Anti LDS sites that make a lot of money off their youtubes/podcasts that are against the church.

[Tacenda]

Wondering what you all think of this youtube and website. I saw it on my FB feed from a former ward member and neighbor. As I watched I kept wondering about the money the church takes in from members especially when tithing in the D&C started out being 10 percent of interest or after bills paid I thought, not on your paycheck. But get that the church is building temples/churches for the faith. But in other areas the church is investing in stocks and real estate. But that is the rainy day fund I know, and IMO the rainy day should be throughout time, and so many are in need of that money now. But evidently the church has done so much more than in the past, so that is good news.

The church does need money to run, but the anti sites that believe the church is harmful need money to run, I guess there are a lot of hurt ex or  other members and many will laugh at that, so be it, but seeing stories of those like them helps them feel less lonely. The church isn't entirely innocent when the video said the anti sites offer therapy, the church does as well. But in the semi recent past, I and many of you saw how the therapy/therapists the church recommends can be dangerous, think Jodi Hildebrandt and others.

So the church can be a double edged sword as well as these anti sites against the church. The anti sites believe they are helping as much as the church does. But I get that the church is much more than a charity, it's a belief.

Also, is it smart to have these sites that are similar to Fair? Sometimes people that are unaware of the church's warts first learn them on the apologetic sites. So now those seeing the video are going to find out way more than if they hadn't known in the first place. I honestly think if the church doesn't bring up the problems, people might just be blissfully happy not to know. 

Just wondered what you all think, and also is this youtube and website okay in the eyes of the presidency of the church, or does it have their stamp of approval? 

Thanks for any feedback. I understand that I've presented a touchy topic, and I may regret it, but I'm trying to be honest with my feelings. I'm back and forth about wanting to be part of the church. But there are parts that I have a sore spot about, but I know that the anti sites or groups is where I don't feel I belong, I am more comfortable with the believing members, go figure.

 

[rpn]

Many of the anti sites (or even so called 'faithful" ones where you wonder if they watched the conference you did) are formed officially as entities that require annual reports of where they get their money and to some extent where it goes (sometimes in exchange for tax exemption).    People can and should look those up before contributing.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Quote

Anti LDS sites that make a lot of money

Heh.   I am not issuing a CFR, because this site is where such things have been weaponized beyond all rationality.  But I'm scratching my head wondering if such a thing exists.   Maybe in the 2000's, but no longer.  

 

Edited August 18, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Dario_M]

I hate them too. For example Exmo Lex and John Delhin. They have a podcast with a big audience and they are super anti LDS. They love to make the LDS church giving a bad name and therefore they get attention for it because they're doing that. 

Edited August 18, 2024 by Dario_M

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wondering what you all think of this youtube and website. I saw it on my FB feed from a former ward member and neighbor. As I watched I kept wondering about the money the church takes in from members especially when tithing in the D&C started out being 10 percent of interest or after bills paid I thought, not on your paycheck. But get that the church is building temples/churches for the faith. But in other areas the church is investing in stocks and real estate.

That nobody, no flesh-and-blood person, is getting rich from the sacred funds the Church receives (both as donations and as returns on invested funds) is, for me, a substantial consideration.  

The corrupting effect of large sums of money on religious leaders is broadly inferred or assumed when such persons are the subject of public discussion.  We've seen many instances of serious misconduct of religious leaders who use their positions and influence to enrich themselves.  Kenneth Copeland.  Creflo Dollar.  Ken Hagin.  Benny Hinn.  Robert Tilton.

The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not doing this.  To the contrary, many General Authorities make substantial financial sacrifices to serve in their callings, as they are often called to full-time service when at or near the apex of their careers.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The church does need money to run, but the anti sites that believe the church is harmful need money to run, I guess there are a lot of hurt ex or  other members and many will laugh at that, so be it, but seeing stories of those like them helps them feel less lonely.

