Wealthy Mormon Publicly Leaves the LDS Church

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is a bit overstated. My guess is 98% taking into account earlier posts of his as well. 

😆Yes, I am guilty of 2% hyperbole.

[kimpearson]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

So I just checked your profile and you joined in 2013, but only 110 posts, though earlier posts might have gone missing when they did some deleting for updates, but that has been quite sometime since they did that and may have been prior to 2013…why the long gap in posting?  Were you reading the board?  I am somewhat confused because some of your posts show an expectation that posters are not aware of the nuances of the topic, but we have discussed these same topics many times. 

Been following for years but recently retired so now I have the time to jump into the discussion.  Read discussions as far back as I could but I often find the past discussions lack fully answering some of the questions in my mind so I throw them out there just like the rest of you.   The nuances your refer to in my mind seem to almost always be from an apologetic viewpoint which to be honest I have little faith in.   Also my reference to old timers was age not length of time on this board.  I am 60 and was part of a high priest group for 20 years.

Edited December 23, 2021 by kimpearson

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Been following for years but recently retired so now I have the time to jump into the discussion.  Read discussions as far back as I could but I often find the past discussions lack fully answering some of the questions in my mind so I throw them out there just like the rest of you.   The nuances your refer to in my mind seem to almost always be from an apologetic viewpoint which to be honest I have little faith in.   Also my reference to old timers was age not length of time on this board.  I am 60 and was part of a high priest group for 20 years.

Thanks for clarifying. That post and your profile threw me for a bit, because even if I forget about posters, it is very rare when I happen to visit old threads I don’t recognize posters once I am reminded of them, but I have no recollection of you before this year and that messed with my ego some.  

[Calm]

I just found a very popular old post of yours so my ego is feeling a bit better. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65492-not-tithing-funds/?do=findComment&comment=1209504763

Explains some of your focus.  
 

And not so old. A topic you have been thinking about for awhile. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72484-whistleblower-on-church-finances/?do=findComment&comment=1209947946

I posted links as it helps add context to your current posts, the fact you are not just picking up the topic now and your own background has helped clarified some of your comments for me, so I am assuming they may help others view you more accurately as well.

Hope it doesn’t come across as stalking. 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Calm

[kimpearson]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just found a very popular old post of yours so my ego is feeling a bit better. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65492-not-tithing-funds/?do=findComment&comment=1209504763

Explains some of your focus.  
 

And not so old. A topic you have been thinking about for awhile. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72484-whistleblower-on-church-finances/?do=findComment&comment=1209947946

I posted links as it helps add context to your current posts, the fact you are not just picking up the topic now and your own background has helped clarified some of your comments for me, so I am assuming they may help others view you more accurately as well.

Hope it doesn’t come across as stalking. 

 

Nope.  Now that I am more actively participating I am doing similar research of everyone else on this board.  There are not many places where you can find both fanatical believers, strong reasoned believers, arrogant believers, humble believers, conditional believers, sorta believers, humble non-believers, arrogant non-believers and a few very angry folk all together in a discussion.  I find it fascinating because as I try to truly see myself as I get older I find parts of myself in all those descriptions.

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I personally think billionaires should not exist. It’s a little ironic to me to hear a billionaire criticize an organization for their finances. Still, it’s certainly his right to leave however he chooses and I can’t argue with some of his other reasons. 

Why should billionaires not exist?  Are you suggesting that a company should be only allowed to get so big before it is not allowed to grow any further?  If there were no billionaires, think of all the things that would not exist.  Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Walmart, Tesla and a thousand other companies.  Anyone who starts a company has a right to own a portion of that business.  If the business grows big enough, they are billionaires. 

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I am also not surprised it is now the 5th most popular story to be read.  The Church does not really have a very good reputation in California.

Well its California.  California does not have the greatest reputation for those living outside of it.

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well at least he pledges to give away 90% of his wealth.  That is much better than the LDS Church's commitment to  the poor and weary.

It most of these pledges, they are made when the people die.  Of course that really would not matter at that point to these people as once they are dead, what good is the wealth to them.

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The pledge gives him the leeway to wait until after death to follow through with that commitment, to safely wait until he's absolutely sure he won't need it any longer.  The Church, as an organization, is immortal.  It's not going to die, not going to experience a time when the resources are no longer needed, and therefore can't give away 90% of its wealth after its death.

