples around the world. Here's a graphic showing the Church's temple-building efforts over time: How are the Church's temple-building efforts evidence against the church's track record of using its money for purposes other than making more money? 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: So what's up with not building smaller temples for them? Do you want to re-consider this question? 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: Also the church wants members to reach out to family before the church when needing help. At least it used to be that way. And still say. Self-reliance is a wonderful thing. Family helping family is a wonderful thing. And yet the Church spends huge amounts of money each year helping its members and the community at large. Just ask any bishop. 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: So the church holds those funds very tightly, unless they get publicity and must do it differently, like recently IMO. I invite you to give this statement some reconsideration. And some investigation and thought. 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: How about members donations for humanitarian needs, how often does the church match that with their for profit side? I don't understand your question. The members are the Church. I encourage you to read this 2017 Tribune article: Records reveal how money from Utah and U.S. Mormons props up LDS operations overseas Some salient excerpts (emphasis added): Quote Among the distinctions the LDS Church is known for are its missionaries in white shirts, its towering temples and saying next to nothing about its money. After all, the Utah-based faith doesn’t have to reveal much about its wealth in the United States and many other locales around the globe. But, in a few countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must make public at least some basic information about the revenue it collects, the money it spends and the assets it owns. ... For his new book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” noted historian D. Michael Quinn obtained the LDS Church’s financial disclosures for 2010 in six countries that require churches or charities to make such filings: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Tonga and the U.K. ... The combined assets in those six countries added to $1.8 billion in 2010. They include cash, investments and real estate like a stake center (regional meetinghouse) in view of Australia’s Gold Coast, the Mormon temple south of London and hundreds of chapels across the six countries. ... The historian, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1993 for his writings about early Mormon polygamy, says he was most struck by the money church leaders in Utah directed overseas. Of the six countries, only Australia did not report a supplement from headquarters in 2010. The church in Canada received $166,728, while the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue. Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too. Based on some general statements Mormon apostles have made through the decades about the church’s income from profit-making corporations and members’ tithing, Quinn says, the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns. ... Every time a meatpacker buys cattle from a church-owned ranch in, say, Florida, a retailer leases space at downtown Salt Lake City’s City Creek Center, or a Mormon purchases a novel at Deseret Book, Quinn explains, they are helping the nearly 16 million-member faith expand overseas. “My conclusion,” he adds, “is the international church could not exist to the extent that it does with buildings and services were it not for the commercial investments and for-profit businesses of the LDS Church.” Thanks, -Smac 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, wish granted! 'Cuz it is true. Yes. And the Church takes care of such things. Our building just had new carpets installed, seismic upgrades made, repairs to the roof, and substantial repairs to a portion fo the parking lot. Yes. And? How is this evidence against the church's track record of using its money for purposes other than making more money? In April 2011, Pres. Monson stated that 85% of the membership of the Church lived within 200 miles of a temple. Since then, the Church has built or announced plans to build around sixty new temples around the world. Here's a graphic showing the Church's temple-building efforts over time: How are the Church's temple-building efforts evidence against the church's track record of using its money for purposes other than making more money? Do you want to re-consider this question? And still say. Self-reliance is a wonderful thing. Family helping family is a wonderful thing. And yet the Church spends huge amounts of money each year helping its members and the community at large. Just ask any bishop. I invite you to give this statement some reconsideration. And some investigation and thought. I don't understand your question. The members are the Church. I encourage you to read this 2017 Tribune article: Records reveal how money from Utah and U.S. Mormons props up LDS operations overseas Some salient excerpts (emphasis added): Thanks, -Smac Regarding the implied accusation that the Church doesn’t provide needed upkeep on its meetinghouses, I just downloaded an app from the Church with which one can easily report maintenance issues to physical facilities folks at Church headquarters. Issues reported with one’s meetinghouse and the disposition of those reports are displayed on the app.