Yet Another Lawsuit Against the Church

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

 You have offered nothing of substance. Just provocations and insults. These things are a reflection of you, sadly.

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To be clear I continue to reject your mischaracterization. 

  Mischaracterization by quotation, is that it?

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

 Your remarks in this thread have provided no substance. Just spiteful insults. Over and over and over. You compound that by insulting our intelligence and suggesting that they were innocuous efforts at discussion with us.

 Provocations and bad faith. That's all you've done here.

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 You have offered nothing of substance. Just provocations and insults. These things are a reflection of you, sadly.

  Mischaracterization by quotation, is that it?

 Your remarks in this thread have provided no substance. Just spiteful insults. Over and over and over. You compound that by insulting our intelligence and suggesting that they were innocuous efforts at discussion with us.

 Provocations and bad faith. That's all you've done here.

I haven't insulted anyone.   You keep complaining about me.   I don't mean to insult you by pointing that out.   I also don't mean to insult you by disagreeing with you.   And of course its true-- the church has well in excess of 100 Billion.  It has an enormous cash reserve.  It did not build such excessive wealth by accident.   It actually set out to make that much money.   It set financial goals and has become a large conglomerate corporation with many business interests and billions invested.   Making money is clearly a major goal.  

Now back to your name calling and insults....

[SteveO]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't insulted anyone.   You keep complaining about me.   I don't mean to insult you by pointing that out.   I also don't mean to insult you by disagreeing with you.   And of course its true-- the church has well in excess of 100 Billion.  It has an enormous cash reserve.  It did not build such excessive wealth by accident.   It actually set out to make that much money.   It set financial goals and has become a large conglomerate corporation with many business interests and billions invested.   Making money is clearly a major goal.  

Now back to your name calling and insults....

If the church were dirt poor...you’d probably see it as evidence of God’s absence from the “great and marvelous work.”

What would you say is the correct amount of money the church should have?

Sincere question

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, SteveO said:

If the church were dirt poor...you’d probably see it as evidence of God’s absence from the “great and marvelous work.”

What would you say is the correct amount of money the church should have?

Sincere question

I don't care how much it has.   I pointed out the church is/ has been motivated to make money.  I did not say that's why it's false. 

[SteveO]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't care how much it has.   I pointed out the church is/ has been motivated to make money.  I did not say that's why it's false. 

So what amount would it have to be for you to acknowledge that they aren’t motivated to make money?  

I don’t think you know the right answer.  You just know when it’s the wrong answer.

Because Mormon Church Bad.

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So what amount would it have to be for you to acknowledge that they aren’t motivated to make money?  

I don’t think you know the right answer.  You just know when it’s the wrong answer.

Because Mormon Church Bad.

Uh 32.  Curious, do you think the church has no financial goals nor any motivation financially at all?  

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Uh 32. 

Mhmm

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Curious, do you think the church has no financial goals nor any motivation financially at all?  

They do. 

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

Mhmm

They do. 

 

 

Great.   Then we agree on that.   The church is motivated financially

Edited February 22, 2020 by stemelbow

[SteveO]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Great.   Then we agree on that.   Three church is motivated financially

Obtuse much?

“The church is motivated by money” means something different to me, than “the church is motivated by money” means to you. 

I expect the church to be responsible stewards of the 10% income people are volunteering to them.  Why would I entrust it to people who don’t know what they’re doing?

I think your take away is vastly different.

 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Obtuse much?

“The church is motivated by money” means something different to me, than “the church is motivated by money” means to you. 

I expect the church to be responsible stewards of the 10% income people are volunteering to them.  Why would I entrust it to people who don’t know what they’re doing?

I think your take away is vastly different.

 

What do you think "the church is motivated by money" means to me?  

[SteveO]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What do you think "the church is motivated by money" means to me?  

Now we’re gonna play this game.  You are aware I can read your extensive history of posts from other threads, yes?  Do you think those posts have no influence on how your words are perceived in this thread? 

