What would the downside have been?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1889
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

What would the downside have been?

Post by Dr Moore »

Like all of you, I find myself looking at the virus data more frequently these days.

And asking myself: what is the perceived downside that prevents Russell M. Nelson from urging all members everywhere, speaking as their prophet, to always wear face masks and strictly socially distance during the pandemic?

I mean, seriously. One pair of earrings gets a prophetic warning with the predictable result that 2+ pairs becomes socially anathema. Saints are trained to quickly and quietly obey the prophet -- and on this point, Nelson's silence is deadly. Why has he given no such prophetic clarity about masks and distancing during this pandemic? What does he imagine the downside of doing so would be?

As of last week, Utah is diagnosing some 2,500-5,000 cases per day, with Covid-related deaths up from 2-3 per day to 10-20 per day. Puzzlingly, amidst this deadly spike, rather than issuing a belated prophetic urging to wear masks and socially distance, Nelson puts up a social media blitz for people to watch his pre-taped video of healing and hope on Nov. 20th. I bet anyone $100 that this video does NOT include a message of urgent warning for Saints to wear face masks while patiently waiting for vaccine distribution in 2021. Time is deaths, and I'm certain "global faith leader" Nelson wouldn't impose a 7-day leadup to a video urging life-saving action.

Sure, Nelson wears a mask as a public example. And the recent conference featured all 15 apostles seated at distance while wearing masks.

But... critically... Russell M. Nelson, the prophet, has *never* issued a clear, prophetic urging to Latter-day Saints to wear face masks and socially distance during the pandemic. He did not speak as such on the topic as prophet in March, not in April, not in May or June, not in July, August or September, and even as cases rise, he has not done so during October or yet in November.

What gives? What is the downside? The upside is potentially saving lives. As a medical doctor, "do no harm" should hold Nelson to a higher standard than the usual Mormon leadership model of threading whatever needle upholds the sanctity of priesthood authority and ear to God's mouth. In this case, as with LDS leadership's approach to LGBTQ+ rights, pride is literally killing people.

For reference, see the press articles below. Others in church leadership do urge masks and distancing, but at most we can only say that prophet Nelson has encouraged "good citizenship" as a vague model of "grin and bear it" with respect to politically mandated coronavirus containment orders. Neither Bednar or Oaks have done so either on behalf of the first presidency.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/7/10 ... ts-in-utah
The area leaders said wearing the masks would be a sign of good citizenship. Church President Russell M. Nelson has said multiple times that church leaders and members want to be good global citizens during COVID-19.
https://Twitter.com/NelsonRussellM
*could not find a single message about mask wearing*
https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-r ... les-191247
July 10 — Utah Area presidency urges Latter-day Saints in the state to wear masks in public

*nothing by way of backup or church-wide urging from Pres. Nelson*
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... art-188781
(Uchtdorf, who as a reminder, is no longer a member of the first presidency)
“During these special times, Harriet and I try to follow our own recommendation: Mask your face, don’t mask your heart.”
Bednar, amazingly, has chosen to jump in mid-pandemic by ripping civic leaders over distancing policies which he deems affronts to religious freedom. I wonder if Bednar would rethink his aggressive badgering if he'd been able to foresee the recent surge in cases, Utah especially.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/10 ... essential/
(Bednar)
overnments obviously have “a crucial role to play in protecting people from the coronavirus,” the apostle said, given that “no one has a right to spread a dangerous virus.”

The question is how they do it, he said, and whether they recognize the “centrality of faith to human dignity.”

Severing people from their religious communities, he warned the assembled leaders Wednesday, “threatens people’s spiritual, mental, emotional and physical health. Experts are documenting the rise in depression, physical and emotional abuse, suicide and other tragedies during times of social lockdown and isolation.”

(*We can agree to disagree whether in-person worship should have been protected on some limited scale during the pandemic. But importantly, Bednar chose not to use his platform on religious freedom to urge, as a member of the first presidency, church members to wear masks and be strict about social distancing.*)
And finally, Oaks as a first presidency member offers encouragement on mask wearing, but only in a "it's their restriction, not ours" sort of way, at BYU on Oct. 27th:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... son-196320
(Oaks)
“Please do your part in what is required in these unusual circumstances,” he said. “And remember that some of the burdensome restrictions, including even the wearing of masks, are not only for your immediate protection but also for the well-being of those around you.”
Indeed, my Utah friends tell me that mask wearing is still viewed as optional, and in many settings wearing a mask is perceived as socially judgmental, rude or even "communist". In part, this sentiment exists among groups of Mormons precisely because the prophet has not clearly articulated prophetic counsel to wear masks and strictly maintain social distancing outside of small-group pods. To rank and file members, the area presidency is just guys with opinions.