I am very much in favor of those who are opposed to the Church speaking as they like.  Free Speech is an important component of modern life.  Moreover, their voices need to be allowed as means of testing the Restored Gospel.  Elder Robbins of the Seventy made these insightful comments in 2015:

Quote

Opposition Reveals the Truth

Before going forward with the experiment, it is important to identify another essential element in the process. We are taught in 2 Nephi 2 that there “must needs be … an opposition in all things” (2 Nephi 2:11). Humankind “taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good” (Moses 6:55). Health, for example, is primarily the study of its opposite, sickness and disease; freedom, the study of oppression and slavery; happiness, the study of sorrow; and so on. And like the tiny miracle of fireflies, light goes unappreciated without a dark backdrop.

Opposition is indispensable to our education and happiness. Without opposition, the truth remains hidden in plain view, like taking air for granted until the moment you are gasping for it. Because the Light of Christ is everpresent, many people don’t notice the Spirit in their life, like those Lamanites in 3 Nephi 9:20 who “were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.”

Opposition not only reveals or unveils the truth but manifests its inherent power, joy, and sweetness. For example, it took a taste of the bitter life for the prodigal son to realize what a sweet life he had abandoned back home and had taken for granted in his youth.

It is only through pain and sickness that we come to value our health. As a victim of dishonesty, we treasure integrity. Experiencing injustice or cruelty, we cherish love and kindness—all with a “perfect knowledge,” having tasted the fruit of each by the light which is in us. The perfect knowledge comes fruit by fruit, through opposition in all things. Obedience to God’s commandments promises ultimate happiness, growth, and progress through opposition, not bypassing it. “Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.” ³

Consider this insightful statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith: “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” ⁴

And this one from Brigham Young: “All facts are proved and made manifest by their opposite.” ⁵

This board has been useful to me in testing the truth claims of the Church, and also in giving opponents of the Church a reasonable hearing.  In my childhood my beliefs were untested and naïve.  I have since spent many years encountering critics, opponents, dissidents, etc. and listened to what they have to say.  Sometimes they raise fair points.  And sometimes their arguments and criticisms compel further thought and study and introspection, and adjustment of both presuppositions and conclusions regarding the Gospel.  In the end, though, I think the Church's truth claims not only withstand scrutiny, but do so with resilience and power.  Brigham Young had it right: “Every time you kick ‘Mormonism’ you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.”

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The church isn't entirely innocent when the video said the anti sites offer therapy, the church does as well. But in the semi recent past, I and many of you saw how the therapy/therapists the church recommends can be dangerous, think Jodi Hildebrandt and others.

Where did the Church "recommend" Jodi Hildebrandt?  And did it know of her misconduct at the time?

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

So the church can be a double edged sword as well as these anti sites against the church.

I suppose so.  But I don't see much symmetry between what the Church is trying to do and what its opponents are trying to do.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Also, is it smart to have these sites that are similar to Fair? Sometimes people that are unaware of the church's warts first learn them on the apologetic sites. So now those seeing the video are going to find out way more than if they hadn't known in the first place. I honestly think if the church doesn't bring up the problems, people might just be blissfully happy not to know. 

Many "Why I Left" narratives involve accusations that the Church "hides" or "lies" about its history.  These accusations, to me, seem a bit inflammatory and risible, as the history of the Church has been readily available for those interested in studying it.  Nevertheless, the Church has, in recent years, become much more forthcoming with its history, and that's probably a good thing overall.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Just wondered what you all think, and also is this youtube and website okay in the eyes of the presidency of the church, or does it have their stamp of approval? 

Thanks for any feedback. I understand that I've presented a touchy topic, and I may regret it, but I'm trying to be honest with my feelings. I'm back and forth about wanting to be part of the church. But there are parts that I have a sore spot about, but I know that the anti sites or groups is where I don't feel I belong, I am more comfortable with the believing members, go figure.

I hope you stick with it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Many "Why I Left" narratives involve accusations that the Church "hides" or "lies" about its history.  These accusations, to me, seem a bit inflammatory and risible, as the history of the Church has been readily available for those interested in studying it. 

