James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud'

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

$100 Billion plus all the other assets is filthy rich. The wealthiest people in the world are in this range.  The Church has about as much in easily liquid assets as Apple. So yea. RICH.

Us True Believers consider that a good thing so I don't see the problem.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

About 20 years ago I asked this question to the Billy Graham association, and was told by his personal assistant that he made $200,000. That was a total flat amount and there was no additional compensation for living allowances, book royalties, speaker fees, etc.

Wouldn't the stipends in the LDS church cover the first presidency, apostles and general authorities? That adds up to a lot of $ compared to the other faiths. I do understand that each of the men in these positions, gave up their regular jobs and would need the stipends to support them and their families. Or if wrong, please correct me. 

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A bookstore is a business, not a religion.  You might want to take a course in Constitutional Law, and perhaps read the Supreme Court Reporter.

It has bothered me that many of the leaders have many books in the book store. I remember going online at DB store and seeing many per leader, or the select few I looked up. But maybe I'm causing cross hairs here.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, transparency is a terrible control for whether an entity is complying with the tax code.

I've argued on this thread that the point of financial transparency is to give donors and potential donors enough information to make an informed decision about what they are donating too. If an organization already has a rainy day fund that is by all accounts several times bigger than what experts say is prudent, and if that same organization is directing around 50% of its annual income towards further enlarging that fund, a donor might rightly question whether his charity dollars could be put to better use elsewhere. Or not. If the Church thinks it needs to save up a trillion dollars to rescue the world's righteous when Armageddon comes, let the world know that's what they are doing so that those who have ears to hear can feel good about contributing to the cause. 

I've also pointed out that a large group of Christian churches argue in favor of transparency because it helps them deal with the "temptation to acquire assets as their lasting goal." 

As I’ve been saying, for those faithful, testimony bearing members of the Church who know that the Last Days prophecies in the Standard Works concerning the coming forth of the temporal kingdom of God on earth, and the utter physical destruction of a fallen world that’s ripened in iniquity, the fact that the leaders of the Church are wisely preparing for these last days of trouble and gloom makes perfect sense. In fact, if they weren’t wisely preparing for these terribly trying times, by amassing as much capital and resources as possible, it would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty on their part and prima facie evidence that they don’t believe the prophecies of scripture are true.

Mark my word, there are going to be an awful lot of embarrassed and utterly humiliated souls when it finally dawns on them that their names have been added to the vast, ignominious rogues gallery of those who came out in opposition to prophets of God when they were only anxiously engaged in doing what the Lord had commanded them to do.

As a matter of fact, I can absolutely guarantee to you that the day will come when the complainers will reverse course and start railing against the Church leaders for not preparing enough (!) when they knew darn well that persecutions, droughts, famines, pestilences, pandemics, natural disasters and armed conflicts galore were coming. I can hear it now, “What kind of prophets are these people to leave us in such a mess that all we have left to do is curse God and die?! What more proof do we need to know for certain that they are not real prophets of God?!”

It’s going to be a very rocky ride for those who don’t possess the Spirit of prophesy. President Nelson has repeatedly warned the Church of late that the only way the members are going to be able know truth from error without being deceived, and safely navigate through the extremely dangerous and treacherous waters of the last days, will be possible only for those who possess the gift of personal revelation. But the sad lesson of history is that most people have to learn the hard way.

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

$100 Billion plus all the other assets is filthy rich.  The wealthiest people in the world are in this range. 

Do you see a difference between a large sum of money held by, say, Jeff Bezos and a separate sum of money held in trust by, say Russell M. Nelson?  If so, what differences do you see?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The Church has about as much in easily liquid assets as Apple. So yea. RICH.

Do you see a difference between the revenues of Apple and the revenues of the Church?  If so, what differences do you see?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

As I’ve been saying, for those faithful, testimony bearing members of the Church who know that the Last Days prophecies in the Standard Works concerning the coming forth of the temporal kingdom of God on earth, and the utter physical destruction of a fallen world that’s ripened in iniquity, the fact that the leaders of the Church are wisely preparing for these last days of trouble and gloom makes perfect sense. In fact, if they weren’t wisely preparing for these terribly trying times, by amassing as much capital and resources as possible, it would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty on their part and prima facie evidence that they don’t believe the prophecies of d rupture are true.

Mark my word, there are going to be an awful lot of embarrassed and utterly humiliate souls when it finally dawns on them that their names have been added to the vast, ignominious rogues gallery of those who came out in opposition to prophets of God when they were only anxiously engaged in doing what the Lord has commanded them to do.

As a matter of fact, I can absolutely guarantee to you that the day will come when the complainers will reverse course and start railing against the Church leaders for not preparing enough (!) when they knew darn well that persecution, droughts, famines, pestilences, pandemics, natural disasters and armed conflicts galore were coming. I can hear it now, “What kind of prophets are these people to leave us in such a mess that all we have left to do is curse God and die?! What more proof do we need to know for certain that they are not real prophets of God?!”

