Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recent Stories Re: Church's Humanitarian Efforts


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not sure I did, lol.  I was mortified when I came to my senses once the morphine wore off. It comes across as so arrogant to me.  But I kept it to remind myself to not make important decisions when out of it and it has probably saved the board from being subjected to rambling nonsense quite a few times.

I have no excuse for the other times I posted such anyway save it is nice to feel like I am talking with friends even when I am alone and I take advantage of everyone here for that feeling.

I haven’t been around long but you always seem like the calming force on the board. I picked my name because I thought I wanted to be the peacemaker but now I wish I had used another name. Sometimes, I want to be a pot-stirrer, lol. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I haven’t been around long but you always seem like the calming force on the board. I picked my name because I thought I wanted to be the peacemaker but now I wish I had used another name. Sometimes, I want to be a pot-stirrer, lol. 

My name fit for a few years, and then it *really didn’t!

Posted
37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My name fit for a few years, and then it *really didn’t!

Maybe you are just seeking it elsewhere or differently.

Posted
4 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I haven’t been around long but you always seem like the calming force on the board. I picked my name because I thought I wanted to be the peacemaker but now I wish I had used another name. Sometimes, I want to be a pot-stirrer, lol. 

You can be the peaceful potstirrer!

Posted
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You can be the peaceful potstirrer!

I love that, lol

Posted
11 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I haven’t been around long but you always seem like the calming force on the board. I picked my name because I thought I wanted to be the peacemaker but now I wish I had used another name. Sometimes, I want to be a pot-stirrer, lol. 

 

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You can be the peaceful potstirrer!

Yes. I think people do need to speak up sometimes. You can either do it to cause trouble or do it to help others. Not always easy to tell which till you search your heart, but when done to help others it be the start of beautiful changes that actually end up uniting people.

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Relatively speaking, the Church having access to vast resources of wealth is a pretty new thing.  It took from 1997 to 2018 for EPA's reserves to reach $32 billion.

More recently, the valuation of EPA's AUM (assets under management) seem to be around $46 billion (see, e.g., here).  Per Sam Brunson:

I believe you are conflating EPA’s US stock holdings with their total holdings. Per the whistleblower report, 2018 US equity represented 35.7 % of total holdings. These are the only investments at EPA that would show up on SEC filings. The fund targeted 35.1% US equity per the same report. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted
15 hours ago, pogi said:

That effect is real, and you are contributing to it by participating on line in this forum.  Whether or not someone is anonymous isn’t shown to contribute to, or exacerbate, that effect and using your real name can have other negative consequences:

 

I will note that Smac is only selectively against anonymous posters. In this thread an anonymous poster asserted without evidence something that fits in SMAC’s world view. SMAC accepted this wholesale. On the other hand when it goes against his world view he goes on for pages and pages about evidentiary standards in court and nothing less should be acceptable. 
 

For me, I post pseudo anonymously here (my bio lists my location and that’s my real picture that I use in profiles all over the internet - maybe try a reverse image search) because my name is unique. My dad and I are the only two people in the world that have this name. So while I have no problem with people here knowing who I am in real life (dm me), the opposite isn’t true. I don’t want people googling my name to see this site as the highest search result. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My dad and I are the only two people in the world that have this name.

We can just call you Junior.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

We can just call you Junior.

Lol. I’m actually “the second”. Super annoying to have those two “i”’s on the end of my name. I chose not to burden any of my children with that bit of vanity. (No offense dad if you are reading this)

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted

I’m wondering if it’s ever dawned on any of the critics that the leaders of the church believe the dire prophesies in the scriptures regarding the coming tribulations of the last days are actually going to come to pass, and that their main purpose in accumulating significant funds and capital is in preparation for those soon to arrive days when humanitarian efforts are going to be needed even more desperately than they are today?

A prediction: The day is most assuredly going to come when those who are now badmouthing the church leaders about how they’re handling church finances are going to realize that the leaders were wisely guided in their financial decisions by authentic prophetic foresight, and that their criticisms of the leaders couldn’t have been more off-base and wrongheaded. 

