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

[MrShorty]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if this weekend's conference might do a little of what you're suggesting, hopefully.

Being Easter weekend, I hope there is much more said about Christ than about money. One conference talk addressing this issue might be nice. At the same time, I think a Liahona article or a Church News article or even a Newsroom press release could be adequate.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Being Easter weekend, I hope there is much more said about Christ than about money. One conference talk addressing this issue might be nice. At the same time, I think a Liahona article or a Church News article or even a Newsroom press release could be adequate.

Or they could link it to taking care of the poor and needy as Christ has expressed in the NT or the four-fold mission of the church.

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If it's a proper emergency the fund won't stay anywhere near that size. And I'm not talking another pandemic, I'm talking about something that will cause large scale long term infrastructure destruction. So no regular food supplies coming in, limited telecommunications services, 

Property will be useful as places of refuge (if it's still standing) but there won't be any selling going on at previous valuations, so that wipes out most of the property value. Homelessness will increase massively, joblessness will increase as shops are forced to close when they are empty, depending on where it happens, large portions of the share market could tank as people try and liquify their assets. At that point you rely on what's left being spent outside of the disaster area to bring support in.

I believe you've unintentionally proven my point.  If, in fact, the reserves will be significantly less valuable in the future, then reason dictates that it be put to the best possible use now.

[Thinking]

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Huntsman admits that he did not reasonably rely on any statement of anyone about the funds' particular uses.

Perhaps he relied on the audit report that is given at general conference.

"Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2018 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices." (April 2019 GC)

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Once again, should those calamities come to pass, I suspect Apple stock will be worthless.  YMMV.

This is ridiculous because the money is worth something now, and will likely continue to be worth something for some time to come. And if the Church leaders are indeed inspired by God — and I believe they are — they will turn the investment portfolios into the hard capital, real estate, materials and supplies that will be needed to build Zion, and do it in a timely, providential manner. And guess what? The prophecies assure us that the leaders and faithful members are going to marvelously succeed in building the foretold places of safety and refuge for the saints while the rest of the nations of the world are tearing each other apart in continuous warfare.

By the way, you’ve got me wondering what you’re offering by way of hope for the future? What the gospel of Christ offers me, a testimony bearing member of the Church of Jesus Christ, are very good reasons to continue to strive to live a productive life of positive change, in the here and now, in joyful anticipation of the immortality and eternal life to come. So, theoretically speaking, let’s suppose you succeed in converting some faithful members of the Church to your way of thinking, what exactly will they have to believe in and look forward to in the future? 

Edited March 30, 2021 by teddyaware

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

This is ridiculous because the money is worth something now, and will likely continue to be worth something for some time to come

I can't imagine why Utah is known as the pyramid scheme capitol of the U.S.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

This is ridiculous because the money is worth something now, and will likely continue to be worth something for some time to come. And if the Church leaders are indeed inspired by God — and I believe they are — they will turn the investment portfolios into the hard capital, real estate, materials and supplies that will be needed to build Zion, and do it in a timely, providential manner. And guess what? The prophecies assure us that the leaders and faithful members are going to marvelously succeed in building the foretold places of safety and refuge for the saints while the rest of the nations of the world are tearing each other apart in continuous warfare.

By the way, you’ve got me wondering what you’re offering by way of hope for the future? What the gospel of Christ offers me, a testimony bearing member of the Church of Jesus Christ, are very good reasons to continue to strive to live a productive life of positive change, in the here and now, in joyful anticipation of the immortality and eternal life to come. So, theoretically speaking, let’s suppose you succeed in converting some faithful members of the Church to your way of thinking, what exactly will they have to believe in and look forward to in the future? 

I am in no way trying to convert anyone to my thinking.  Your question is a non-starter.  As to the things that I look forward to in terms of happiness and hope, I consider that personal and none of your business.

Edited March 30, 2021 by ttribe

[PacMan]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps he relied on the audit report that is given at general conference.

"Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2018 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices." (April 2019 GC)

Then the Church wins.  If the Church can make whatever budgets and policies it wants, then Huntsman merely relied on the fact that the Church can do whatever the Church wants with its tithing funds.  Case closed.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

If, in fact, the reserves will be significantly less valuable in the future, then reason dictates that it be put to the best possible use now.

Using it now will lead to a similar outcome. Selling shares en masse will force the existing share prices down.