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, 2BizE said: Is there a statute of limitations on counterfeiting? In the early church, there were implications of counterfeiting; however, the church organization from back then was dissolved and the church we know today was started in 1923 iirc. I assume you are referring to the 2016 book by Kathleen Kimball Melonakos, Secret Combinations: Evidence of Early Mormon Counterfeiting 1800-1847? See here: Quote Using original documents and on-site research in Vermont, New York, Missouri, Michigan, Illinois and Utah, this book begins with figures in 18th- and 19th-century America who developed secret networks to promote counterfeiting and other illegal schemes and often used religion as a cover. Kathleen states, "The historical record indicates how Joseph Smith, Sr., father of the Mormon Church founder, was involved in counterfeiting and how this involvement was passed on to Joseph Smith, Jr. and was practiced by Mormon leaders throughout the development and migration of the early church." The pre-publication version has received enthusiastic reviews from such leading historians of Mormonism as Sandra Tanner, Will Bagley, Charles Larsen and Dr. James Beverly, Professor of Religion at Tyndale Seminary. The book is described as riveting, fast-moving and revealing on an "explosive topic." Wow! Has the author really uncovered significant, probative evidence of "early Mormon counterfeiting" starting in 1800 (thirty years before the "Mormon" Church was even organized)? Well, apparently not. See this review of the book published in the Association of Mormon Letters: Quote Unfortunately, the title of Melonakos’ book: *Evidence of Early Mormon Counterfeiting,* promises much more than it can ultimately deliver. Chapters two through thirteen—a full two hundred and eighty-six pages—contain few references to what I can consider “early Mormon counterfeiting.” [1] Three of these deal with Joseph Smith’s father. An anonymous letter quoted Judge Daniel Woodward as saying “Joseph Smith Sr…became implicated with one, Jack Downing, in counterfeiting money, but turned state’s evidence and escaped the penalty.” Melonakos does not accompany this anonymous quote with any corroborating verification. It would strengthen her case were she able to mention when and where this state’s evidence was located. In another letter, Joel King wrote that …Joe Smith Sr. lived in Vermont connected with a bunch of counterfeiters—ran—came to Mohawk River—eloped (seduced a married woman) to Canada [then] came to Pennsylvania State. (61) Since no one has placed Father Smith in Canada, or as having eloped with a married woman, one must wonder if this is even the same Joseph Smith, Sr. who was father of the Mormon prophet. Thirdly, Melonakos quotes “counterfeiting expert” Kenneth Scott’s claim that “Abner Hays ‘had passed counterfeits to Joseph Smith of Bethel, perhaps the father of the Mormon leader’” (78). The author claims that because Smith was listed as being from Bethel does not disqualify him from being the Mormon prophet’s father, since “it could have been one of the many places he stayed transiently in his peddling travels.” On several occasions in her book, the author uses journalist James Gordon Bennett’s report that Joseph Smith, Sr. “had been a peddler in Vermont” (73) to place him in various locations around the state. Since there is no forthcoming evidence that Smith visited any of these places, it is just as likely that his “peddling” was of the sort that it took in New York, where the family sold oilcloths, ale, and small items in town and at local festivals. In another allegation regarding the Smith family, neighbor C.M. Stafford said that he “had been in the forty to fifty-foot cave that Smith Jr. ordered his men to dig, that many ‘surmised was intended for counterfeiting’” (188, 239). Sheriff McKune was said to have “strongly suspected that Smith and his gang were counterfeiters” (188, 145). A newspaper in Danville, Vermont named one John Johnson as being convicted for the third time for forging and counterfeiting banks bills of Massachusetts and Maine. (264). Melonakos attempts to connect this Johnson with an early Mormon leader, notwithstanding that the Mormon Johnson was not yet a member of the Church, and lived eighty miles north of where the newspaper was published. These references seem to be the only solid “evidence” that Melonakos can provide regarding Mormon counterfeiting before the Kirtland period. None of these quotations pass muster as proof of early Mormon counterfeiting. They represent her uncritical use of the sources, with no attempt to weigh the credibility of the assertions. The author fills the bulk of her pages with forced genealogical connections and smear tactics. A few examples of her work will illustrate. “Both of Joseph and Hyrum Smith’s grandfathers had ties to Captain Robert Rogers who was a partner to top-gun counterfeiter Owen Sullivan.” The grandfathers also lived in towns “on the edge of the frontier” where “they would have had numerous opportunities to become involved in counterfeiting” (80). A religious group located in Vermont under the direction of Nathaniel Wood was “almost certainly” a front for a counterfeiting scheme, “which meant that they would have been oath-bound to each other in secrecy.” Joseph Smith, Sr. “likely knew” some of the members of the group. One of the influential members of the group, Justus Winchell, could have been the same “Paine Wingate” who was tried for counterfeiting in 1799 in Bradford, Vermont. Winchell had been a guest at the home of William Cowdery, father of Oliver Cowdery (69-76).[2] The death of Alvin Smith occurred under suspicious circumstances. Lucy Smith “misremembered numerous times that Alvin’s death was in 1824,” the same year as the murder of Oliver Harper by suspected counterfeiter Jason Treadwell. This latter death took place in the region where the Smiths conducted treasure-seeking activities. “Could these two deaths have been connected? Could this have been the result of retaliation in the shadowy underworld of money-digging or counterfeiting or both?” (122-168). “Who knows where the Smiths ever received the hundreds of dollars it cost to build their frame house in 1823 or 1824, since the Stoddards sued them for non-payment of labor and materials, and they never did pay for their land?” (190). The Smith family “acted in ways that counterfeiters acted—locating on borderlands, using counterfeiting jargon,[3] swearing to secrecy oaths, hiding plates under the hearth, hiding out in caves, buying lampblack” (190). Melonakos makes these types of connections so frequently that the book begins to take on the fantastical air of a “Forrest Gump” adventure. Remember, an early draft of this book was "enthusiastic{ally}" reviewed by Sandra Tanner and Will Bagley. FAIR also has some useful resources responsive to allegations of counterfeiting by early leaders of the Church: Were Latter-day Saint apostles charged with counterfeiting? Are there government records that prove that the apostles were involved in counterfeiting in Nauvoo? Response to claim: 98 - Oliver Cowdery was accused of being involved in counterfeiting Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97 2