Years ago I used to get upset about that sentence, but today I know that there is simply a different understanding of “telling the truth”.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Years ago I used to get upset about that sentence, but today I know that there is simply a different understanding of “telling the truth”.

Which sentence?

[blackstrap]

It has ever been thus. I am reading a biography of O.P. Rockwell. At that time the vast majority of newspapers and articles were anti- Mormon and printed all kinds of " rumors" and accusations against Brigham, Rockwell and the Saints, so much so that the government sent an army to put down the "rebellion" . We have a very long way to go before we get that much persecution now .

In reading this book I am amazed at just how tough the people of those times were. 

[Frank11]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which sentence?

the 2nd

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That nobody, no flesh-and-blood person, is getting rich from the sacred funds the Church receives (both as donations and as returns on invested funds) is, for me, a substantial consideration.  

 

Except for the nepotistic contractors building temples and such.

[rpn]

I have to wonder how you can claim a fair discussion without having asked Bishop Causey how he responds.

I imagine that if the hvac is 5 times a normal building of the same size, it is likely because of the expectation that it survive disasters.  

Yes some of that overage is because they are moving people and equipment and materials so far, but I imagine they also save by having the continuing continuity so that every building benefits from all the experiences of building former ones.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I am very much in favor of those who are opposed to the Church speaking as they like.  Free Speech is an important component of modern life.  Moreover, their voices need to be allowed as means of testing the Restored Gospel.  Elder Robbins of the Seventy made these insightful comments in 2015:

Where did the Church "recommend" Jodi Hildebrandt?  And did it know of her misconduct at the time?

 

Bishops referred the members to Hildebrandt according to this article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/10/28/how-father-tried-warn-lds-byu/

Also, I agree about the free speech thing, but actually think some of these podcast operators like JD and RFM are getting to be stale with a lot of their listeners (me too). JD even said that a good majority of the listeners are never before LDS.  In my mind's eye, I think that one day they will start to fade. Recently I heard RFM speaking about a larger donor/supporter no longer donating and then RFM asked for help from the listeners. 

[jpv]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wondering what you all think of this youtube and website. I saw it on my FB feed from a former ward member and neighbor. As I watched I kept wondering about the money the church takes in from members especially when tithing in the D&C started out being 10 percent of interest or after bills paid I thought, not on your paycheck. But get that the church is building temples/churches for the faith. But in other areas the church is investing in stocks and real estate. But that is the rainy day fund I know, and IMO the rainy day should be throughout time, and so many are in need of that money now. But evidently the church has done so much more than in the past, so that is good news.

The church does need money to run, but the anti sites that believe the church is harmful need money to run, I guess there are a lot of hurt ex or  other members and many will laugh at that, so be it, but seeing stories of those like them helps them feel less lonely. The church isn't entirely innocent when the video said the anti sites offer therapy, the church does as well. But in the semi recent past, I and many of you saw how the therapy/therapists the church recommends can be dangerous, think Jodi Hildebrandt and others.

So the church can be a double edged sword as well as these anti sites against the church. The anti sites believe they are helping as much as the church does. But I get that the church is much more than a charity, it's a belief.

Also, is it smart to have these sites that are similar to Fair? Sometimes people that are unaware of the church's warts first learn them on the apologetic sites. So now those seeing the video are going to find out way more than if they hadn't known in the first place. I honestly think if the church doesn't bring up the problems, people might just be blissfully happy not to know. 

Just wondered what you all think, and also is this youtube and website okay in the eyes of the presidency of the church, or does it have their stamp of approval? 

Thanks for any feedback. I understand that I've presented a touchy topic, and I may regret it, but I'm trying to be honest with my feelings. I'm back and forth about wanting to be part of the church. But there are parts that I have a sore spot about, but I know that the anti sites or groups is where I don't feel I belong, I am more comfortable with the believing members, go figure.

 

Tac, I'm glad you are here and for what you share. 