The only difference is that it will be harder to get in again as there won't be any money to use to get in.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Using it now will lead to a similar outcome. Selling shares en masse will force the existing share prices down.

The only difference is that it will be harder to get in again as there won't be any money to use to get in.

Did I suggest a mass sell-off?  That was a weird assumption on your part.

[JustAnAustralian]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Did I suggest a mass sell-off?  That was a weird assumption on your part.

You can't put it to use without selling it, and selling one or two shares isn't going to help anything much.

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

You can't put it to use without selling it, and selling one or two shares isn't going to help anything much.

Have you ever seen a planned draw down of an investment fund?  There are ways to do it without flooding the market all at once.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't think that a financial report helps me feel like the Church is more transparent. I think something that explains the Church's current philosophy/theology/revelations around the accumulation of wealth would be much more useful.

I see this as a more reasonable approach since I believe financial reports would not satisfy many as they wouldn’t believe the numbers even if they could understand without relying on others to interpret them.

I get why the end times explanation is unsatisfactory in that to me, it makes more sense to try and help individuals be in stronger positions with less debt and more skills before trouble hits than try and bail out those in trouble while value of the Church’s assists are dropping.  Of course I see a lot of this happening with the Church’s current welfare and education program, but it could be extended (perhaps in hiring more professionals to simplify the Pathways program, making it easier for students to interact with staff and teachers and end up with higher quality of education).  I also believe the Church needs to be very careful how it provides help in order not to upset local economies and culture...see Kenya’s textile industry toasted due to in controlled easy charity, what is easier than giving away clothes you don’t wear anymore?  I can see major local issues if the Church came in and acted as a no interest bank for startups and educational loans for everyone...what happens to the banking system currently in place?  What happens if higher wealth leads to people leaving an area and flocking to a higher income city, etc because the government and construction, etc businesses can’t keep up with the new demands of the upperly mobile mass?  What about countries with criminal gangs that will move in to extort any gain made others?

——

Back to you...

Would you be okay with an explanation that the Lord has told the leaders to build up wealth during the time of ‘fat’ (looking at the overall world, it sees to me we are currently in a generally production, etc increasing phase even though some practices are creating leanness for many other), so that during coming lean times... not major disasters, but more depression type of events rather than recession that last longer than a few years....assets are strong enough to allow the Church to maintain its programs, including welfare, so that when recovery comes, they don’t have to start from a low level because they were able to use the commercial property to cover expenses rather than give up the necessary to the mission chapels, mission work, etc  

If not, what type of explanation would be satisfying?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Once again, should those calamities come to pass, I suspect Apple stock will be worthless.  YMMV.

Massive calamities, yes; but what about extended recessions or even a major depression that eventually comes to an end and things pick up again?  If stock was held on to when it was of less value and then sold once recovery was significant to help in rebuilding as well as continuing the usual welfare projects, would there be a huge loss of value in the stocks then?  Serious question as I don’t know much about economics.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And if the Church leaders are indeed inspired by God — and I believe they are — they will turn the investment portfolios into the hard capital, real estate, materials and supplies that will be needed to build Zion, and do it in a timely, providential manner.

This is how I see it. They wouldn’t want to switch to low income producing hard capital, etc too soon and gut their ability to continue to build up funds.  If they believe they will have enough warning to shift funds into such or are currently doing it in such a way that income doesn’t drop as they add more property, etc (a slow, long term buildup) while carrying out programs with the least amount of unintended consequences.

They have a pretty wide investment in ranch lands, property, etc in the US. If the Church starts buying up similar properties in other countries where there are enough Saints to maintain property if needed in emergencies, the investment fund could be used up pretty quickly.  They would need to do this carefully Imo, to avoid looking like they were coming in and taking over, given how many see the Church as American and dislike anything that hints of American imperialism.  So it seems likely to me the Church needs to wait until it is seen as part of the natural cultural landscape before major investment. 

[MrShorty]

@Calm I agree that there are logistical difficulties in using such large chunks of money to "help" people. Done wrong, we can hurt more than help. At this point, I acknowledge that those difficulties exist and figure that people smarter than me can cross the bridge of figuring out how best to help when we come to it.

