Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Wealthy Mormon Publicly Leaves the LDS Church

Daniel2

By Daniel2
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Navidad Grand Master

Navidad

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, why me said:

Why single out for critical comments the conservative christian churches such as the LDS faith?

I can only respond for myself. My comments are mostly about the LDS faith and Mormonism (inclusive of Mormon fundamentalism), because this is a "Mormon" board. Also because the LDS faith, inclusive of Mormon fundamentalism is one with which I am extremely interested at this particular time in my life. When on a Mennonite or Pentecostal forum I don't make comments about the LDS unless they are specifically significant to the discussion. That almost never happens. I offer my comments as another perspective to add to the conversation. I mean no offense by any of them, but sometimes offense is taken, because after all, the majority of folks here are more or less faithful members.

I have been offensive at times, and I regret that. I am trying to do and be better. I often lecture here in Mexico on its religious history. The Mennonite (including fundamentalists), Mormon (including fundamentalists) and Pentecostals are an important part of modern Mexican religious history. The role and status of the Mormon, Pentecostal,  and Mennonite in Mexican culture, especially here in the north is very complex and certainly transcends the religious dimension. Thanks.

2
Teancum Grand Master

Teancum

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

Don't know the details.  Maybe he will set up a foundation like Bill Gates.

BRMC Rising Star

BRMC

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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?
 

You can, but it doesn't really fit the same.  If you are offered a piece of cake, and you turn down that offer, it's a little odd that you would be put off for not having cake.   You're also assigning blame for God's law to His followers, not to God.   Here's another example.

I'm having a pool party and my kids go all around the neighborhood telling everyone about this awesome pool party I'm having.  They hand out invitations that clearly say you need to wear a bathing suit and bring a can of peas to get in.   You show up late naked with no peas.  I'm at the door and deny you entry, how is it my kids fault?   I made the rules and they told you the rules.

1
Navidad Grand Master

Navidad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BRMC said:

You can, but it doesn't really fit the same.  If you are offered a piece of cake, and you turn down that offer, it's a little odd that you would be put off for not having cake.   You're also assigning blame for God's law to His followers, not to God.   Here's another example.

I'm having a pool party and my kids go all around the neighborhood telling everyone about this awesome pool party I'm having.  They hand out invitations that clearly say you need to wear a bathing suit and bring a can of peas to get in.   You show up late naked with no peas.  I'm at the door and deny you entry, how is it my kids fault?   I made the rules and they told you the rules.

Ok. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question. I appreciate it. I don't want to hijack the thread with more of my questions.

I believe I will enjoy my heavenly cake at the banquet feast of the Lamb, maybe even sitting next to you! We can look back together and chuckle over our disagreements during our time back on earth! Best wishes!

2
BRMC Rising Star

BRMC

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question. I appreciate it. I don't want to hijack the thread with more of my questions.

I believe I will enjoy my heavenly cake at the banquet feast of the Lamb, maybe even sitting next to you! We can look back together and chuckle over our disagreements during our time back on earth! Best wishes!

I'm confident you will.   Merry Christmas.

1
  • Popular Post
Amulek Grand Master

Amulek

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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 😊

Exactly this.

It isn't like they dump all of their money into Habitat for Humanity or some other existing charity. Instead, they create their own charity and hire all of their family members to run it. The foundation then pays them a generous salary every year (we're talking healthy six digits) while their heirs continue to live the socialite life - attending charity galas and being sucked up to for donations in perpetuity. 

Also, it's not like this whole Giving Pledge business is legally binding. These people are private citizens. How on earth are you going to know if Bill Gates really gave away 90% of his fortune? You won't. But hey, if it makes people think better of them for saying it - more power to them, I guess.

5
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, california boy said:

Biggest San Francisco paper also picked up the story.  Right now it is the 5th most popular story read.

And as I write this, less than a day after you made your post, the story is not even on the list. 
 

That’s typical with online news sites that track their “most popular” stories. A newly posted story will get a lot of traffic early on because it is new and readers haven’t seen it before. Then, typically, the story quickly drops out of the running as newer stories come along to supplant it. 
 

If the story had remained on the list of the “most popular” a week or longer after it was first posted — or it was in the running for the most read of all time —  I might have been impressed. Could it be that some readers of the story on that site were like readers on this board, quickly captivated by the click bait but soon learning after reading it that it was a nothing burger?

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
21 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.

