If they really wanted "to communicate that we do not feel that we're obligated to fill in that box" then they should have left it blank.
"It wasn't meant to be an accurate answer" - in my opinion, putting any non-blank in that box is not just not an accurate number, but is a lie.
Dallin H. Oaks, Sept. 12, 1993 wrote:In the matter of lying, the essential question is not whether we have a duty to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. We clearly have that duty. We must not lie. I know of no category of justified lies. The difficult question is whether we are morally responsible to tell the whole truth. When we have a duty to disclose, we are morally responsible to do so. Where there is no duty to disclose, we have two alternatives. We may be free to disclose if we choose to do so, but there will be circumstances where commandments, covenants, or professional obligations require us to remain silent.
Did Todd Budge/Presiding Bishopric not get the memo? Or might it be that Todd thinks the Company (some think it is a church) is exempt from what its leaders preach? Or is it that Oaks was lying when giving a talk about not lying? Probably just another classic example of do as I say, not as I do.
Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. By definition, faith is the antithesis of science and reason. Apologetics is a further deception by faith peddlers to keep power and influence.
“DCP” wrote: Finally, I want to share something that was said recently in a small meeting that I attended. The speaker was an extremely successful and very wealthy tech entrepreneur: He said that he is confident that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an extraordinarily good steward of its donated funds — the late Latter-day Saint historian D. Michael Quinn would have agreed with him on that point — but that he would tithe anyway even if the Church simply burned his donations in the temple. (As, in fact, the animals donated to ancient Israelite temples were burnt.) Why? Because tithing is required by the Lord and because, thus, paying tithes is a matter of plain obedience. He would, I think, not be impressed with Jana Riess’s decision to withhold her tithes from the Church and to bestow them, instead, upon charities that she herself deems worthwhile. I am not. Such charitable activity is, no doubt, commendable. But not in lieu of tithing to the Lord’s appointed earthly representative, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem, according to Genesis 14:18-24, but we have no record of Abraham having ever received an accounting from Melchizedek of how those tithes were used, let alone of any filing with the Internal Revenue Service or the Securities Exchange Commission, and we have no evidence that Melchizedek didn’t simply misappropriate those funds.
This is the textbook definition of a cult. Even if the organization is corrupt, you will be blessed by following its leaders.
“I don’t care if Jim put cyanide in the koolaid, God told me to follow him.”
I'm sure at some scientology convention an extremely successful movie star and f-16 pilot says he is confident that Scientology is a good steward of their donated funds.
(the tech investor was just lying, I'm sure)
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
“DCP” wrote: Finally, I want to share something that was said recently in a small meeting that I attended. The speaker was an extremely successful and very wealthy tech entrepreneur: He said that he is confident that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an extraordinarily good steward of its donated funds — the late Latter-day Saint historian D. Michael Quinn would have agreed with him on that point — but that he would tithe anyway even if the Church simply burned his donations in the temple. (As, in fact, the animals donated to ancient Israelite temples were burnt.) Why? Because tithing is required by the Lord and because, thus, paying tithes is a matter of plain obedience. He would, I think, not be impressed with Jana Riess’s decision to withhold her tithes from the Church and to bestow them, instead, upon charities that she herself deems worthwhile. I am not. Such charitable activity is, no doubt, commendable. But not in lieu of tithing to the Lord’s appointed earthly representative, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem, according to Genesis 14:18-24, but we have no record of Abraham having ever received an accounting from Melchizedek of how those tithes were used, let alone of any filing with the Internal Revenue Service or the Securities Exchange Commission, and we have no evidence that Melchizedek didn’t simply misappropriate those funds.
This is the textbook definition of a cult. Even if the organization is corrupt, you will be blessed by following its leaders.
“I don’t care if Jim put cyanide in the koolaid, God told me to follow him.”
Truth. I recall that Dr. Peterson trotted out the alleged views of an unnamed tech entrepreneur several months ago. Why should anyone be impressed by what this entrepreneur supposedly said in a private setting regarding church finances?
I was involved in a virtual meeting three or four days ago in which the topic of the settlement with the SEC briefly came up. One of the other participants in the meeting is a highly successful, remarkably bright, and very wealthy tech entrepreneur, a still relatively young Latter-day Saint who has launched at least three substantial companies and sold two of them for enormous sums. He dismissed this issue as “a nothing burger,” and said that the hysteria about it in some circles makes him despair at human stupidity.
According to the article by the Wall Street Journal this was a defense put forward by a professional finance individual. https://www.wsj.com/articles/Mormon-chu ... yURL_share. There are insinuations in the article the church is making a mad dash to build despite declining membership and a general negative public attitude toward Mormons.
I'm sure at some scientology convention an extremely successful movie star and f-16 pilot says he is confident that Scientology is a good steward of their donated funds.
(the tech investor was just lying, I'm sure)
Success is measured in many different ways my friend.
The least among us is the greatest because they spend the bulk of their limited time reading and learning, while the abundant poster merely regurgitates diminishing truth relative to said low post rate individuals.
UPRU was awesome and so too is UPRD.
Does anyone recognize those acronyms and the basis of the second.
“DCP” wrote: Finally, I want to share something that was said recently in a small meeting that I attended. The speaker was an extremely successful and very wealthy tech entrepreneur: He said that he is confident that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an extraordinarily good steward of its donated funds — the late Latter-day Saint historian D. Michael Quinn would have agreed with him on that point — but that he would tithe anyway even if the Church simply burned his donations in the temple. (As, in fact, the animals donated to ancient Israelite temples were burnt.) Why? Because tithing is required by the Lord and because, thus, paying tithes is a matter of plain obedience. He would, I think, not be impressed with Jana Riess’s decision to withhold her tithes from the Church and to bestow them, instead, upon charities that she herself deems worthwhile. I am not. Such charitable activity is, no doubt, commendable. But not in lieu of tithing to the Lord’s appointed earthly representative, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem, according to Genesis 14:18-24, but we have no record of Abraham having ever received an accounting from Melchizedek of how those tithes were used, let alone of any filing with the Internal Revenue Service or the Securities Exchange Commission, and we have no evidence that Melchizedek didn’t simply misappropriate those funds.
This is the textbook definition of a cult. Even if the organization is corrupt, you will be blessed by following its leaders.
“I don’t care if Jim put cyanide in the koolaid, God told me to follow him.”
Yeah, I would not be surprised if Peterson was singularly unimpressed with a multi millionaire tech atheist saying anything positive financially about something to do with atheism. It only impresses Peterson about the guys wealth because he comes down on the side of the brethren, always advizable in a cult to do. Therefore Peterson is OK with him.
The “successful tech entrepreneur” who said he’d tithe even if the church burned the money was none other than Deznat blogger Jacob Hansen a.k.a. Thoughtful Faith.
Way to cite credible sources, Dan. Not sure why the identity had to be hidden behind effusive language regarding Hansen’s financial credibility, when he’s very public about the silly extremist view. Would he really be perfectly fine with the church “burning” tithing funds? Really? Would Dan be fine with it too? Let’s explore that. It seems an incredibly cultish thing to say. As well as 100% disingenuous.
IMG_1255.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jacob Hansen is the same reckless deznat who said in a video podcast about the SEC scandal and settlement, "if you think the church was the bad guy" (ie, church leaders actually did deliberately break the law), then you either "already hate the church" or are a "brainwashed government worshipper." That the SEC took $5 mil of the church’s money on “threat of violence.”