Tacenda Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, wish granted! 'Cuz it is true. Yes. And the Church takes care of such things. Our building just had new carpets installed, seismic upgrades made, repairs to the roof, and substantial repairs to a portion fo the parking lot. Yes. And? How is this evidence against the church's track record of using its money for purposes other than making more money? In April 2011, Pres. Monson stated that 85% of the membership of the Church lived within 200 miles of a temple. Since then, the Church has built or announced plans to build around sixty new temples around the world. Here's a graphic showing the Church's temple-building efforts over time: How are the Church's temple-building efforts evidence against the church's track record of using its money for purposes other than making more money? Do you want to re-consider this question? And still say. Self-reliance is a wonderful thing. Family helping family is a wonderful thing. And yet the Church spends huge amounts of money each year helping its members and the community at large. Just ask any bishop. I invite you to give this statement some reconsideration. And some investigation and thought. I don't understand your question. The members are the Church. I encourage you to read this 2017 Tribune article: Records reveal how money from Utah and U.S. Mormons props up LDS operations overseas Some salient excerpts (emphasis added): Thanks, -Smac A few years ago I donated to the organization, Bountiful Children's Foundation, formerly Liahona Children's Foundation. They changed their name because the church came after them. In the c/p below it mentions the thousands that are members of the church. Reading through the info below, it looks like the church is helping, but how did it come to that? The current website is this: https://bountifulchildren.org/our-work/current-nutrition-programs http://assets.liahonachildren.org/resources/LCNEF_LDS_Proposal.pdf?mtime=20160711231337 The interest and response of the Church members related to the elimination of malnutrition and the promotion of elementary school scholarships has been tremendous—hundreds of shown up at stake centers in the aforementioned countries to have their children screened. In all the stakes and districts, members have donated generously of their time and talents to assist the children and the Church leaders have been wonderful and generous in reaching out to these children. However, our efforts are falling short. We are unable to raise enough funds to allow many malnourished LDS children to receive nutritional assistance or to attend elementary school. In such cases, we assist the youngest children first as they are at highest risk for delayed cognitive development. Limited available follow-up data from Ecuador, Guatemala, and Cambodia shows the quick improvement that can be seen in children’s growth parameters (Appendix A). LCF is currently in the process of evaluating the data collected in the last year from all our programs. Professors at BYU from the Departments of Nutrition, Public Health, and Sociology are assisting us in this process. Thus this proposal aims to explore ways in which LCF can work with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to improve the lives of all LDS children living in resource poor countries. We are not requesting that any funds come to our organization, but rather that such funds be disbursed via the regular welfare program for Church members, and via a humanitarian grant through the stakes for the non-members. LCF is completely run by volunteers except for a part-time executive director who is paid for her services. This allows us to maintain a low overhead and for approximately 95% of our funds to go directly to program operations. As an initial step to exploring how LCF and the Area Offices of the LDS Church could work together, we would propose arranging a meeting between the Area Welfare Manager, the local program coordinators, and the member of the Area Presidency responsible for the Church Welfare program. This would allow local coordinators to discuss their experience in your area, the challenges they face and the successes they have seen in the lives of children. We are presently assisting 2000 children, approximately 75% of them LDS. Recent meetings with the Welfare Resource employees in Salt Lake City have led us to believe that there is great support and interest for this program. However, we understand that each Area has the authority to determine the programs that will best serve the needs of the members residing in their area. And to the extent
