The church's billions in perspective.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, that doesn't bother me at all. I mentioned one issue that I do find slightly annoying, and I'm told I'm attacking the church. Meh.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

I am what I am, and that's all what I am.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I know how we have all been taught, thank you.  You do know the Church used to issue financial statements, though, right?  I'm assuming you also know that the Church does issues financial statements in other countries where it is required, right?

Yes I do know all that. So? If the US somehow makes it a requirement the church will comply.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes I do know all that. So? If the US somehow makes it a requirement the church will comply.

I guess I'm with jkwilliams on this...why the ardent defensiveness?

[mgy401]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, that doesn't bother me at all. I mentioned one issue that I do find slightly annoying, and I'm told I'm attacking the church. Meh.

What do they call the rhetorical device wherein one asserts a point by denying that one is trying to assert that point —as in “I’m not saying your wife is ugly, but . . .”?   

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mgy401 said:

What do they call the rhetorical device wherein one asserts a point by denying that one is trying to assert that point —as in “I’m not saying your wife is ugly, but . . .”?   

You can believe what you want. I don't care about the church's finances. I'm really regretting having commented at all on this thread. 

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Pure speculation and conjecture. And the church is pretty good about publicizing such things even to the point of the helping hands t shirts.

The non-profit that I work for receives several million dollars worth of in-kind donations each year from the church.  You don’t know this because it’s not publicized.   

[JustAnAustralian]

41 minutes ago, Fether said:

Even those donations are the church’s discretion

And because the church says that they can be used at their discretion, it means that you have a lot better chance at being able to claim the whole lot against your taxable income, rather than just certain categories or percentages of categories.

 

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I guess I'm with jkwilliams on this...why the ardent defensiveness?

If all the finances would be made known most likely the church critics and their armchair quarterbacking will misquote and misinterpret the numbers somehow to support their criticisms, so why do it just to satisfy their curiosity and feed the hate?
Like I said most active faithful tithe-paying members simply would not care to or need to know the numbers. If they do then they are paying tithing for the wrong reason. My opinion of course.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

You can believe what you want. I don't care about the church's finances.

A point that you've made abundantly clear in your 36 (so far) posts on a thread discussing the Church's finances.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I am still trying to figure out why people are so adamant about not having financial transparency. I don't get it. 

I agree.  Financial transparency is overrated.  I like how the church operates in secrecy.  In fact I wish the government would follow the church's example.  

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

If all the finances would be made known most likely the church critics and their armchair quarterbacking will misquote and misinterpret the numbers somehow to support their criticisms, so why do it just to satisfy their curiosity and feed the hate?
Like I said most active faithful tithe-paying members simply would not care to or need to know the numbers. If they do then they are paying tithing for the wrong reason. My opinion of course.

I really doubt that.  You really don't know what faithful tithe-paying member care or don't care about.  It does seem that you are being very defensive about this topic. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You really don't know what faithful tithe-paying member care or don't care about.

States someone who is not a faithful tithe-paying member to someone who is.

[MiserereNobis]

Have any LDS leaders, perhaps in the early years, attacked the Catholic Church for her wealth? I imagine so, simply because it was the Protestant thing to do. Does it matter? Not sure. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

So yes, the church could have just walked away from Beneficial Life and dumped all of that on the state and, by extension, other insurers (who would then bake those costs into their premiums which would end up being passed on to Utah residents as well). 

Instead, the church decided to bail out the company and provide a major benefit to Utah residents. What jerks.  

Yes, let’s take away their tax-exempt status. That’ll teach them a lesson for acting responsibly and honorably! 😉 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Have any LDS leaders, perhaps in the early years, attacked the Catholic Church for her wealth? I imagine so, simply because it was the Protestant thing to do. Does it matter? Not sure. 

I want to say no, but as surely as I do, some nitpicking fault finder will dredge up some obscure quote from some hidden corner of history. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I am still trying to figure out why people are so adamant about not having financial transparency. I don't get it. 

 

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I can understand saying you don't think it's needed, but I don't get why people think it's evil to even suggest such a wicked thing. 

I’m still trying to figure out why non-tithepayers like you and Teancum get so angry about other folks using their own means to support whom and what they want in the manner and under the circumstances they choose to do it. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, mgy401 said:

What do they call the rhetorical device wherein one asserts a point by denying that one is trying to assert that point —as in “I’m not saying your wife is ugly, but . . .”?   

I don’t know what they call it, but apparently some outfit is marketing a game based on it:

https://www.amazon.com/Hygge-Games-Saying-Stupid-Trivia/dp/B07HMDKRKL

JK would be a master player, I’ve no doubt. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, mgy401 said:

What do they call the rhetorical device wherein one asserts a point by denying that one is trying to assert that point —as in “I’m not saying your wife is ugly, but . . .”?   

OK, I found a term for it: apophasis. Sometimes it’s called paralepsis. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis

From the link:

 

As a rhetorical device, apophasis can serve several purposes.