The story getting a lot of traffic when initially posted does not necessarily signify a bad reputation for the Church. A substantial portion of the traffic could be Church members. There are a lot of them in California. 
 

The title of this thread piqued my interest not because I hate the Church but because I love it. 

Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

News items on this story:

A few thoughts:

1. I wish Mr. Green well and hope he has a change of heart and returns.

2. I think it's interesting that Mr. Green "unofficially left the church 'more than a decade ago—not believing, attending, or practicing,'" but is nevertheless described as a "prominent Mormon billionaire."  So "prominence" is not a function of his activity or service in the Church.  It is, instead, a function of his bank account balance.  His letter and the opinions expressed therein are noteworthy simply because he's rich, nothing more.  

3. His letter is lacking in substance.  He opines and berates, that's all.  And his opinions are conclusory and simplistic.

4. I think his criticism of the Church's finances is . . . interesting.  He has amassed for himself a fortune worth billions, and also "worries about the faith’s transparency around its history and finances," but I don't see much in the way of financial "transparency" from him.  So I guess "transparent financials for thee, but not for me" is the way of things.

5. Mr. Green "has pledged to donate 90% of his estimated $5 billion fortune, starting with a $600,000 donation to the LGBTQ-rights group Equality Utah."  Huh.  He is "starting" his philanthropy with a $600K donation, which works out to about .012% of his $5 billion fortune.  I suspect he has done more, but it sure is easy to sit back and second-guess and find fault with his charitable inclinations.  Kinda like how he and so many others have done with the Church.

6. Mr. Green decided "last month" to take the "Giving Pledge, vowing to donate more than 90% of his wealth before or at the time of his death."  Last month.

I admire the sentiment , but the "pledge" allows him to keep his billions for most or all of the rest of his life and then, having lived a life of opulence, give it away "before or at the time of his death."  He reserves to himself his billions, and all the benefits that derive therefrom, but then presumes to judge the Church's handling of its finances.  And unlike him, the Church's wealth is held in trust, and used to benefit the members and the rest of the world.  

There is a strong bit of irony here.  If Mr. Green had divested himself of his billions now, then he would be in a better position to criticize the Church's retention and long-term management of its funds.  Instead, his plan seems to be not a whole lot different from what the Church is doing: managing accumulated wealth with the long-term goal of it going toward worthy causes.  So why is it okay for him to do this with his money (all the while living the life of a literal billionaire), but awful and terrible when the Church does it?

7. Given the number of news items, I suspect this "story," such as it is, was an orchestrated PR event.  

Again, I hope Mr. Green has a change of heart.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t want to endure the tedium of checking all those links, but I wonder what portion of them are just picking up the AP story. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about news outlets around the country running or broadcasting a wire story. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
2
Teancum Grand Master

Teancum

Posted
Posted
21 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.

I got a lot of down votes on this.  And that is fine. But really the LDS CHurch, outside of FO fund, which I get them credit all day long for, don't give a very large % of the church's wealth to the poor and needy.  Humanitarian aid is a small %.  And FO is promoted to be self funding on the local level though the church will pirch in if a stake runs a deficit.  So that is just another way the members fund this program.  Same for the humanitarian aid fund.  It is a simple fact that NONE of the Ensign Peak Fund of over $100 billion had been used at least up to this point humanitarian id.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given more away for such things over the past 20 years than The Church of Jesus Christ. Green has committed to giving away his wealth.  All of you who down voted my comments feel free to prove me wrong.

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t want to endure the tedium of checking all those links, but I wonder what portion of them are just picking up the AP story. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about news outlets around the country running or broadcasting a wire story. 

I think most of them are either running the AP story or else cribbing from the Salt Lake Tribune story.

I guess there is more exposure because there are more outlets carrying the story.

Thanks,

-Smac

mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Exactly this.

It isn't like they dump all of their money into Habitat for Humanity or some other existing charity. Instead, they create their own charity and hire all of their family members to run it. The foundation then pays them a generous salary every year (we're talking healthy six digits) while their heirs continue to live the socialite life - attending charity galas and being sucked up to for donations in perpetuity. 

Also, it's not like this whole Giving Pledge business is legally binding. These people are private citizens. How on earth are you going to know if Bill Gates really gave away 90% of his fortune? You won't. But hey, if it makes people think better of them for saying it - more power to them, I guess.

Yes!  More power is exactly the idea!

It's called "social capital"

 It's pure power.