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Regarding the implied accusation that the Church doesn’t provide needed upkeep on its meetinghouses, I just downloaded an app from the Church with which one can easily report maintenance issues to physical facilities folks at Church headquarters. Issues reported with one’s meetinghouse and the disposition of those reports are displayed on the app. I spent eight years in my ward's bishopric. Our ward's bishop was the "agent bishop" for the building (which houses three congregations), so he was specifically assigned by the stake president to look after the physical condition of the building, and to report any issues to the stake president and the FM (Facilities Maintenance) group. Some examples: The foyer's ceiling had some peeling paint, apparently caused by a water leak. The bishop reported this to the stake presdient and teh FM group. It was fixed. The parking lot was re-paved several years ago. A portion of it, adjacent to the building where the handicapped parking stalls are located, was done very poorly. The first winter after the paving was done, the bishop immediately noticed that the asphalt allowed for water (rain/snow) to pool up on or near these handicapped stalls. Some of these pools were an inch deep. When the water pooled, then froze, it created a slippery and dangerous condition. And that condition was existed on or near the parking stalls for elderly and handicapped persons. The bishop took photos and reported this issue to the stake president and the FM group. It took a while, but this issue was fixed. The carpeting in one hallway, particularly the section close to the kitchen, was fairly stained. The bishop reported this to the stake president and the FM group. Two attempts were made to clean the carpet. Both failed, so the FM group shut down the whole building and re-carpeted all of it. While the building was closed, they also did the above-referenced fixing of the asphalt paving, and also did some roof repair, and seismic stabilization, and re-upholstered the pews in the chapel. The building has a right angle, inside of which is a condenser unit. The bishop of the YSA ward at the building reported to our ward's bishop that a homeless person was camping behind the condenser unit, and that he (the homeless guy) had said some disturbing things to some of the YSA sisters when they were exiting the building at night. There was also some concern that he was defecating/urinating in the shrubbery around the building. The next Sunday our bishop checked and found that the homeless guy was still there. He (the bishop) went home, made a big breakfast burrito for the fellow, then returned and gave it to him. The bishop said that he would be happy to give the homeless guy a lift to the shelter, but that camping on the Church's property could not continue. The homeless guy thanked the bishop, took the burrito, and was gone an hour later. These are just a few examples. Stuff like this happens all the time. The Church has thousands of buildings, and quietly and - more or less - efficiently takes pretty good care of them. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: A few years ago I donated to the organization, Bountiful Children's Foundation, formerly Liahona Children's Foundation. They changed their name because the church came after them. In the c/p below it mentions the thousands that are members of the church. Reading through the info below, it looks like the church is helping, but how did it come to that? The current website is this: https://bountifulchildren.org/our-work/current-nutrition-programs http://assets.liahonachildren.org/resources/LCNEF_LDS_Proposal.pdf?mtime=20160711231337 The interest and response of the Church members related to the elimination of malnutrition and the promotion of elementary school scholarships has been tremendous—hundreds of shown up at stake centers in the aforementioned countries to have their children screened. In all the stakes and districts, members have donated generously of their time and talents to assist the children and the Church leaders have been wonderful and generous in reaching out to these children. However, our efforts are falling short. We are unable to raise enough funds to allow many malnourished LDS children to receive nutritional assistance or to attend elementary school. In such cases, we assist the youngest children first as they are at highest risk for delayed cognitive development. Limited available follow-up data from Ecuador, Guatemala, and Cambodia shows the quick improvement that can be seen in children’s growth parameters (Appendix A). LCF is currently in the process of evaluating the data collected in the last year from all our programs. Professors at BYU from the Departments of Nutrition, Public Health, and Sociology are assisting us in this process. Thus this proposal aims to explore ways in which LCF can work with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to improve the lives of all LDS children living in resource poor countries. We are not requesting that any funds come to our organization, but rather that such funds be disbursed via the regular welfare program for Church members, and via a humanitarian grant through the stakes for the non-members. LCF is completely run by volunteers except for a part-time executive director who is paid for her services. This allows us to maintain a low overhead and for approximately 95% of our funds to go directly to program operations. As an initial step to exploring how LCF and the Area Offices of the LDS Church could work together, we would propose arranging a meeting between the Area Welfare Manager, the local program coordinators, and the member of the Area Presidency responsible for the Church Welfare program. This would allow local coordinators to discuss their experience in your area, the challenges they face and the successes they have seen in the lives of children. We are presently assisting 2000 children, approximately 75% of them LDS. Recent meetings with the Welfare Resource employees in Salt Lake City have led us to believe that there is great support and interest for this program. However, we understand that each Area has the authority to determine the programs that will best serve the needs of the members residing in their area. And to the extent Almost entirely non-responsive to my post. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Tacenda said: A few years ago I donated to the organization, Bountiful Children's Foundation, formerly Liahona Children's Foundation. They changed their name because the church came after them. In the c/p below it mentions the thousands that are members of the church. Reading through the info below, it looks like the church is helping, but how did it come to that? The current website is this: https://bountifulchildren.org/our-work/current-nutrition-programs... Tacenda, it is hard to take you seriously when you don't even acknowledge the informed answers you have been given, but just move on to the next copy/paste accusation. What is your actual purpose? Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm 4