If all you were doing was truly pointing out that the church has financial interests, then you deserve a captain obvious award.  That’s not what anyone has been, or is disputing.  It’s the implications you are making by pointing that out.  And the way you say it.  Taken together with your previous comments of the church.  Are you really going to pretend that isn’t the case?  Have a backbone and just admit it—some conviction about what you believe and own it.

”You don’t know what I think if I haven’t said it”

Spare me buddy, I know what you think about the church.  Everyone does.

[mgy401]

On 2/20/2020 at 3:32 PM, Tacenda said:

I'll give ya one more, my SIL said in her email as well, that the missionaries have to ride bikes and how she wished they had transportation to reach more non-members. My SIL wasn't being negative either. She just said it was sad. So what's with no vehicles? You can defend all you want Calm, I'm just saying the church can do more. If they are as Smac proclaims. And the now, 124 billion dollars EPA fund wouldn't feel it at all.

If I remember correctly, the $124 billion was the result of investing about $20 billion in seed money in 1999 plus another $20 billion or so over the next twenty years.  

It seems to me that if the Church leadership had deferred to that cadre of critics who are always dreaming up pressingly urgent uses for other people’s money, there never would have been any $124 billion at all.  The Church would have received, and immediately spent, some $40 billion since 1999; and would have entered 2020 with no nest egg and at the mercy of ongoing donations and economic conditions for any future projects it might want to do.

Instead, we have come into 2020 not only still with that original $40 billion; but having realized another $84 billion through the magic of the stock market and compound interest.  That $124 billion by law can only be spent for charitable purposes—we need not worry about Nelson splurging on a luxury yacht or multiple homes or extravagant parties—and frankly I don’t particularly care whether those inevitable charitable expenditures are made now or later.  There will always be opportunities for spending and charity—probably increasingly large ones, as society grapples with new realities in climate and economics and international relations—whereas there will not always be an opportunity for saving and growth.  
 

 

[stemelbow]

On 2/22/2020 at 9:14 AM, SteveO said:

Now we’re gonna play this game.  You are aware I can read your extensive history of posts from other threads, yes?  Do you think those posts have no influence on how your words are perceived in this thread? 

If all you were doing was truly pointing out that the church has financial interests, then you deserve a captain obvious award.  That’s not what anyone has been, or is disputing.  It’s the implications you are making by pointing that out.  And the way you say it.  Taken together with your previous comments of the church.  Are you really going to pretend that isn’t the case?  Have a backbone and just admit it—some conviction about what you believe and own it.

”You don’t know what I think if I haven’t said it”

Spare me buddy, I know what you think about the church.  Everyone does.

I agree the church has financial interests.  That's basically wht I'm saying when I say it is motivated to make money.  Not sure why you guys got so upset about something so obvious.  I assure you you likely don't have a very good grasp about my overall view of the church.  The powers that be here aren't very permissive when it comes to sharing ideas and views.  

Poster removed from thread.

[longview]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I agree the church has financial interests.  That's basically wht I'm saying when I say it is motivated to make money.  Not sure why you guys got so upset about something so obvious.  I assure you you likely don't have a very good grasp about my overall view of the church.  The powers that be here aren't very permissive when it comes to sharing ideas and views.  

If you say so, troller-in-chief.   👾

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:07 PM, stemelbow said:

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.  

 

On 2/21/2020 at 6:33 PM, stemelbow said:

I don't care how much it has.   I pointed out the church is/ has been motivated to make money.  I did not say that's why it's false. 

I want to believe that, except that your word choice betrays you.  "Exorbitant" means excessive.  So, if you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has exorbitant wealth and resources, then, by definition, you do care how much it has.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I want to believe that, except that your word choice betrays you.  "Exorbitant" means excessive.  So, if you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has exorbitant wealth and resources, then, by definition, you do care how much it has.

That doesn't make any sense to me, Ken.  As you say exorbitant means excessive.  That's just a description of how wealthy the church is.  I've been pointing out the church has made building wealth a high priority.  There's really no other way to reach levels of 100 B without having wealth building as a high priority. This seems all obvious to me.   