You can contribute to politicians, start a children's hospital, do whatever advances your cause and makes you look like a good guy.

A other trick is to pair the charitable Foundation with a life insurance trust, which replaces all you actually DO give away TAX FREE when you pass.

You get richer dead than alive, and everyone thinks you are just a wonderful human being.

Think of the Carnegies, Kennedys, Bill Gates, etc

Maybe you are!

But your trusts are not exactly going broke! ;)

 

 

1
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 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

And your local billionaire can also leave it to the church this way virtually anonymously- the laws don't only help the selfish!

And if you have owned a house in California for 30 years,you are probably already at least a "millionaire" in net worth, on paper.

You can benefit the church AND your family at the same time!

Edited by mfbukowski
Teancum Grand Master

Teancum

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Exactly this.

It isn't like they dump all of their money into Habitat for Humanity or some other existing charity. Instead, they create their own charity and hire all of their family members to run it. The foundation then pays them a generous salary every year (we're talking healthy six digits) while their heirs continue to live the socialite life - attending charity galas and being sucked up to for donations in perpetuity. 

Also, it's not like this whole Giving Pledge business is legally binding. These people are private citizens. How on earth are you going to know if Bill Gates really gave away 90% of his fortune? You won't. But hey, if it makes people think better of them for saying it - more power to them, I guess.

Foundations publish their financials, unlike the LDS Church.  And by law a % of a private foundations income and assets have to be donated every year. So yeas Bill Gates is giving away a lot of $$ to a lot of humatarina things.  And you can dig into it if you wish.  

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I got a lot of down votes on this.  And that is fine. But really the LDS CHurch, outside of FO fund, which I get them credit all day long for,

"Them" being . . . who?

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

don't give a very large % of the church's wealth to the poor and needy. 

I question that assertion.  First, it's facially dubious given all the programs and efforts that the Church spends time and money and effort in advancing.

Second, nary a penny of fast offerings is ever given "to the poor."  Not one cent.  Fast offerings are used to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and other "necessaries."  But none of it is given "to the poor."  Food is given, not money.  Clothing is donated or purchased for the individual/family, money is not given.  Rent is paid to the landlord, not to the tenant.  Repair costs for a vehicle are paid to the mechanic, not to the owner of the car.  Utilities are paid by check to the utilities company, not to the individual.

So do Fast Offerings count, even if "the poor and needy" are not getting money from "the church's wealth"?  If so, why?

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Humanitarian aid is a small %. 

How do you know that?

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And FO is promoted to be self funding on the local level though the church will pirch in if a stake runs a deficit. So that is just another way the members fund this program. 

You seem to differentiate between "the church" and "the local level."  I do not.  The work and efforts of "the Church" is, in the end, the work and effort of its members.  

It is a common tactic to try to pit "the Church" (and/or its leaders) against its constituent members.  Jeff Green does this ("Jeff T. Green lambasted the Mormon church, saying that while he believed most members were 'good people trying to do right,' he also believed 'the church is actively and currently doing harm in the world'...").

Aren't members funding all the programs of the Church?  Whether through tithes as "seed money," or through ongoing tithes, or through grassroots "local" endeavors, or throught individual philanthropic donations and efforts, the members - and the Church - are doing quite a bit to serve their fellow man.

The vibe coming off "just another way the members fund this program" is "I do not credit the Church for these things."  Is that a fair characterization?

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Same for the humanitarian aid fund. 

"Same" meaning . . . what?  Again, the vibe seems to be "I do not credit the Church for these things."

How much value is found in the commodities that the Church distributes through Deseret Industries?  Either via retail or straight-up donations in terms of commodities orders from bishops and large distributions to developing countries?  Given your "outside of FO fund" comment, it seems that these do not, in your view, count as philanthropic / charitable efforts.  Could you explain why?

What about the storehouses?  How much value is found in bishops authorizing food orders?  These are "outside of FO fund" expenditures as well, but for you they do not seem to count as philanthropic / charitable efforts.  Is that a correct statement?

The Church has spent considerable time and effort developing "self-reliance" courses, which have been shared with the NAACP for adaptation for use in communities other than within the Church (see here).  Does this count?

The Church facilitates millions of hours of volunteer service by its members.  Does this count?

The Church spends huge amounts of money subsidizing the educations of tens of thousands of students every year.  Does this count?

Welfare Square.  Humanitarian Square.  These do not involve giving money to the poor.  Do they count as charitable efforts?