Tacenda Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, wish granted! 'Cuz it is true. In April 2011, Pres. Monson stated that 85% of the membership of the Church lived within 200 miles of a temple. Since then, the Church has built or announced plans to build around sixty new temples around the world. Well, maybe I need to CFR Pres. Monson, because I'm just not seeing it. But I'm in no way asking the church to spend unnecessarily on these buildings, in order for more smaller temples to be built for those that give so much sacrifice to attend. Especially when it could be kind of a slap in the face to have a temple be so ornate amongst the poor. https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2018-08-22/did-you-know-google-compiled-a-navigable-map-list-of-every-church-temple-9109 ETA: Maybe my untrained mind, is looking at it wrong. I know there are many statistic guys on the board, maybe they can set me straight. Also, I'm out of posts, whew, I'll bet some are very happy about that. Have the best day my friends, thanks for putting up with me. I'll just have to read responses instead of post for now. Edited February 21, 2020 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Almost entirely non-responsive to my post. Thanks, -Smac Does it have to be? Good way to negate my response I guess.ETA: Sorry for not addressing your post like you'd hoped maybe. I'll try better. Edited February 21, 2020 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Tacenda, it is hard to take you seriously when you don't even acknowledge the informed answers you have been given, but just move on to the next copy/paste accusation. What is your actual purpose? My purpose in the beginning, for the church to do more. Smac gave a response, and I still have a need to get answers for the church not doing enough, sure they do a lot, but not enough, IMO.
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well, maybe I need to CFR Pres. Monson, because I'm just not seeing it. A map isn't going to provide the info unless it charts both location of temples and density of Saints. He is not saying there is a temple every 400 miles so no Saint is further than 200 miles away from one. He is saying 85% of the membership live that close to one....which means they intelligently look at where the Saints are clustered and plant temples there. Saints are not evenly distributed around the world. The areas that lack temples also lack Saints (think China or Siberia where a only few Saints reside), thus only 15% of the membership have that problem. 2
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Does it have to be? Good way to negate my response I guess. Ignoring someone's answer, acting as if it doesn't exist is not negating it in your view? If you make accusations and are proven wrong, yes, to be taken seriously in your claim you are trying to get the Church to do more, you need to acknowledge what it actually does. What would you think of a neighbour who complained you were selfish and lazy and claimed you never weeded your garden and when you responded you did so last week, responded "well, your house hadn't been painted in years", to which you reply "2 years ago actually", and then went to "you have three cars sitting around when you only need one" to which you respond "I am letting a brother keep his two cars here while he is out of the country on a job", etc. etc. Do you think you would feel your neighbourhood was trying to get you to do the right thing or something else? Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm 4
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Quote Almost entirely non-responsive to my post. Does it have to be? If we are attempting to have a discussion, then yes. 17 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Good way to negate my response I guess. A non-responsive response negates itself. If you don't want to have a discussion, just say so. I won't waste my time in interacting with you. Thanks, -Smac 2
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, Calm said: A map isn't going to provide the info unless it charts both location of temples and density of Saints. Here is a world map that has density, but it shows the whole country in the same color, so not great. For example Siberia has the same color as around Moscow, which makes no sense even if just counting Russians in general. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/01/news-of-the-church/church-growing-in-more-than-160-countries?lang=eng
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 31 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well, maybe I need to CFR Pres. Monson, because I'm just not seeing it. But I'm in no way asking the church to spend unnecessarily on these buildings, in order for more smaller temples to be built for those that give so much sacrifice to attend. Especially when it could be kind of a slap in the face to have a temple be so ornate amongst the poor. https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2018-08-22/did-you-know-google-compiled-a-navigable-map-list-of-every-church-temple-9109 ETA: Maybe my untrained mind, is looking at it wrong. I know there are many statistic guys on the board, maybe they can set me straight. Also, I'm out of posts, whew, I'll bet some are very happy about that. Have the best day my friends, thanks for putting up with me. I'll just have to read responses instead of post for now. President Monson is dead. President Nelson is now the president of the Church.