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you be okay with an explanation that the Lord has told the leaders to build up wealth during the time of ‘fat’ (looking at the overall world, it sees to me we are currently in a generally production, etc increasing phase even though some practices are creating leanness for many other), so that during coming lean times... not major disasters, but more depression type of events rather than recession that last longer than a few years....assets are strong enough to allow the Church to maintain its programs, including welfare, so that when recovery comes, they don’t have to start from a low level because they were able to use the commercial property to cover expenses rather than give up the necessary to the mission chapels, mission work, etc  

I don't doubt that God did tell leaders (via Elder Tanner et al) to get the Church out of debt and build up a reserve fund. The question I see going around might be best expressed as, "Did God tell you to build a reserve fund 15-20x the Church's annual budget?" I've been around enough discussions of the nature of revelation and how it seems to get too easily mixed up with a prophet's personal beliefs and biases. Did God's revelation to the Church include details like, "I want this reserve fund to be 10 to 20 times our annual budget and I want humanitarian projects administered by the LDS Charities group to be 1 to 5% of annual budget and..." so on? Or was God's revelation more vague ("I want the Church out of debt and with a good size reserve fund.") and then the prophets went with that vague notion and decided that, because other large charities (like those mentioned by Aaron Miller) had endowment funds up to 20 times their annual budgets, the men in the Church decided that was a good goal without really answering the question of whether God approves of that decision? Building a fund so that Church can survive, thrive, and provide support to others through a variety of economic downturns and disasters and such is a good thing. How much money is required to be able to do those things? For example, webbles estimated form the LDS charities report that the Church gave 200M in 2020, up from 100M in 2019. Hypothetically, if the Church's reserve fund is only 15B (2-3x annual budget), is it unable to increase this spending by 100M?

All of those things you talk about are good reasons for the Church to have a reserve fund. Can the Church only do those things if the reserve is 100B, or can it still do all those things with a reserve of 50B or 20B? Are Church's in line with @Analyticssources whose reserves are, say, 2-3x their annual budgets unable to do any good during "normal" economic downturns?

 

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

If not, what type of explanation would be satisfying?

I expect that the only satisfying "explanation" is to have a testimony from God that He approves of this practice. I don't know to what extent any explanation from Church leadership helps with obtaining that testimony -- though I also don't know that a testimony can be obtained in a vacuum, either ("Good inspiration starts with good information" and various other commands to seek out God's word). I'm still quite fascinated by Pres. Oaks, "I didn't get a testimony of the reasons for the priesthood ban, but I determined to be loyal to the brethren" statement. Is that what God expects of some of us here -- just be quiet and be loyal to the Church? In some ways, it now feels like the same question that I keep asking myself over so many other issues that intersect with questions of prophetic fallibility -- what does one do when he/she does not have a testimony of something the Church teaches or practices??

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Massive calamities, yes; but what about extended recessions or even a major depression that eventually comes to an end and things pick up again?  If stock was held on to when it was of less value and then sold once recovery was significant to help in rebuilding as well as continuing the usual welfare projects, would there be a huge loss of value in the stocks then?  Serious question as I don’t know much about economics.

Major recessions and depressions typically result in the liquidation of many companies.  To the extent the Church is invested in such companies, the investment would be worth nothing.  Your general understanding is correct, however, that post-economic downturn most equity investments (i.e. stocks) that did not involve a now-defunct entity would rise again.  Debt often behaves a little differently, but your general point still stands.  That being said, I don't think anyone is begrudging the Church having funds in reserve.  It seems to be the sheer magnitude of it that is staggering and leaves many with questions on what could possibly necessitate such a thing.

As I've tried to point out, efforts to explain away this fund by pointing to Armageddon levels of calamities are really rather silly.  Paper investments are unlikely to survive the foretold events, if they are real.  The assumption that any currency would hold value is equally problematic.  In fact, such a defense also seems to presuppose a continuation of capitalism-based economies during the Millennium.  I see no basis for that assumption, other than people trying to meld their U.S. political conservatism values with their religious ones.  As for land ownership, should governments collapse, there is really no one to enforce ownership laws, so it is once again pointless to try to justify these investments as savings for biblical calamities at the advent of the Millennium.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

expect that the only satisfying "explanation" is to have a testimony from God that He approves of this practice. I don't know to what extent any explanation from Church leadership helps with obtaining that testimony -- though I also don't know that a testimony can be obtained in a vacuum, either ("Good inspiration starts with good information" and various other commands to seek out God's word).

Well stated. 
 

Quote

I'm still quite fascinated by Pres. Oaks, "I didn't get a testimony of the reasons for the priesthood ban, but I determined to be loyal to the brethren" statement.