Not only that but the work the church does is the ONLY thing that actually is eternal.  None of the dead care about the ads he is involved with.  Billions of them do care about their temple ordinances getting done.  I imagine he will see the insignificance of his company and the extreme importance of the work of the church not too long after he dies.

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see virtually no downside for Mr. Green to do what he did.

Thanks,

-Smac

In the near term yes. In the long term, lots of downside.  Then at death, no upside whatsoever. 

[why me]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Wow you really know how to drive the point home that you politicize your posts in answer to Tribe's observation.  I now see what he is talking about.

I wasn't the one who mentioned the topic. I just gave an example of hypocrisy.

[why me]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Wow someone is just a little racist but you will of course call me woke.  How does this comment add to or in any way help the conversation?  I am not trying to moderate you but rather hopefully lead you to share why you made this comment.

A poster mentioned various religions but left one out. I just included it in the list. Why leave out a major religion? I have read a lot of comments critical of the Mormon faith and its members. And many critical comments about the LDS faith have to do with LGBT stances. Why single out this one particular faith? There are so called conservative christian religions, liberal religions and progressive religions. Why single out for critical comments the conservative christian churches such as the LDS faith? I would love to see Omar answer questions about her own faith and how her political stances may be in conflict with that faith. Hasn't catholic politicians faced such questioning? What about when Romney was running for president? His faith was mentioned and mocked quite often because of its conservative stances andhe had to defend his faith.

The very rich man made it political when he publicized the reason for leaving his faith. He could have just left and made it private. But...he didn't.

Edited December 23, 2021 by why me

[sunstoned]

38 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Well its California.  California does not have the greatest reputation for those living outside of it.

It depends on who you ask.  

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Well its California.  California does not have the greatest reputation for those living outside of it.

So California is to the US, what the US is to the rest of the world?

[gmormon]

Apparently none of you watch "The Expanse".... The church will need all it money to build its multigenerational ship the "SS Nauvoo". Just saying that can't be cheap🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

[JustAnAustralian]

Just as long as it doesn't go Starship Troopers style. It didn't end well for those in Port Joe Smith.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As Milton's Christ says in response to Satan's offer of the world's approval:

 

Well we have a one party system here.

That's all I will say.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To be fair, its often newsworthy to LDS-affiliated news sources when people who are high profile join the LDS church or do something significantly newsworthy (such as taking this type of charitable action).  LDS Living, for example.  

I'd say it's often human nature to celebrate when someone "high profile" joins "your tribe," or likewise does something commendable and newsworthy, whatever type of tribe that is. 

Well said. I probably don't understand because I don't think of Mennonitism as my tribe. Christianity is my tribe. I think you are right however. For many, their specific denomination or branch of Christianity in one way or another is their tribe. I am Christian first, Evangelical second, and Mennonite a distant third.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

A $600,000 donation from a multibillionaire and possibly “the wealthiest man in Utah” is equivalent to what we might spend on lunch, or less.

Why do most billionaires who donate their money wait until they die to donate the vast majority of their donations?  Wouldn’t it be more gratifying to see the good done with it?  

It's called a Charitable Remainder Trust. You hire all your kids and grandchildren etc. to run your "nonprofit" foundation and give them salaries, they invest the trust's money, and only need to give away 5% to charities per year, while the corpus keeps growing, hopefully at more than 5%, which is easy if they know what they are doing!

And they do.

Otherwise the estate tax would take most of it.

The kids then become "philanthropists" and everyone thinks they are wonderful human beings 😊

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The pledge gives him the leeway to wait until after death to follow through with that commitment, to safely wait until he's absolutely sure he won't need it any longer.  The Church, as an organization, is immortal.  It's not going to die, not going to experience a time when the resources are no longer needed, and therefore can't give away 90% of its wealth after its death.

I wonder if you might clarify your term "The Church, as an organization, is immortal." What does that mean to you? Do you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will exist in eternity? If so, do you believe the Catholic, Mennonite and Methodist churches will also exist in eternity?  Thanks for the clarification.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

A $600,000 donation from a multibillionaire and possibly “the wealthiest man in Utah” is equivalent to what we might spend on lunch, or less.

Why do most billionaires who donate their money wait until they die to donate the vast majority of their donations?  Wouldn’t it be more gratifying to see the good done with it?  

