Jump to content

Tooele Temple Brouhaha


Recommended Posts

Knowing the background to your case, Tacenda, where expections were set up by parents....in that case I believe parents should follow through if they have influenced their children to make life altering choices based on promises.

And I think if someone has been a caregiver of their parents for an extended amount of time and it has impacted in a negative way how they have been able to care for themselves and/or their own family, I think there should be some form of compensation from the estate if the caregiver themselves is not in a position to afford extra help, etc on their own, either while they are helping or if there is worry about the estate lasting long enough to cover the parents' needs, after their death.  The idea that their money is solely their own fades in my view when family members are doing major work for free what would cost the parents substantially to hire someone to do.

Outside of those two cases...promises made in regard to the estate where children have followed through on their part and children making significant sacrifices that create hardships for them when there is an option that parents could pay others to cover their needs or when it is mutually decided to protect the estate in case it is needed by parents by children volunteering their own resources to support the estate (offering their time and efforts or even financial help for free)...the estate should  be up to the parents to spend, but I would hope if there were children or grandchildren with special needs that they were having a hard time meeting, parents would put those at a higher priority than the Church in their wills just as the Church encourages them to do when they are alive.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Arguably, at least, I'm one of those "children having a hard time," although I'm sure we all could come up with instances in which people are having (or will have) it harder than I do.  Everything is relative.  I've discussed with my parents what they might want to do if they leave me anything, in order to not necessarily affect adversely any benefits I might be getting now or in the future.  But "hard time" or no, what they choose to do with their money and their assets is completely up to them.  But if I got them one of those "We're Spending Our Children's Inheritance" bumper stickers as a joke, but, if, instead, it turned out that, actually, that's what they're doing, more power to them.  I hope they have an absolute blast and die completely broke, if that's what they want to do.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 8/19/2020 at 6:52 PM, Tacenda said:

I was answering why the church was intending to build a community to the OP's question. It is good business, the housing etc. I thought people on the board had no problem with the church making money. Now I'm wrong with saying it would be good business? But I believe they'll let this go for now, and when the community is on board they could go in and finish what they wanted to do.  

Not sure how accurate or if I'm reading wrong but this website said the church owns 8,625 businesses. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.corporation_of_the_president_of_the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints.faa60c51dfa0d7969dfcb4fe747dc0a3.html?fbclid=IwAR18Qur5GcSUTnG9RI07ZMc1iGo3xAietl2aXQxDQwRQzZaFf8zaEZj8vFo

I think he thought you were being sarcastic. That's the downside of being perceived as almost always coming down on the negative side of a question (e.g. the Church). People begin to weigh one's words in the light of what has been said in the past, even if no such weight was actually given. A somewhat more descriptive response that conveyed one's feelings more fully might have prevented this.

And I see that I am getting to this rather late, and perhaps it has already been addressed. Sorry!

Link to post
On 11/18/2020 at 2:42 PM, Tacenda said:

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

Gosh, I hope the church has 400 billion!  And I hope that most of it is in non-monetary form, such as real estate and other forms that are non- or less-perishable. 

On 11/18/2020 at 3:46 PM, bluebell said:

My parents money and assets are their own and I certainly don't feel like I have a right to any of them.  They worked for them, I didn't.  And I'm a grown woman so they are under no obligation to provide for me.  I would probably view people who did think that their parents or grandparents had a responsibility to take care of them after they are grown as being entitled.  

Oh, while I agree that people have the perfect right to dispose of their property as they see fit, without worrying whether others disapprove of it, I still don't have a problem with, for example, Tacenda hoping that those people don't dispose of their property a certain way that she feels will cause what she sees as a negative outcome. That's a free speech right, I'm pretty certain.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Gosh, I hope the church has 400 billion!  And I hope that most of it is in non-monetary form, such as real estate and other forms that are non- or less-perishable. 

As do I.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, while I agree that people have the perfect right to dispose of their property as they see fit, without worrying whether others disapprove of it, I still don't have a problem with, for example, Tacenda hoping that those people don't dispose of their property a certain way that she feels will cause what she sees as a negative outcome. That's a free speech right, I'm pretty certain.

 

I don't have a problem with Tacenda expressing her opinion, either.  She is perfectly at liberty to do so.  And just as she is perfectly at liberty to express her opinion, likewise, I (and others) am perfectly free to disagree with it.  I don't think I have been uncivil or unfair to her.  If you disagree, you, too, are entitled to that opinion.  Having said that, Free Speech as enshrined in the First Amendment says that the government may not interfere with one's right to free expression.  It doesn't say anything about the conduct of third parties (except, at least implicitly, that they may not use the cudgel of government coercion to silence an opinion with which they disagree.)

Link to post
On 11/21/2020 at 1:47 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Free Speech as enshrined in the First Amendment says that the government may not interfere with one's right to free expression.  It doesn't say anything about the conduct of third parties (except, at least implicitly, that they may not use the cudgel of government coercion to silence an opinion with which they disagree.)

That is so. 

Your right to speak freely may not infringe upon my right to not listen to you. Although getting some people (not you) to shut up and not bother you can be problematic sometimes. I have greatly reduced my attendance on Facebook, for example, so I don't have to see people I disagree with pontificating upon things they don't have a clue about. I like that silence, but it also restricts my ability to see what my more sensible friends and relatives are doing and saying.

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That is so. 

Your right to speak freely may not infringe upon my right to not listen to you. Although getting some people (not you) to shut up and not bother you can be problematic sometimes. I have greatly reduced my attendance on Facebook, for example, so I don't have to see people I disagree with pontificating upon things they don't have a clue about. I like that silence, but it also restricts my ability to see what my more sensible friends and relatives are doing and saying.

 

Yeah, I agree.  This is a worthwhile forum, but (while others' mileage may vary), personally, I find that, sometimes, it can be hard to sift through the noise even here.  And I certainly agree with you about Facebook.  Certainly, I would visit more than once in a blue moon if the issue you mention were less of a problem.  And ignorance (in the sense of being uneducated) is only part of the problem.  An even bigger problem is that if someone disagrees with you, one cannot simply agree to disagree with one's interlocutors: Those with whom one disagrees must be dismissed as morally deficient, mentally deficient, lacking in character, bad, evil, and on and on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...