I think a great deal depends on what he means by being loyal.
 

I see myself as very loyal to the church and all its members, past, present, and future, even while I am expressing dislike of Brigham Young and much of his behaviour at times, for example, because I also assume he is like me, a child of God in the midst of a great experiment/exploration of himself and others and  from what I can tell he worked as hard as anyone to do good.  Most people are trying to do their best imo. 
 

I believe I can be both very loyal and very critical of others’ choices as long as I don’t forget their humanity and divinity and keep maliciousness and hopefully my own pride out of any analysis of behaviours. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

efforts to explain away this fund by pointing to Armageddon levels of calamities are really rather silly.

I agree. I think it much more likely that the intent is to use the funds to strengthen the foundation of the worldwide Church, meaning its members and the ability to continue to serve them prior to the Armageddons, whatever those turn out to be, so that when the ultimate disasters come to our members they are prepared as possible, but also living good lives prior to that time. 
 

My best guess is they are growing a massive fund now while able so that when we are closer to a true globalization of the Church, the money is available to invest.  I think at this point there is too strong an identity of the Church as American as well as some members too American centric.  It is harder to accomplish actual positive change as outsiders rather than insiders.   As that becomes less of an obstacle over time, I think the Church will expand its hard investments into many countries and that is going to take a massive chunk of cash to do it right Imo, as besides buying property, there will need to be actions that bring the Church into being a part of the local community too at the very least avoid backlash. 

I think that part of the process will include helping current nonAmerican members become better educated and skilled as well as growing numbers where possible so the local Church becomes self sufficient and therefore when money is shared, it is less seen as trying to influence or pressure others into becoming clones of an American church and its American members.  Local leaders will be more drawn from the local region rather than transplanted from the States, I am guessing...though I hope we will still be able to share missionaries and hope all countries including the US will include a hefty minority of foreign missionaries.  Currently there are only two or three other countries besides the US and Canada not being funded through church support, iow self sufficient in terms of church expenses....and as far as senior missionaries who help a great deal with infrastructure in the mission fields and temples, wondering what percentage of nonAmericans go on one.  When we were in Russia, the couple missionaries in our international branch were from Germany iirc, the Elders were both American though.

But that conclusion is likely based on my bias of seeing the Church move slowly from an American organization in many ways to a global one...though we are picking up speed with both greater simplification and better technology for communicating across countries and being able to incorporate nonAmerican attributes into our materials, such as the new hymn book as projected.  

Edited March 31, 2021 by Calm

[webbles]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, you understand where I'm coming from. I hadn't looked at those reports since they first came out and apparently misremembered them (or I subconsciously grew them for interest?).

According to the whistle blower, money has only left EPA twice--once to help fund the mall construction, and once to bail out the insurance company.

It appears that the Church is operated on the algorithm that it should live on 90% of its donation income and save the rest. That made a lot of sense while they first needed to build up cash reserves and then build up some endowments to help fund the Church into perpetuity. But it makes less sense now, and as far as I can tell they've never had the inspiration, faith, or vision to put any of the savings to use for any purposes other than perpetual commercial growth.

People who manage assets like these are trained to constantly measure the duration of the assets and make investment decisions based upon the timing or economic scenarios of when the funds will be needed. For example, will the Church need to withdraw $750 million in an economic recession? Will they need to withdraw $500 million a year for 10 years when Generation Z is going to college? Will they need to withdraw $100 million a year, in 2020 dollars, every year into perpetuity, starting in 2035, to fund temple maintenance? With information about how and when the funds will be used, the managers can make investments that will best meet those objectives.

As an example, a big chunk of the BGEA assets are in "The Cove Endowment Trust Fund." According to their report, the fund's purpose "is to provide an ongoing source of funding for supporting, maintaining, and improving the facilities and ministry at the Billy Graham Training Center at The Cove. The primary investment objective of this fund is to preserve and protect assets by focusing on conservation of principal and long-term growth of capital and income. This objective is generally attained by investing in a diversified portfolio of high quality securities. The spending plan for this fund has been based upon the capital and operating needs of The Cove. Funds of approximately $1,357,500 and $1,407,000 were transferred to support the ministry of The Cove for 2019 and 2018, respectively." That is an example of best practices.