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you.  As any decent dictionary will tell you, "exorbitant" and "excessive" are synonyms.  If your only point is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is wealthy, that's one thing, but it's entirely another to argue that it is exorbitantly so.  Then, the questions become: 1. Exorbitant as compared to what?  And 2. Exorbitant compared to what it sees as its overriding mission?  Probably not.

Lots of charities have reserves so as to be able to continue, with varying degrees of success, to accomplish their missions amidst varying economic conditions.  Like them, that's why the Church of Jesus Christ also has a reserve.  Well and good, but not a lot of other charities can do what the Church of Jesus Christ can do with virtually no overhead.  And it will take only one steep economic downturn for a seemingly-"exorbitant" reserve to turn out to be not quite so exorbitant.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That doesn't make any sense to me, Ken.  As you say exorbitant means excessive.  That's just a description of how wealthy the church is.  I've been pointing out the church has made building wealth a high priority.  There's really no other way to reach levels of 100 B without having wealth building as a high priority. This seems all obvious to me.   

So, you'd prefer a church that is church-mouse poor, then? One that due to its financial position cannot accomplish its goals?

What's the maximum wealth the church could have that would constitute not being excessive, in your view?  $50 billion?  $25 billion?  $1 billion?

[Tacenda]

I'm glad that the whistleblower blew the whistle, because I think that might get the church to spend more. If it's true that since 1985 it has spent 2.2 billion. And now it's spending 1 billion a year. I'm tickled pink. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad that the whistleblower blew the whistle, because I think that might get the church to spend more. If it's true that since 1985 it has spent 2.2 billion. And now it's spending 1 billion a year. I'm tickled pink. 

It has doubled in the past five years. Are you suggesting that somehow the expose had an impact on spending before it was released?

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has doubled in the past five years. Are you suggesting that somehow the expose had an impact on spending before it was released?

When I read the LDS-Charities-Annual-Report-2019 it says the 2.3 billion amount since 1985. So instead of 2.2 billion it is 2.3 billion. I'm not math savvy, what does that mean exactly, not sure. All I know is that's a lot of zeros!

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad that the whistleblower blew the whistle, because I think that might get the church to spend more. If it's true that since 1985 it has spent 2.2 billion. And now it's spending 1 billion a year. I'm tickled pink. 

What do you mean by "more"? What amount or percentage would you be happy with?

[Kenngo1969]

43 minutes ago, Rain said:

What do you mean by "more"? What amount or percentage would you be happy with?

Suffice it to say, whatever the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends on humanitarian aid, fast offering assistance, LDS Philanthropies, and so on, ad infinitum and perhaps even ad nauseam, it will never be enough to satisfy some.  (And let's face it: Some people are less concerned with how much the Church of Jesus Christ spends on such endeavors, and more concerned with seeing to it that the golden goose commits suicide.  That (and presumably only that) would make them happy as clams! )

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Suffice it to say, whatever the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends on humanitarian aid, fast offering assistance, LDS Philanthropies, and so on, ad infinitum and perhaps even ad nauseam, it will never be enough to satisfy some.  (And let's face it: Some people are less concerned with how much the Church of Jesus Christ spends on such endeavors, and more concerned with seeing to it that the golden goose commits suicide.  That (and presumably only that) would make them happy as clams! )

I think you nailed it!

[rockpond]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When I read the LDS-Charities-Annual-Report-2019 it says the 2.3 billion amount since 1985. So instead of 2.2 billion it is 2.3 billion. I'm not math savvy, what does that mean exactly, not sure. All I know is that's a lot of zeros!

It's an additional $100m since the report that cited the $2.2b figure.  Roughly (since this report stated "over $2.3" and the previous report stated "over $2.2").

But this year's report added this clarifying statement:

"These funds [presumably referring to the $2.3b since 1985] represent only a small part of the Church’s combined annual humanitarian and welfare aid expenditures (approaching $1 billion a year). These expenditures also include significant use of the faith’s fast offering fund, which local bishops use to help the poorest members of their congregations."