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Tacenda said: ETA: Maybe my untrained mind, is looking at it wrong. I know there are many statistic guys on the board, maybe they can set me straight. It is not that big of a deal, look at the two maps and compare; where most of the Saints are, there are temples within 200 hundred miles. Only 15% or around 2 million Saints have further to travel...and that may be 250 miles or 500 or 1000 unfortunately (but that is what the Temple Patron Fund is for). There are few Saints in China or North Africa or the Middle East, so no temples. There are many Saints in Europe, parts of South America, and tons in the US, so many temples there. Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm 3
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 5 hours ago, smac97 said: No, it doesn't provide for-profit goods or services. Playing dumb and the provocateur. Sigh. The Church is a religious institution. It does not sell products or services. The Church invests some of its resources in for-profit enterprises to raise money for its religious endeavors and provide for the members of the Church. Again, the Church is not publicly traded. Ownership of it is never bought/sold. There are no "stockholders" as there are in other corporations. Those who run it are not enriching themselves. The income of the Church is not an end unto itself. The Church's "business" is administering the Church's religious programs, maintaining its religious buildings, and so on. There is no "product" or "service." It is a charitable endeavor, not a for-profit one. It is exempt from regulatory and taxation laws (except for its for-profit businesses it owns). And so on. Google and Apple sell products and services for the sake of making money for the private discretionary use of its owners/stockholders. They are not charitable institutions. The Church is. Also, water is wet, circles are round, and the sun provides warmth to the earth. Are there any other self-evident truths we need to trot out? Or can you stop playing dumb now? Please? This is a false characterization of what I said. The Church is not "in it for the money." The Church is not a for-profit institution. It is a charitable institution. Legally. In form and function. The whole kit n' kaboodle. No. You are moving past playing dumb and being the provocateur, and are now demonstrating bad faith. I have said nothing that would indicate that I agree with this. The Church is clearly not in it for the money. The leaders are not enriching themselves. There are no stocks traded, and no stockholders. There are no quarterly earning reports. There are no dividends distributed. It is a charitable non-profit organization under the law. In contrast, the purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for the benefit of individual shareholders. I can't imagine you are so acutely ill-informed about such basic and obvious things. I conclude you are saying these things in bad faith. To provoke. To insult. Not to have a meaningful, genuine discussion or debate. See? -Smac It may be time to close this down if you are intent on name-calling (provocateur is clearly a pejorative) and dismissiveness. We can certainly disagree without being so upset, and mean to each other. I get that the leaders of this board are upset at people like me who have never broken any rules and never been notified why I am constantly banned from threads, and am forever on limited status, while others continually dismiss others, call them names, and misrepresent other's position get to post without interruption. This is a place for defenders to talk moreso than others. I'm happy defenders get the benefit of the conversation. I come here for that purpose. I have tons of friends and family in the Church and listening here often gives me a better feel for them. But it makes the dialogue here unfortunately empty all too often, and incredibly stagnant. I can't see how one can disagree that the Church has a major goal to make money. It certainly doesn't do so by accident. It, indeed, invests to do so. I get you are want to disagree that it is the main goal of the corporation. I can accept you disagree and will not be so upset as to call you names for any disagreement. I also see no reason to be so dismissive. But I do maintain it certainly appears to be the main goal. I don't think you've really done much to suggest otherwise other than to seemingly get so upset to resort to name calling. As I said any corporation who achieves levels of exorbitant wealth as 100 Billion dollars doesn't get there by accident. I think that's more than enough evidence to make my point.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 36 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It may be time to close this down if you are intent on name-calling (provocateur is clearly a pejorative) and dismissiveness. I used it clinically. As for "dismissiveness," I think the discussion has played itself out. I think you are playing dumb, and otherwise acting in bad faith. If so, then discussion doesn't work. If I am wrong, well, I'm wrong. But I don't believe you are acting in good faith, so further discussion still won't work. 36 minutes ago, stemelbow said: We can certainly disagree without being so upset, and mean to each other. Says the guy who has come to a Latter-day Saint message board and declared, repeatedly, that their religion is all about money, indistinguishable from for-profit corporations, etc. Sorry, but you burned the civility bridge. Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I used it clinically. As for "dismissiveness," I think the discussion has played itself out. I think you are playing dumb, and otherwise acting in bad faith. If so, then discussion doesn't work. If I am wrong, well, I'm wrong. But I don't believe you are acting in good faith, so further discussion still won't work. Says the guy who has come to a Latter-day Saint message board and declared, repeatedly, that their religion is all about money, indistinguishable from for-profit corporations, etc. Sorry, but you burned the civility bridge. Thanks, -Smac You are clearly, again, misrepresenting my position. I haven't said their religion is all about money. Indeed, I've explained that there are many motivations, moving the religion along. I have clearly pointed out that making money is obviously a major one (a point I don't think can reasonably be disputed), even so much so it appears to be the highest motivation ( a point I have granted can reasonable be disputed). But clearly there are other motivations. And I already agreed, that the church is distinguishable from other large corporations. I suggested, although there are reasons they are not comparable, there are also reasons to show they are comparable. Odd you put words in my mouth, continually call me names, and then suggest due to the strawmen position you put on me, I am the one who burned the civility bridge. This is an interesting topic. It's too bad you took it south in a hurry. Edited February 21, 2020 by stemelbow