[rpn]

I saw the video.   I don't think it is bad to point out those two organizations (or others, some of whom who don't rake in much and don't solicit so blatently as the two examples) but I don't think the pitch is going to land.   I have a hard time understanding why those who watch are willing to spend their money supporting the people who do what they do.   But there are plenty of people really mad at the church, its leaders and/or church members who are happy to do something negative that may hurt the church.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, rpn said:

I saw the video.   I don't think it is bad to point out those two organizations (or others, some of whom who don't rake in much and don't solicit so blatently as the two examples) but I don't think the pitch is going to land.   I have a hard time understanding why those who watch are willing to spend their money supporting the people who do what they do.   But there are plenty of people really mad at the church, its leaders and/or church members who are happy to do something negative that may hurt the church.

Very true. 

[Frank11]

It may sound strange, but websites like Mormon Stories and RFM make the Church "better", especially since there is no reflection from within. Yes, of course it's losing members too, but it's still getting better and paying close attention to what it says. Well, Elder Holland may forget himself sometimes when he talks about musket fire, but you can't blame him.

Interestingly, the Church has always resisted outside criticism and has worried about its principles. But it is exactly through the abolition of some principles that it has made the greatest progress. The removal of polygamy has increased worldwide acceptance. The church would not have 1/100th of its current membership if polygamy still existed. The abolition of the priesthood ban for blacks has made the enormous rise in Africa possible. 
The church has always benefited in the long term once it has become “better”. And John Dehlin is unwittingly helping with this too.

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 hours ago, the narrator said:

On 8/18/2024 at 11:32 AM, smac97 said:

That nobody, no flesh-and-blood person, is getting rich from the sacred funds the Church receives (both as donations and as returns on invested funds) is, for me, a substantial consideration.  

 

Except for the nepotistic contractors building temples and such.

"What is it about an LDS temple that requires precision and quality 5 times more expensive than comparable non-temple projects?  There's a fine line between 'nothing but the best for the Lord's house', and needlessly expensive to the point of wasteful."  So, that's the accusation in the middle of the video.  He offers zero proof, other than just assuming that people are getting rich.  

The only thing I can find even remotely objectionable:  "In lieu of flowers, friends are invited to contribute to the Temple Construction fund of the CoJCoLDS"  Hardly evidence that someone "getting rich".

Lol he actually mentioned that LDS folks getting paid to build temples might donate 10% of their income to the church as tithing.  Like he discovered some sort of 'gotcha'.   
Lol "mausoleums to Mormonism".   L-the heck-OL.  I like alliteration as much as the next guy, but it hardly carries an argument.
Lol the tired old "church spends $$ on buildings and land, when it could be spending it on charitable stuff".  BORING!

Dude has an axe to grind, a chip on his shoulder, a pre-concluded conclusion, a bias against for-profit companies, and nothing else.  Dude makes the classic blunder of asserting "the company charges a lot, therefore the owners must be rich", and mistaking his assertion for proof.  But all he really discovers, is that Mormons are building Mormon temples. 

Phooey.  Yet another bunch of church criticism not worth the time it took to respond. 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Dude's hot-discovery number: $300-$400/square foot.

For comparison, courtesy of Microsoft CoPilot:

 

The cost per square foot for building different types of structures can vary widely based on location, materials, and specific requirements. Here’s a general overview for 2024:

 

1. Hospitals: The cost to build a hospital ranges from $200 to $650 per square foot¹². Factors like the type of hospital (general or specialty), location, and materials used can influence this range.

 

2. Palaces: Building a palace can be quite expensive due to the luxurious materials and intricate designs often involved. Costs can range from $500 to over $1,500 per square foot, depending on the level of opulence and custom features³.

 

3. United Nations Building: Constructing a high-end commercial building like the United Nations headquarters can cost between $240 and $1,270 per square foot⁴. This range accounts for the high standards and specific requirements of such a significant structure.

4. Homes for the Ultra-Wealthy: Luxury homes can vary significantly in cost. On average, you might expect to pay $500 to over $1,500 per square foot for top-tier luxury homes with custom features and high-end materials³.