It’s going to be a very rocky ride for those who don’t possess the Spirit of prophesy. President Nelson has repeatedly warned the Church of late that the only way the members are going to be able know truth from error without being deceived, and safely navigate through the extremely dangerous and treacherous waters of the last days, will only be possible for those who possess the gift of personal revelation. But the sad lesson of history is that most people have to learn the hard way.

 

I respect you a ton, but who says my personal revelation isn't as substantial as yours, what of those that don't have the personal revelation that the LDS church has the most truth. 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It has bothered me that many of the leaders have many books in the book store. I remember going online at DB store and seeing many per leader, or the select few I looked up. But maybe I'm causing cross hairs here.

What is it about authorizing books that bothers you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is it about authorizing books that bothers you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, this is going to get flak but the monies they make from them? ETA: A few of these have more than 20 books.

https://deseretbook.com/t/author/jeffrey-r-holland

https://deseretbook.com/t/author/dallin-h-oaks

https://deseretbook.com/t/author/david-a-bednar

Pres. Monson has 30 books:

https://deseretbook.com/t/author/thomas-s-monson

Edited March 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As I’ve been saying, for those faithful, testimony bearing members of the Church who know that the Last Days prophecies in the Standard Works concerning the coming forth of the temporal kingdom of God on earth, and the utter physical destruction of a fallen world that’s ripened in iniquity, the fact that the leaders of the Church are wisely preparing for these last days of trouble and gloom makes perfect sense. In fact, if they weren’t wisely preparing for these terribly trying times, by amassing as much capital and resources as possible, it would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty on their part and prima facie evidence that they don’t believe the prophecies of d rupture are true.

Mark my word, there are going to be an awful lot of embarrassed and utterly humiliate souls when it finally dawns on them that their names have been added to the vast, ignominious rogues gallery of those who came out in opposition to prophets of God when they were only anxiously engaged in doing what the Lord had commanded them to do.

As a matter of fact, I can absolutely guarantee to you that the day will come when the complainers will reverse course and start railing against the Church leaders for not preparing enough (!) when they knew darn well that persecution, droughts, famines, pestilences, pandemics, natural disasters and armed conflicts galore were coming. I can hear it now, “What kind of prophets are these people to leave us in such a mess that all we have left to do is curse God and die?! What more proof do we need to know for certain that they are not real prophets of God?!”

It’s going to be a very rocky ride for those who don’t possess the Spirit of prophesy. President Nelson has repeatedly warned the Church of late that the only way the members are going to be able know truth from error without being deceived, and safely navigate through the extremely dangerous and treacherous waters of the last days, will only be possible for those who possess the gift of personal revelation. But the sad lesson of history is that most people have to learn the hard way.

 

"Mark my word..." - the tired phrase of the self-righteous.

Do you really think Apple stock is going to be valuable during an Armageddon-level event?  Do you really think Ensign Peak's speculation in GameStop stock in the midst of an artificial short-squeeze was an inspired piece of movement meant to bolster the future Kingdom?  Have you really thought through any of the messy details, or just latched onto doomsday prophecies and engaged in a healthy does of confirmation bias to support your opinions?

Edited March 26, 2021 by ttribe

[ttribe]

36 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Us True Believers consider that a good thing so I don't see the problem.

And true believers in Scientology feel the same way.

And true believers in the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh feel the same way.

And true believers in Joel Osteen feel the same way.

What makes your belief any more valid?

[smac97]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I respect you a ton, but who says my personal revelation isn't as substantial as yours, what of those that don't have the personal revelation that the LDS church has the most truth. 

In the end, this is a question of faith, and is only answerable in that paradigm.

In the paradigm held by members of the Church, there is an answer to your question.  President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

I think Michael Ash has also summed up this concept well:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, this is going to get flak but the monies they make from them?

Okay.  What is it about making money from writing a book that bothers you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The reference to "an establishment of religion" is a direct reference to the Church of England, which had the power to tax and exercise civil legal control on the populace.  The Anglican Church was the formally established religion, and the Founding Fathers wanted to exorcise that and open society up to whatever religion (or no religion) anyone wanted.  Colonial America was filled with a wide variety of religious groups, many of which had come specifically to find religious freedom.

The good thing about this new opening up was that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ could now be preached without any legal obstacles (which does not protect against illegal obstacles).

Well given that case the phrase is still being over applied.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If no law respecting establishing a formal religion is what they actually meant, then applying it as "no laws respecting Churches" would be a big overstatement.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What is it about making money from writing a book that bothers you?

Thanks,

-Smac

This isn't a deposition.  She's clearly referring to the notion of 'Priestcraft.'  Just cut to the chase of your defense, counselor.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What is it about making money from writing a book that bothers you?

Thanks,

-Smac

See my edited post, for instance Pres. Monson has 30 published books. Don't they have an advantage over others in a way. Having DB publish them and members that buy them. Or maybe I'm wrong. Or take a look at the book prices as well. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Where in the world did this (bolded part!) come from?