But according to the whistle blower, the investment managers at EPA have received absolutely no such guidance other than vague guidance to keep the money pretty liquid. Comments about saving the money until the second coming might be a prophetic statement of when they plan on actually using the money, but to me it sounds like a cynical quip made by investment managers who are frustrated at the lack of objectives they are given and the observation that the funds are actually never used.

I realize this is partly subjective on my part, and I realize I'm not privy to the insider information. But from my seat, it seems that although the leaders of the Church have admirably dodged the temptation of "claiming ownership of God's gifts", the Church has fallen to the temptation of "acquiring assets as their lasting goal." Avoiding those two temptations are two principle reasons of financial transparency, and I am suggesting they have avoided one but fallen for the other.

Judging their actions, it is clear to me that other than vague, hypothetical pronouncements of maybe needing the money for something someday, they are accumulating it for the commercial purpose of having commercial assets, and that that is an end unto itself. That is why I say money that is invested and investment returns that are reinvested are being put to commercial use.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm just suggesting that James Huntsman isn't the only tithe payer who shares my sensibilities on this.

Actually, the whistleblower does say that the EPA was given guidance.  According to Exhibit G, the "Purpose of the Investment Reserves: Temporal Anchor for Building Zion" is

1) Fund prophetic initiatives

2) Supplement the operating budget

3) Backstop the pension plan and affiliated entities

4) Post collateral for Church operations.

It does appear that the funds haven't been used for any of those (except possibly #3 for the mall and insurance company) but it was given guidance.

Reading the whistleblower, I don't see that the "Church has fallen to the temptation of "acquiring assets as their lasting goal.""  It feels more like the numbers we have are incorrect.

From Exhibit K, it shows the growth of the church's investments.  Back in 1969, the fund was less than $1 billion.  26 years later in 1995, it reached $8 billion.  I'm stopping at 1995 as that is when EPA came into existence.  Per Exhibit L, that period of time had a 10.2% growth with 4.1% contribution.  Running that through Excel's RATE and PMT functions, It looks like the initial amount in 1969 was somewhere between $200-300 million and the average yearly contribution was around $50 million.  Exhibit Q.1 estimates that the contribution of 1996 was $280 million (I'm not sure how they got that number) and it grows about $50 million for the next few years.  So back up to 1995, the church contributed around $230 million.  If we assume that the church invests 1/7 of their income, then their income in 1995 would be around $1.6 Billion.  An investment of $8 billion is a little more than 4x which I think you would agree that that amount is acceptable.

During these years, we also have no knowledge of how the money was used, if at all.  The whistleblower makes no mention of those years.  It is possible that money was being used from the fund.

Then, in 1995, EPA came into existence.  We have no knowledge of why it came into existence but it is interesting that the "Investment Department" of the church had been doing well so far (10.2% growth).

Interestingly, at the time the EPA comes into existence, the church embarks on the largest temple building initiative.  The small temples were announced in 1997 and by 2001, the church had constructed 50+ temples.  The fact that the church probably had 4 years of reserves was probably a big help in that decision.  It is also possible that the leaders expected the fund would be used to construct these temples.

Then the recession of dot-com boom happened and the fund barely increased or even lost money (Exhibit K shows 2000-2002 to be $17 billion and 2002 might even be a little less than 2001).  A few years later, the recession in 2008 happens and the fund looses $9 billion in value.  Exhibit Q.1 says that it contributed $.99 billion in 2008 and if we again assume that the church is investing 1/7 of its income, then the income would be around $7 billion (NBCNews estimated that the income in 2012 was around $7 billion, so close).  With a fund valuation of $29 billion, the church still only has about 4x in investment.  In 2012, the fund valuation is $47 billion.  If NBCNews is close, then the fund is now 6x which is a more than what you would want to be saved for a rainy day, but it isn't extravagant.

But after that point, the numbers go crazy because, supposedly, the church continues to only receive $7 billion in income from 2012 to now.  But the church continues to contribute more and more to the fund until Exhibit Q.1 says it contributed $3 billion in 2019 and the fund increases to $99 billion.  It is hard to believe that the church is not making more than $7 billion now.  It is also hard to believe that the church is contributing $3 billion.

I would bet that the church's income and expenses are a lot more than $7 billion.  The $7 billion income figure that is in the whistleblower document is actually not first hand.  It isn't even second hand.  It is the suspicion of a "EPA senior leader".

I think all of the discussion around $7 billion income and $1 billion contribution is widely incorrect, now that I've re-read the document.