These figures are general estimates and can vary based on specific project details and market conditions. 

[Teancum]

On 8/18/2024 at 11:49 AM, Tacenda said:

Wondering what you all think of this youtube and website. I saw it on my FB feed from a former ward member and neighbor. As I watched I kept wondering about the money the church takes in from members especially when tithing in the D&C started out being 10 percent of interest or after bills paid I thought, not on your paycheck. But get that the church is building temples/churches for the faith. But in other areas the church is investing in stocks and real estate. But that is the rainy day fund I know, and IMO the rainy day should be throughout time, and so many are in need of that money now. But evidently the church has done so much more than in the past, so that is good news.

The church does need money to run, but the anti sites that believe the church is harmful need money to run, I guess there are a lot of hurt ex or  other members and many will laugh at that, so be it, but seeing stories of those like them helps them feel less lonely. The church isn't entirely innocent when the video said the anti sites offer therapy, the church does as well. But in the semi recent past, I and many of you saw how the therapy/therapists the church recommends can be dangerous, think Jodi Hildebrandt and others.

So the church can be a double edged sword as well as these anti sites against the church. The anti sites believe they are helping as much as the church does. But I get that the church is much more than a charity, it's a belief.

Also, is it smart to have these sites that are similar to Fair? Sometimes people that are unaware of the church's warts first learn them on the apologetic sites. So now those seeing the video are going to find out way more than if they hadn't known in the first place. I honestly think if the church doesn't bring up the problems, people might just be blissfully happy not to know. 

Just wondered what you all think, and also is this youtube and website okay in the eyes of the presidency of the church, or does it have their stamp of approval? 

Thanks for any feedback. I understand that I've presented a touchy topic, and I may regret it, but I'm trying to be honest with my feelings. I'm back and forth about wanting to be part of the church. But there are parts that I have a sore spot about, but I know that the anti sites or groups is where I don't feel I belong, I am more comfortable with the believing members, go figure.

 

I found this video to be deceptive and gaslighting extraordinaire. It reeks of desperation. 

[Teancum]

On 8/18/2024 at 12:22 PM, rpn said:

Many of the anti sites (or even so called 'faithful" ones where you wonder if they watched the conference you did) are formed officially as entities that require annual reports of where they get their money and to some extent where it goes (sometimes in exchange for tax exemption).    People can and should look those up before contributing.

Sure they should look at all the info for thee organizations.  And they should before they give another dime to the church. Oh wait, the church hides its finances and does not believe in financial transparency.  Ironic that the video exclaims "Hey go look at their Form 990s and other financial info. See they are making big bucks by criticizing the church."  But members cannot do the same for the church.  Seems to me the critics are more open and honest about their finances by far than the church is.

[Teancum]

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

That nobody, no flesh-and-blood person, is getting rich from the sacred funds the Church receives (both as donations and as returns on invested funds) is, for me, a substantial consideration.  

 

Correct. Yet this does not negate the fact that the church, as a corporate body, is accumulating massive wealth. And the leaders have done everything possible to keep that fact hidden from those they expect to pay 10% of their income as tithes and fast offering and other donations in addition.

 

 

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

The corrupting effect of large sums of money on religious leaders is broadly inferred or assumed when such persons are the subject of public discussion.  We've seen many instances of serious misconduct of religious leaders who use their positions and influence to enrich themselves.  Kenneth Copeland.  Creflo Dollar.  Ken Hagin.  Benny Hinn.  Robert Tilton.

Yes, and others. I give the LDS leaders credit for this.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not doing this.  To the contrary, many General Authorities make substantial financial sacrifices to serve in their callings, as they are often called to full-time service when at or near the apex of their careers.

True. I knew one GA who was a two year mission president in our area while serving in the First Quorum of the Seventy. He said to me once that he did at times miss his attorney income.