You set up your own "charitable" foundation which only has to give away 5% of your money per year to your favorite causes while the foundation invests it, making more than 5%

Your money becomes a "charity"

You hire your family to run it with fat salaries and everyone loves them because they are "philanthropists" forever. 

Otherwise the estate tax would gobble up most of it immediately at death.

That's why everyone has charitable Foundations

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

Edited December 23, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

A while back I was in a discussion with my dad about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their respective strengths and weaknesses.  My dad then said something that I thought was astute and reasonable (I'm paraphrasing) : "Brigham Young probably could not have received the revelations given through Joseph Smith, but then, Joseph probably could not have led the Saints West, establish dozens of towns and settlements, run the Church for decades, and all the other things that Brigham did.  The Lord needs different people at different times for different purposes."

Per this article, in 1870, agricultural workers comprised half of all workers; in 1900, about one-third of all workers; and in 1950, less than a fifth of all workers.  Today, "19.7 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors—10.3 percent of total U.S. employment."  So farming as an occupation has gone way down.  

Pres. Nelson was a doctor.  Pres. Oaks was a lawyer, law professor, judge and academic administrator.  Pres. Eyring was an academic and academic administrator.  Elder Ballard was a businessman, as were Elders Rasband and Stevenson.  Elder Holland worked for the Church and in education.  Elder Uchtdorf was an airline pilot and executive.  Elder Bednar was an academic and higher education administrator.  Elder Cook was an attorney, as was Elder Christofferson.  Elder Andersen was in healthcare administration.  Elder Renlund was a doctor.  Elder Gong has worked in government and in academia.  Elder Soares worked for the Church and for several multi-national corporations.

So yeah, lots of education and business and administrative experience seem to be a useful part of the calling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Genuine question.....do we know how many of the apostles over the years were pastors (bishops)? Was J. Reuben Clark an exception in that he never served as bishop or stake president? Thanks.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, BRMC said:

It seems the issue mostly lies with people who DON'T believe them yet want to force change for the people that for the most part don't want the change because they do believe those truths.

I find this comment very interesting. Would you object if I turn that around this way?  "It seems the issue mostly lies with people who DO believe them yet want to force change for the people that for the most part don't want the change because they do not believe those truths."  Is this not a core component of LDS missionary work and doctrine? If I, as a non-member do not, either in this life or the next accept LDS uniqueness and ordinances, I am excluded from eternal life in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now that is a pretty powerful statement, isn't it, especially for those of us who do not believe the exclusive truth claims of the LDS church, yet completely accept our LDS friends as fully Christian?
 

[Orthodox Christian]

18 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Haven't seen a thread on this topic yet, but it's shown up across a few of my social media and news feeds.

Different sources contain different nuggets/sources commenting about both Mr. Green and The Church, so I'll quote a few:

The New York Times report has some interesting commentary from Kathleen Flake, a professor of Mormon Studies about the political nature of such a public announcement:

 

The Associated Press' take includes a bit more context of The LDS Church's more recent activities supporting some initiatives in favor of LGBT civil rights, as well as mentioning Huntsman's failed lawsuit:

And the Daily Beast's article contains a few more tidbits from Green's letter to Nelson and a few more details about some of his 11 family members that likewise chose to leave the Faith:

It's worth noting that it's The Church's standard policy to refrain from commenting on such matters, which it views as private, so declining to comment on a story such as this isn't surprising.

I don't know this man, not your church's financial situation. I would be interested to know how it is causing harm in the world. If the man is so alienated by the church's conservative views then, if he can't be reconciled, then maybe it's right that he should go. Why does he think people will be interested in his decision?

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, kimpearson said:

This board is not a testimony meeting.  For us old timers, its high priest group discussion.

This comment is great! I like it, but it brings back a memory. About four years ago in a high priest group discussion, I made a comment. The president later indicated to me that my comment caused the Spirit to leave the meeting. Later that week in a trip up into the mountains with the bishop, I mentioned what the president had said to me. The bishop had also been in the meeting. The bishop strongly disagreed with the what the president had said to me. He said that comment about the Spirit leaving is something that long-time LDS members sometimes say when they personally aren't happy with what was said. I appreciated that. I am not quite sure that this forum is a "high priest group discussion", but sometimes it reminds me of that president's comment.