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote I used it clinically. As for "dismissiveness," I think the discussion has played itself out. I think you are playing dumb, and otherwise acting in bad faith. If so, then discussion doesn't work. If I am wrong, well, I'm wrong. But I don't believe you are acting in good faith, so further discussion still won't work. Says the guy who has come to a Latter-day Saint message board and declared, repeatedly, that their religion is all about money, indistinguishable from for-profit corporations, etc. Sorry, but you burned the civility bridge. You are clearly, again, misrepresenting my position. I said "Says the guy who has come to a Latter-day Saint message board and declared, repeatedly, that their religion is all about money, indistinguishable from for-profit corporations, etc." You now claim this is "misrepresenting {your} position." Right. Let's re-cap some of the things you have said about the Church in this thread: "It'll be a pretty clear indication some members are fed up with the money-centered Church though." "It seems to me the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money." "{T}he church has a very obvious motivation to make money." "Of course if the church was more interested in people and conversion {than in making money} it'd drop the exclusive teaching and would use its vast resources to help people." "{A}s it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations {in making money}." "But legally the church is a corporation ... as it is the Church has a larger cash reserve than some of the large ones, like Amazon, Google, and Walmart." "At some point it may be the richest corporation in the world." "{I}t certainly does appear the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money." "The same goes for the Church. The main motivation may actually be to make money. Of course everything points to that being true." "But as it is, none of them {motivations}, really stand out as driving the Church quite like making money." "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso." "I agree it's odd for a Church to be in it for the money." "Then you agree, the CHurch is about making money in the same sense as any publicly-traded company?" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}." "The Church is clearly in it for the money. So are other large corporations." "{The Church became big} by focusing in on good ways to pull in the dough." "We already know the Church focused in on how best to make it's few billion into many billions." I'm content to let the readers decide. Quote I haven't said their religion is all about money. You're just insulting our intelligence now. "the money-centered Church" "the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money" "the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money" "The main motivation may actually be to make money" "{no other motivation drives} the Church quite like making money" "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}" "The Church is clearly in it for the money." Quote Odd you put words in my mouth, continually call me names, and then suggest due to the strawmen position you put on me, I am the one who burned the civility bridge. There is no good faith here. Just a provocateur schtick we've seen a hundred times before. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97 3
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: I said "Says the guy who has come to a Latter-day Saint message board and declared, repeatedly, that their religion is all about money, indistinguishable from for-profit corporations, etc." You now claim this is "misrepresenting {your} position." Right. Let's re-cap some of the things you have said about the Church in this thread: "It'll be a pretty clear indication some members are fed up with the money-centered Church though." "It seems to me the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money." "{T}he church has a very obvious motivation to make money." "Of course if the church was more interested in people and conversion {than in making money} it'd drop the exclusive teaching and would use its vast resources to help people." "{A}s it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations {in making money}." "But legally the church is a corporation ... as it is the Church has a larger cash reserve than some of the large ones, like Amazon, Google, and Walmart." "At some point it may be the richest corporation in the world." "{I}t certainly does appear the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money." "The same goes for the Church. The main motivation may actually be to make money. Of course everything points to that being true." "But as it is, none of them {motivations}, really stand out as driving the Church quite like making money." "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso." "I agree it's odd for a Church to be in it for the money." "Then you agree, the CHurch is about making money in the same sense as any publicly-traded company?" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}." "The Church is clearly in it for the money. So are other large corporations." "{The Church became big} by focusing in on good ways to pull in the dough." "We already know the Church focused in on how best to make it's few billion into many billions." I'm content to let the readers decide. Just to be clear. SO after careful effort to select quotes in such a way to exclude my comments that the Church has more motivations than to make money, and the Church is in some ways not comparable to other large corporations, you can't find one that suggests I have said the Church is all about money? Nor can you find one to say that the Church is indistinguishable, in anyway, from other large corporations? I mean I know there are other mean-spirited people here and they will likely agree with you no matter what. But, this degree of dishonesty and hostility is just silly, if you ask me. I know your poor behavior will be rewarded here rather than checked in any way. But, this is clearly ridiculous. 