On the other hand, there are perks that come with the position especially I think for the top 15.  And there are non financial benefits as well. Yet I do feel for the top 15 at times given the fact that they stay working in their calling till death.  I have to think as they age this can be a challenge.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

I am very much in favor of those who are opposed to the Church speaking as they like.  Free Speech is an important component of modern life.  Moreover, their voices need to be allowed as means of testing the Restored Gospel. 

Good to know.

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

This board has been useful to me in testing the truth claims of the Church, and also in giving opponents of the Church a reasonable hearing.  In my childhood my beliefs were untested and naïve.  I have since spent many years encountering critics, opponents, dissidents, etc. and listened to what they have to say.  Sometimes they raise fair points.  And sometimes their arguments and criticisms compel further thought and study and introspection, and adjustment of both presuppositions and conclusions regarding the Gospel.  In the end, though, I think the Church's truth claims not only withstand scrutiny, but do so with resilience and power.  Brigham Young had it right: “Every time you kick ‘Mormonism’ you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.”

It seems to me that the information age has kicked Mormonism downstairs significantly.  Growth in developed countries is stagnant and even negative. Wards and Stakes have been closed down and consolidated.  Where I live the church has had 0 net growth since our stake divided in 1985. And the disaffection of large number of active participating members seems relatively high as well.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

I suppose so.  But I don't see much symmetry between what the Church is trying to do and what its opponents are trying to do.

I don't think there is an intent from opponents to be symmetrical.

On 8/18/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

Many "Why I Left" narratives involve accusations that the Church "hides" or "lies" about its history.  These accusations, to me, seem a bit inflammatory and risible, as the history of the Church has been readily available for those interested in studying it.  Nevertheless, the Church has, in recent years, become much more forthcoming with its history, and that's probably a good thing overall.

I hope you stick with it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Before the internet the access many church members had to books and other documents that may have raised questions were limited. And it is a documented fact that top LDS leaders tried to keep unflattering information and access to it limited.  For example, JFS's suppression of the 1832 account of the First Vision.  That is just one of many examples.

[Teancum]

On 8/18/2024 at 6:26 PM, the narrator said:

Except for the nepotistic contractors building temples and such.

Good point.

[Teancum]

On 8/18/2024 at 7:43 PM, Tacenda said:

Also, I agree about the free speech thing, but actually think some of these podcast operators like JD and RFM are getting to be stale with a lot of their listeners (me too). JD even said that a good majority of the listeners are never before LDS.  In my mind's eye, I think that one day they will start to fade. Recently I heard RFM speaking about a larger donor/supporter no longer donating and then RFM asked for help from the listeners. 

I think you have a point. I have become less of a listener to Dehlin, RFM and Bill Reel.  I do still listen but am more selective and the topic or interview has to of interest before I spend the time.  But I do still give both the Open Stories Foundation and Mormon Discussions a monthly contribution.  The large donor you mention was actually from Bill Reel. At least that is where I heard it and it was at least + or more months ago. And it was that the person was temporarily suspending contributions. Whether that donor has started giving again I do not know.

[Teancum]

On 8/18/2024 at 10:42 PM, rpn said:

I saw the video.   I don't think it is bad to point out those two organizations (or others, some of whom who don't rake in much and don't solicit so blatently as the two examples) but I don't think the pitch is going to land.   I have a hard time understanding why those who watch are willing to spend their money supporting the people who do what they do.   But there are plenty of people really mad at the church, its leaders and/or church members who are happy to do something negative that may hurt the church.

I have found the material of both organizations helpful to me and others that have gone through, or are in a faith transition. John Dehlin was there for me personally back in 2007 and 2008 when things were starting to fall apart. I thought I was almost entirely alone till I ran into him and his podcast. I am sure many who have gone through transitions out of Mormonism could say the same.  And much other podcasts are informational.  And I have found them fairly accurate in critiquing the church. 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But members cannot do the same for the church.  Seems to me the critics are more open and honest about their finances by far than the church is.

But tithing is giving wholly to God through the church, not to any church leaders.   (Yes I know that some of tithing reaches those who serve full time or who otherwise wouldn't have rent or other things.)

Edited August 20, 2024 by rpn