The Church teaches precepts that, if followed, result in people obeying the law, avoiding substance abuse, refraining from inappropriate sexual behavior, strengthening families, pursuing education, working hard, and so on.  Does this count?

Have you ever read this article (published by the Church)?: Humanitarian Aid and Welfare Services Basics: How Donations and Resources Are Used

I could go on for a quite a while.  Nobody is getting rich from the Church.  The Church has developed a healthy long-term financial strategy for remaining solvent while also funding the Church's mandated duties.  And it's doing a pretty good job.  Rather than acknowledge this, our critics - quelle surprise - find a way to find fault.  The Church is not spending enough of its accumulated wealth.  I will once again point to these trenchant comments from D. Michael Quinn:

Quote

Questions persist inside and outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about the $100 billion reserve the faith has amassed in an investment account.

In this week’s “Mormon Land” podcast, historian D. Michael Quinn says the church’s reserves are actually much steeper than has been reported. But, he adds, so are its expenses, especially in supporting its global presence.

Quinn, a scholar who has done the deepest dive to date into the history of Latter-day Saint finances — his 2017 book, “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” remains the definitive volume on the subject — discusses the issue.

Listen here.

It's a good interview.

Per this article, "America already spends $4 trillion on social supports, five times more than is spent on the military."  And yet despite that 11.4% of Americans live in poverty.  Perhaps the Church is on to something in not blithely loing along with the facile notion that helping our fellow man is per se equivalent to giving money away.  Perhaps there is something to be said in a holistic approach.  Perhaps there is value in encouraging self-reliance as a means of getting off the dole.  

I think there are a lot of things that the Church and its members do that never see the light of day.  "Alms ... in secret," as it were.  Additionally, the Church also has an obligation to be a wise steward of its means.  As Quinn notes, the Church struggled for most of its history in terms of financial stability.  Then things changed:

Quote

This article by Peggy Fletcher Stack is about Quinn's most recent book: Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances, shows how church went from losing money to making money — lots of it

Some excerpts:

...

Quote

{The early} church and its leaders faced repeated fiscal hardships — losing everything each time they had to abandon their homes and communities.

That would have been tough for any group, but Latter-day Saints were especially hard hit.

...

Like Smith, the “vast majority of Mormonism’s 19th-century leaders,” Quinn writes, “had previously been subsistence farmers or working-class townspeople with limited finances.”

Congregations were led by lay clergy, who received no remuneration. But even those leaders who worked full time in ecclesiastical roles received little payment.

...

Most believers had paid tithing, but they did so in an uneven and unpredictable fashion until about 1900, when then-church President Lorenzo Snow asked members to pay on a “regular and consistent basis,” Quinn says. Tithing became a requirement for admittance to LDS temples, where Mormons take part in their faith’s highest ordinances.

That mandate had a clear and immediate impact.

At that time, the church was $2.5 million in debt, he says, but because of the tithing push, Snow’s successor Joseph F. Smith could announce in 1907 that the institution was debt-free.

Within a couple of decades, though, the red ink again began to flow.

From 1933 to 1950, the church saved about 72 percent of its annual income, creating a large reserve. But a building program from 1958 to 1963 blotted out all the reserve funds, and the church didn’t have enough liquid assets to meet all its obligations.

Starting in 1959, the faith began deficit spending, Quinn says, and thus stopped reporting its expenditures in General Conferences, hoping to keep that fact from the members.

By December 1962, the deficit had ballooned to nearly $33 million (or about $236 million in 2010 dollars) and, in 1963, the historian says, LDS headquarters “didn’t think it could meet its payroll.”

Such anxiety led leaders to take steps to ensure that would never happen again.

They brought Canadian N. Eldon Tanner on board as an apostle. Tapping his enormous financial know-how, the church began to rebuild its nest egg, cutting back on building projects and overseeing investments until it could get back in the black.

Tanner was “methodically rescuing the church from the brink,” Quinn writes. “By 1964, commercial income accounted for about 40 to 45 percent of its total income.”

Step by step, the historian writes, Tanner introduced the church to “corporate financing.”

It never looked back.

"Corporate financing?"  Ick!  Terrible!

But it's "corporate financing" and the Church's revelatory mandates that, when paired together, are allowing the Church to have sufficient resources to meet its obligations, to stabilize and strengthen the Church's financial state, to subsidize the Church and its members in areas where such help is needed, and to do all of these things with the leaders of the Church living decidedly modest, non-profligate lives. 