It was an attempt to gently rib teddyaware for his belief that the Church will need a lot more mo

 

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

None of that means that a Church may in fact be taxed. 

Whether Churches are in fact taxed has a lot of bearing on whether they may be taxed.

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Churches are restricted to religious activity, which means that they may of course lobby in favor of this or that moral or ethical legislation, but they may not engage in party politics in support of particular candidates....

Churches don't cease being churches if they endorse political candidates. Rather, they are simply taxed according to the Constitutional rules of the tax code. Likewise, churches don't cease to be churches if they generate taxable income. These examples prove that churches can be and in fact are taxed.

 

[Analytics]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you see a difference between the revenues of Apple and the revenues of the Church?  If so, what differences do you see?

Apple is a public company and is financially transparent according to SEC regulations. Its capital level is driven by clearly and publicly articulated strategies. This allows investors so to make informed decisions about whether they want to purchase Apple stock or invest their money elsewhere.

In contrast, the amount of capital held by the church is a closely guarded secret that not even the apostles are privy to. It appears there is no strategy behind it, leading somewhat frustrated investment managers to make sarcastic quips that it is being accumulated for the second coming. All of this is kept secret from the general membership of the Church so that they cannot make informed decisions about whether donating to the Church is a wise use of charitable dollars.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wouldn't the stipends in the LDS church cover the first presidency, apostles and general authorities? That adds up to a lot of $ compared to the other faiths. I do understand that each of the men in these positions, gave up their regular jobs and would need the stipends to support them and their families. Or if wrong, please correct me. 

According to some documents that were leaked about five years ago, the first presidency and apostles take home an annual salary of about $70,000. It is possible there are other sources of income from board positions or what have you, and I don't know if there is an additional parsonage allowance. But in any case, it seems clear that relative to the level of responsibility these guys have, their earnings from the church is in fact shockingly and commendably humble.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

According to some documents that were leaked about five years ago, the first presidency and apostles take home an annual salary of about $70,000. It is possible there are other sources of income from board positions or what have you, and I don't know if there is an additional parsonage allowance. But in any case, it seems clear that relative to the level of responsibility these guys have, their earnings from the church is in fact shockingly and commendably humble.

Of all the things I feel like I might criticize about the Church's handling of money (which actually isn't a lot, in terms of a list), what the Q15 are paid has never been one of them.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This isn't a deposition.  She's clearly referring to the notion of 'Priestcraft.'  Just cut to the chase of your defense, counselor.

How are these books examples of the Church General Authorities practicing priestcraft (what definition are you using)?

Priestcraft is “preaching false doctrines (consumed by those who love “the vain things of the world”) …for the sake of riches and honor.” (Alma 1: 16).

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How are these books examples of the Church General Authorities practicing priestcraft (what definition are you using)?

Priestcraft is “preaching false doctrines (consumed by those who love “the vain things of the world”) …for the sake of riches and honor.” (Alma 1: 16).

Relax, I'm not making the assertion.  I'm impatiently trying to shortcut smac's interrogation of Tacenda where he plays gotcha games when it's clear she is uncomfortable with General Authorities receiving an income stream on books based solely on their status as General Authorities.  So, yes, I'm referring to a stripped down version of the definition.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Okay.  What is it about making money from writing a book that bothers you?

This isn't a deposition. 

I didn't say it was.  It's a discussion board.

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

She's clearly referring to the notion of 'Priestcraft.'  Just cut to the chase of your defense, counselor.

I don't know that.  Hence the question.

No need to whitenight Tacenda.  She can speak for herself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I didn't say it was.  It's a discussion board.

I don't know that.  Hence the question.

No need to whitenight Tacenda.  She can speak for herself.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Do you see a difference between the revenues of Apple and the revenues of the Church?  If so, what differences do you see?

Apple is a public company and is financially transparent according to SEC regulations. Its capital level is driven by clearly and publicly articulated strategies. This allows investors so to make informed decisions about whether they want to purchase Apple stock or invest their money elsewhere.

Okay.  Not particularly responsive to the question.

Do you see a difference between Apple "investors" and tithe-paying members of the Church?

Do you see a difference between purchasing Apple stock and charitable donations to a religious institution?

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, the amount of capital held by the church is a closely guarded secret that not even the apostles are privy to.

Your income is also a "closely guarded secret."  So what?

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It appears there is no strategy behind it, leading somewhat frustrated investment managers to make sarcastic quips that it is being accumulated for the second coming. All of this is kept secret from the general membership of the Church so that they cannot make informed decisions about whether donating to the Church is a wise use of charitable dollars.

You know this . . . how (the bolded part)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It has bothered me that many of the leaders have many books in the book store. I remember going online at DB store and seeing many per leader, or the select few I looked up. But maybe I'm causing cross hairs here.

Yeah, I hate it when I go to Barnes & Noble and see a bunch of authors who are experts in what they do daring to write about it. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by juliann