Posted
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Lol. I’m actually “the second”. Super annoying to have those two “i”’s on the end of my name. I chose not to burden any of my children with that bit of vanity. (No offense dad if you are reading this)

indiana-jones-dont-call-me-junior.gif

Posted
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering if it’s ever dawned on any of the critics that the leaders of the church believe the dire prophesies in the scriptures regarding the coming tribulations of the last days are actually going to come to pass, and that their main purpose in accumulating significant funds and capital is in preparation for those soon to arrive days when humanitarian efforts are going to be needed even more desperately than they are today?

Are they then going to Just Throw Money At It?

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

A prediction: The day is most assuredly going to come when those who are now badmouthing the church leaders about how they’re handling church finances are going to realize that the leaders were wisely guided in their financial decisions by authentic prophetic foresight, and that their criticisms of the leaders couldn’t have been more off-base and wrongheaded

Do you like saying I told you so?

Posted
15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My name fit for a few years, and then it *really didn’t!

My name sounds exotic sounding, and I'm far from that. Or it reminds me of a Russia name for some reason. But somehow it came up either a search or what not to how I was feeling back in 2012 because it was exactly how I felt during my crisis of faith and keeping it to myself. 

 
 
tacenda pl (plural only) things that are not to be spoken about or made public. things that are best left unsaid.
Posted
On 11/17/2023 at 2:18 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The comparison is impossible. 1 billion accounts for things that were not included in the 40 million.  Things like fast offerings for one. 

Yea previous numbers did not include fast offering assistance.  Which I have always admired and I think the church should have always include it.  When I was a bishop and still defending the church I would tell a critic of the low number of aid the church was doing, that the needed to add roughly $500 million a year for fast offering. That is a very rough guess.  So if fast offerings were added to the humanitarian aid bucket recently that would account for a large jump.

Posted
23 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How much does the church do for food banks around the country every week?

From 2003 to 2009 while serving as a bishop we could give $500 2x times per year to a food bank.  The $500 was in food from our bishop's storehouse.

Posted
22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think there is a problem with posting anonymously. This is the internet -- it is standard practice. Almost everyone does it. And it's especially not a problem with posters who have been here a long time. We pretty much know who they are even if we don't know their full name.

I also don't think anything they have posted rises to the level of the risk you cite. They're not spouting anti-Mormon stuff (in the sense like antisemiticism or racism).

Just my 2 cents on that part.

@smac97knows who I am.  I disclosed who I am on a thread a while back when SMAC whined about posting anonymously as he periodically does. 

Posted
22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do.  The Online Disinhibition Effect is real, and it seems to be getting worse.

That behavior is common does not necessarily mean it is healthy or good.

I am not calling for these guys to be doxxed or prohibited from posting anonymously, or anything like that.  To the contrary, I think their preferences should be preserved.  Nikki Haley recently took a major hit for her proposal "to require that all social media users be verified by their names online" (though, to her credit, she walked it back pretty quick).

Thanks,

-Smac

No. Of course not. Yet one wonders since you bring it up often. And you do it in such a way that it smacks (pun intended) with moral superiority. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea previous numbers did not include fast offering assistance.  Which I have always admired and I think the church should have always include it.  When I was a bishop and still defending the church I would tell a critic of the low number of aid the church was doing, that the needed to add roughly $500 million a year for fast offering. That is a very rough guess.  So if fast offerings were added to the humanitarian aid bucket recently that would account for a large jump.

It’s unclear what was in old number, but it does now include food (which per kfisher makes it seem like old number did not include this) fast offerings, di donations and more. I think the current number provides an all inclusive look, but much of it reflects directly on the goodness of its members (through generous offerings) vs decisions made by church leaders on how to spend tithing and earned income from tithing (for those that see a distinction 😜). 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you like saying I told you so?

This often appears to be the primary motivation of a disturbing number of religious people.

“You will be sorry when daddy comes home and tells you that I am right and you are wrong. You are gonna be in so much trouble for making me feel bad!”

Edited by The Nehor

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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