It can be employed to raise an ad hominem or otherwise controversial attack while disclaiming responsibility for it, as in, "I refuse to discuss the rumor that my opponent is a drunk." This can make it a favored tactic in politics.

Apophasis can be used passive-aggressively, as in, "I forgive you for your jealousy, so I won't even mention what a betrayal it was."

In Cicero's "Pro Caelio" speech, he says to a prosecutor, "Obliviscor iam iniurias tuas, Clodia, depono memoriam doloris mei" ("I now forget your wrongs, Clodia, I set aside the memory of my pain [that you caused].")^[8]

Apophasis can be used to discuss a taboo subject, as in, "We are all fully loyal to the emperor, so we wouldn't dare to claim that his new clothes are a transparent hoax."

As a rhetorical device, it can serve various purposes, often dependent on the relationship of the speaker to the addressee and the extent of their shared knowledge. Apophasis is rarely literal; instead, it conveys meaning through implications that may depend on this context. As an example of how meaning shifts, the English phrase "needless to say" invokes shared understanding, but its actual meaning depends on whether that understanding was really shared. The speaker is alleging that it is not necessary to say something because the addressee already knows it, but is it so? If it is, it may merely emphasize a pertinent fact. If the knowledge is weighted with history, it may be an indirect way of levying an accusation ("needless to say, because you are responsible"). If the addressee does not actually already possess the knowledge, it may be a way to condescend: the speaker suspected as much but wanted to call attention to the addressee's ignorance. Conversely, it could be a sincere and polite way to share necessary information that the addressee may or may not know withoutimplying that the addressee is ignorant.

Apophasis can serve to politely avoid the suggestion of ignorance on the part of an audience, as found in the narrative style of Adso of Melk in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, where the character fills in details of early fourteenth-century history for the reader by stating it is unnecessary to speak of them.^[9] Conversely, the same introduction can be made sarcastically to condescend to an audience and imply their ignorance.

Another diplomatic use would be to raise a criticism indirectly, as in, "It would be out of line for me to say that this action would be unwise and unaffordable, sir, as I only care about your best interests."

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

some nitpicking fault finder will dredge up some obscure quote from some hidden corner of history

Or someone who is trying to answer a serious question from a nonmember. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Have any LDS leaders, perhaps in the early years, attacked the Catholic Church for her wealth? I imagine so, simply because it was the Protestant thing to do. Does it matter? Not sure. 

I don’t know. Wouldn’t be surprised as I believe many brought anti catholic beliefs with them when converted, unfortunately baptism may clean the spirit, but it doesn’t do a data purge of false beliefs and ideas. 
 

From the footnotes, this seems like an interesting article, but don’t have access myself.   It might have info on your question. 
 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/dialjmormthou.51.2.0061#metadata_info_tab_contents

Edited June 18, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or someone who is trying to answer a serious question from a nonmember. 

I never said it wasn’t a serious question. Don’t imply that I did. 
 

I think it makes a difference whether anti-Catholic sentiment, to the extent it existed at all among early Church members,  was or was not widespread. 
 

I know it was the policy of Brigham Young to welcome other faiths into the new settlement and support them in the erection of their houses of worship. Thus it is that the stately and historic Catholic Cathedral of the Madeleine occupies a prominent location in downtown Salt Lake City. 
 

And there’s the famous story of the Catholic congregation in St. George, Utah, that needed a place in which to celebrate mass. Not only did local Latter-day Saint leaders place the St. George Tabernacle at their disposal, but the stake choir learned the Latin liturgy so as to provide music for the occasion. 
 

Facts such as these must be weighed against any isolated instances of anti-Catholicism among early Church members. That’s what I intended to communicate. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said it wasn’t a serious question. Don’t imply that I did. 

Yeah, that wasn’t my point, I didn’t imply that. 
 

My point is given it was a serious question, there may be someone (I am one, there may be others) wanting to give a substantial answer to him that may include obscure quotes, but not to fault find or nitpick, but to inform. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, that wasn’t my point, I didn’t imply that. 
 

My point is given it was a serious question, there may be someone (I am one, there may be others) wanting to give a substantial answer to him that may include obscure quotes, but not to fault find or nitpick, but to inform. 

Well, there”s the perennial problem. Obscure quotes, if not balanced against other information or not placed within clarifying context or perspective, can convey a misleading impression. 

[Calm]

Here is another article that suggests if such comments were made, they might have come from a later era. 

https://www.deseret.com/2009/9/10/20339414/mormons-and-the-cross

I have unfortunately heard one member long ago point to these verses in the BofM to “prove” the Catholic Church is the great and abominable...

Quote

And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.4-9,26-27,34?lang=eng#3

I would expect most members who thought about it would perceive a church that has been around and well established for over a thousand years, for whom history matters a great deal, would tend to build up a great deal of wealth overtime if only to protect that history. Add other worthwhile endeavors (like cathedrals meant to convey a sense of the divine and to honor God) and the problems of being a country as well...

Edited June 18, 2021 by Calm