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: You're just insulting our intelligence now. "the money-centered Church" "the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money" "the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money" "The main motivation may actually be to make money" "{no other motivation drives} the Church quite like making money" "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}" "The Church is clearly in it for the money." There is no good faith here. Just a provocateur schtick we've seen a hundred times before. Thanks, -Smac There is nothing but good faith on my end. on the other hand you have continually called me names and misrepresented my position. As I've said, a few times and which you seem to continue to avoid. The Church has well over 100 B dollars saved up. That's not counting all of their assets of course. That alone shows clearly the Church has motivation to make money. That truth seems very important to the Church. I get you disagree in some ways. I honestly don't know specifically what you disagree with. I only know you disagree with the strawman you keep trying to attribute to me.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Just to be clear. You've been quite clear. Quote SO after careful effort to select quotes in such a way to exclude my comments that the Church has more motivations than to make money, and the Church is in some ways not comparable to other large corporations, you can't find one that suggests I have said the Church is all about money? "the money-centered Church" "the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money" "the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money" "The main motivation may actually be to make money" "{no other motivation drives} the Church quite like making money" "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}" "The Church is clearly in it for the money" Quote I mean I know there are other mean-spirited people here and they will likely agree with you no matter what. You frequent a message board hosted by and for and about Latter-day Saints. You repeatedly disparage our religion as noted above. And quoting you disparagements about us and our religion is, somehow, "mean-spirited." Right. Quote There is nothing but good faith on my end. Nothing but bad faith. Provocations. Disparagements. Quote on the other hand you have continually called me names and misrepresented my position. I've quoted you. I'm content to let the readers decide. Quote As I've said, a few times and which you seem to continue to avoid. The Church has well over 100 B dollars saved up. That's not counting all of their assets of course. That alone shows clearly the Church has motivation to make money. "It'll be a pretty clear indication some members are fed up with the money-centered Church though." "It seems to me the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money." "{A}s it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations {in making money}." "{I}t certainly does appear the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money." "The same goes for the Church. The main motivation may actually be to make money. Of course everything points to that being true." "But as it is, none of them {motivations}, really stand out as driving the Church quite like making money." "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso." "Then you agree, the CHurch is about making money in the same sense as any publicly-traded company?" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}." "The Church is clearly in it for the money. So are other large corporations." You insult are intelligence in denying that these were anything but provocations. Insults. Disparagements. To our faces. No good faith discussion here. Just you playing the provocateur. Bad faith. -Smac Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97 2
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: You've been quite clear. "the money-centered Church" "the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money" "the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money" "The main motivation may actually be to make money" "{no other motivation drives} the Church quite like making money" "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}" "The Church is clearly in it for the money" You frequent a message board hosted by and for and about Latter-day Saints. You repeatedly disparage our religion as noted above. And quoting you disparagements about us and our religion is, somehow, "mean-spirited." Right. Nothing but bad faith. Provocations. Disparagements. I've quoted you. I'm content to let the readers decide. "It'll be a pretty clear indication some members are fed up with the money-centered Church though." "It seems to me the main purpose {of the Church} at this point is to make money." "{A}s it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations {in making money}." "{I}t certainly does appear the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money." "The same goes for the Church. The main motivation may actually be to make money. Of course everything points to that being true." "But as it is, none of them {motivations}, really stand out as driving the Church quite like making money." "{The} Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso." "Then you agree, the CHurch is about making money in the same sense as any publicly-traded company?" "I'd say it {the Church} seems even more about making money then them {for-profit corporations}." "The Church is clearly in it for the money. So are other large corporations." You insult are intelligence in denying that these were anything but provocations. Insults. Disparagements. To our faces. Bad faith. Provocateur. -Smac It's too bad. You have been intent on making this about me. It's an interesting topic, but you took it in the childish realm. I know you can give more than that. To be clear I continue to reject your mischaracterization. I do not think the church is all about money. I also can happily distinguish it from other large corporations in a number of ways. I've clarified both points, at times, in this thread previous to these absurd accusations.
Rain Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: My purpose in the beginning, for the church to do more. Smac gave a response, and I still have a need to get answers for the church not doing enough, sure they do a lot, but not enough, IMO. MAYBE we can end this once and for all with a couple of questions: What is enough? What is the bar the church needs to be over to be enough in your eyes? Do you apply the same bar to all churches? Please don't answer with "more". I would like some real and realistic answers please. Edited February 22, 2020 by Rain 4
Recommended Posts