 

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, webbles said:

I think all of the discussion around $7 billion income and $1 billion contribution is widely incorrect, now that I've re-read the document.

That's quite possible. I don't have a handle on how much tithing revenue the Church makes. I would think the best we can do is make educated guesses based on what we see it doing with money and the assets it is accumulating. The only thing I'm certain of is that Quinn's "conservative" estimate that tithing revenue grows at 12.9% a year indefinitely is superlatively naive. 

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

This is how I see it. They wouldn’t want to switch to low income producing hard capital, etc too soon and gut their ability to continue to build up funds.  If they believe they will have enough warning to shift funds into such or are currently doing it in such a way that income doesn’t drop as they add more property, etc (a slow, long term buildup) while carrying out programs with the least amount of unintended consequences.

They have a pretty wide investment in ranch lands, property, etc in the US. If the Church starts buying up similar properties in other countries where there are enough Saints to maintain property if needed in emergencies, the investment fund could be used up pretty quickly.  They would need to do this carefully Imo, to avoid looking like they were coming in and taking over, given how many see the Church as American and dislike anything that hints of American imperialism.  So it seems likely to me the Church needs to wait until it is seen as part of the natural cultural landscape before major investment. 

I agree. Your post fleshes out what I said. The leaders will use the funds in wise and providential ways toward the upbuilding of the kingdom of God while they still has value, prior to the prophesied collapse of the worldwide economic system John describes as  Babylon the Great in his Book of Revelation. The complainers and naysayers either ignore or don’t even want to consider this reasonable middle ground view because their objective is to make the leaders of the Church look as avaricious as possible. Only the most improbable and absurd possibilities are allowed to be considered by the people at Club Murmurer because the possibility for reasonable, common sense explanations don’t fit their narrative.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I agree. Your post fleshes out what I said. The leaders will use the funds in wise and providential ways toward the upbuilding of the kingdom of God while they still has value, prior to the prophesied collapse of the worldwide economic system John describes as  Babylon the Great in his Book of Revelation. The complainers and naysayers either ignore or don’t even want to consider this reasonable middle ground view because their objective is to make the leaders of the Church look as avaricious as possible. Only the most improbable and absurd possibilities are allowed to be considered by the people at Club Murmurer because the possibility for reasonable, common sense explanations don’t fit their narrative.

Nice job stereotyping, dehumanizing, marginalizing, and ascribing evil intent to your "enemies" in this thread.  That's pretty impressive for two sentences.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I think a great deal depends on what he means by being loyal.

Agreed. I'm still trying to understand what it means. Granting grace and patience and withholding judgement as you describe are certainly good parts of this, but I'm not sure that merely withholding judgement on a leader's righteousness is a full description of what it means to be loyal.

I frequently observe that this discussion often focuses on the leader, when what really wants to be discussed is the teaching/practice in question -- conflating loyalty to the leader/leaders/Church with loyalty to a specific teaching/practice. Present issue I think illustrates. When we "accuse" the Church of "acquiring assets as their lasting goal," suggesting that we don't believe that is a good or right thing and that the Church ought to consider using its resources in different ways -- being disloyal to the practice of growing a very large cash reserve fund, are we being disloyal to the Church and to Pres. Nelson and Bishop Causse and so on? It's a bit of a tangent from the main thread topic, but what does loyalty really mean -- especially when one feels a conflict between one's own sense of right and wrong and a teaching/practice of the Church and/or its leaders?

[CA Steve]

29 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Agreed. I'm still trying to understand what it means. Granting grace and patience and withholding judgement as you describe are certainly good parts of this, but I'm not sure that merely withholding judgement on a leader's righteousness is a full description of what it means to be loyal.

I frequently observe that this discussion often focuses on the leader, when what really wants to be discussed is the teaching/practice in question -- conflating loyalty to the leader/leaders/Church with loyalty to a specific teaching/practice. Present issue I think illustrates. When we "accuse" the Church of "acquiring assets as their lasting goal," suggesting that we don't believe that is a good or right thing and that the Church ought to consider using its resources in different ways -- being disloyal to the practice of growing a very large cash reserve fund, are we being disloyal to the Church and to Pres. Nelson and Bishop Causse and so on? It's a bit of a tangent from the main thread topic, but what does loyalty really mean -- especially when one feels a conflict between one's own sense of right and wrong and a teaching/practice of the Church and/or its leaders?

As the old joke goes, Mormons claim the living prophet is fallible but don't believe it.