Nevertheless, there will always be those who say the Church should do "more."  No matter what the Church does, such criticisms will be perennial.  Kathleen Flake called it:

Quote

Pondering the merit of added transparency for the church’s finances, Flake asks why the church doesn’t simply open up its records.

Her answer: The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, “it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

“In other words,” Flake concludes, “this is a power struggle ... and one that we’ve seen before from those who don’t understand Mormonism and how it handles its money.”

The most recent iteration of this phenomenon involves Jeff Green, a billionaire who, as a practical matter, left the Church ten years ago and has apparently not contributed to it since then.  He has no meaningful stake in the Church, but he presumes to lecture the Church on how it handles its funds.  All the while living the live of a literal billionaire.

It is a power struggle.

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is a simple fact that NONE of the Ensign Peak Fund of over $100 billion had been used at least up to this point humanitarian id.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given more away for such things over the past 20 years than The Church of Jesus Christ.

Are you sure?

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Green has committed to giving away his wealth.

Right.  And I suspect the plan will be to give it away over time.  Piecemeal.  Bit by bit.  Meanwhile, he will retain control of his billions and, through investment and prudent management, grow his wealth.  This is what the Church is doing as well, but for some reason this course of action is unacceptable when the Church does it.

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All of you who down voted my comments feel free to prove me wrong.

I think you have all sorts of unspoken assumptions built in to your comments, some of which may merit reconsideration.  I like these observations (by an accountant, in response to generalized calls for "more transparency" from the Church):

Quote

But can the actual organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better allocate it’s resources to give more to the poor?

The LDS Church recently included “caring for the poor” among their missions, bringing the total missions to four. I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by saying that this new mission takes money. What about the other three? Proclaiming the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, Redeeming the Dead? All of them take money, too.

Could we ask missionaries to pay a bit more to cover the expenses related to the mission? Maybe, but for many what’s being asked is already a huge burden.

Could we worship in buildings that aren’t quite as nice? Perhaps, but most of the newer buildings are pretty utilitarian, even reusing the same architecture plans to save on costs.

Could we make our temples look a little less nice? On this one, I think not. The new, smaller temples already have several changes to help cut back on expenses, but we can only go so far. This is the Lord’s house, which He has asked us to make them worthy of Him. Going back even to the days of the Tabernacle (Old Testament, not the one on Temple Square), the House of the Lord has always been designed to stand out. Remember, nice stuff for our Lord is good every now and then (see Matthew 26:11).

In other words, 7 billion dollars a year (or whatever the Church actually collects in tithing) is really not that much considering the many expenses we have worldwide.

To put that 7 billion dollars in perspective, I’ve often heard the Church income compared to Gap, Inc. in terms of revenue. Based on my reading of Gap’s 2013 financials, they brought in about $9.6 billion after taking out the cost of clothing (i.e. Cost of Goods Sold). Of that $9.6 billion, they were only left with about $1 billion at the end of the year. That’s over $8 billion a year just to keep a company with about 180k employees running.

No corporation is ever going to be a perfect example, but considering the Church’s millions of members, and its reach across the globe, their operating expenses WILL be in the BILLIONS, even with their relatively small amount of employees.

What are your thoughts about this?

Thanks,

-Smac

4
Teancum Grand Master

Teancum

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Them" being . . . who?

Them being the LDS Church. I think fast offering is a great program and is usually overlooked when taking about assistance to the poor. 

1
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think most of them are either running the AP story or else cribbing from the Salt Lake Tribune story.

I guess there is more exposure because there are more outlets carrying the story.

Thanks,

-Smac


Yes. If you want a story to have legs, get the AP to pick it up. 

For me, its luster of newsworthiness is diminished substantially when I learn this man in effect apostatized 10 years ago and is only now making it formal by resigning. It reminds me of those staged mass resignations in which a goodly number of participants have already been antagonistic for many years but desire to give the event greater weight by adding to the publicized numbers. 
 

It strikes me as manipulative, but it’s hardly surprising that one who made his fortune from advertising would be adept at it. 

1
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

I once surveyed the bios of all members the current Q12, and all but Dieter Uchtdorf, Neil L. Anderson, and Ulisses Soares have served as bishops. All of these three have served as stake president (Uchtdorf twice) and Soares has served as a counselor in a bishopric.

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...