Meanwhile, Nelson *has* been busy. Rebranding. New logo. Proclamation on the restoration. Sending missionaries back into the field. Restarting church services where allowed within local mandates. Bednar has been busy too -- fighting against science. Oaks spoke out against racism in a 50 years too late address at BYU.

How hard and at what cost for any and all of them to speak in unanimity about the dangers of complacency with this virus, and the science-backed importance of social distancing and mask-wearing?

Anecdotally, a friend in Utah attended a Halloween party which was held outdoors. The invitation said "masks and social distancing encouraged." Hey, cool right? And you know what, everyone DID wear a mask to the party. And then most people -- kids and adults included -- took their masks off *at* the party to socialize. Facepalm! It's the opposite of common sense. By the way, sure enough, my friend and his whole family were diagnosed with Covid-19 about 10 days later, just last week.

I am 100% certain that such behavior in Utah would be different if the prophet had been clear that good Latter-day Saints must wear masks and socially distance. Why the hell hasn't he?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Shulem »

I think the easiest explanation may be that NelSatan in his councils has determined that if they speak in terms of mandates to wear masks at all times and in all places, then a great many members of the Church may feel offended and disagree with the overall edict. Too many members will never come back after the pandemic is finally over. Obviously, he doesn't believe that God is telling him to tell everyone else to "wear your mask"!

A lot of people are about to die in Utah and in surrounding Mormon country. Thousands are going to die and suffer and NelSatan will have to deal with that and watch all this suffering take place while under his watch. Honestly, this has to be really hard on him and what's done is done.

Let's see what happens. The upcoming message on the 20th is not going to bring anybody back or undo the suffering that has already occurred. The damage has been done and more is to come. Let's see what the Church plan is now. I expect to be disappointed and unimpressed. I have very little faith in NelSatan's wisdom or ability to prevent matters from getting worse.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5450
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Philo Sofee »

I get the impression that he fears to do so......... Am I off? I am just not at all impressed with LDS leadership/scholarship/chapel Mormons all that much these days......as I have said and said it very clearly, Covid 19 is THE acid test against ALL organized religion claims of having any actual power of God to use for good. The KEY words are FOR GOOD. Jesus will heal a mere single blind guy and the world slobbers all over itself over the ASTONISHING ************MIRACLE************** that was NOT life threatening, and yet here we are are in serious danger, (literally hundreds of thousands of times worse danger) and neither God nor any of his pals in any of the religions the entire world over have or can do anything about something VASTLY WORSE THAN BLINDNESS in a single person. I smell stink. It's just that simple. In other words it is irrelevant whatever Nelson says, it's going to be worthless. The leadership has degenerated into irrelevance.
Last edited by Philo Sofee on Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10636
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Res Ipsa »

It’s just baffling to me.
he/him
we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.


— Alison Luterman
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Gadianton »

As Shulem said, the Brethren are scared of offending their primarily far-right base. An actuary somewhere has predicted tithing revenues in the case of more masks with fewer deaths vs. more deaths with fewer offenses, and decided they are still better off with more deaths.

That's really something, considering they should have tacked on another 50 billion easy to the mega fund with the covid-tech stock runup over the last few months. with that windfall at the expense of the suffering of tens of millions already, you'd think they'd take the minor tithing hit and spare some lives.

The Brethren are literally building their own Tower of Babel, and they've mastered the Mahan Principle, whereby they might murder to get gain, to ensure their success.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Shulem »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:23 am
The Brethren are literally building their own Tower of Babel, and they've mastered the Mahan Principle, whereby they might murder to get gain, to ensure their success.
Indeed, Russell M. HeilSatan has made his bed and is lying in it.

Well said, Gadianton.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1889
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Dr Moore »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:23 am
That's really something, considering they should have tacked on another 50 billion easy to the mega fund with the covid-tech stock runup over the last few months. with that windfall at the expense of the suffering of tens of millions already, you'd think they'd take the minor tithing hit and spare some lives.
Public filings show Ensign Peak funds at just over $43 billion as of Sept. 30, 2020. Bloomberg estimates EPA is up 14.81% YTD (through today) for that public portfolio. (See YTD performance chart below)

Since EPA doesn't trade actively, estimated performance based on quarterly public filings should be a fairly accurate representation of the fund's actual performance.

Assuming similar performance in all of its asset classes (~$130 billion at the end of 2019), a roughly 15% return suggests EPA grew assets by about $20 billion so far this year.

Image

Top holdings as of 9/30/2020

Image

Edit to add: if previous estimates are to be believed, then the church will have earned roughly $3 in capital gains for every $1 in tithing receipts in 2020.
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by IHAQ »

That’s good data Dr Moore. It will be interesting to compare and contrast it to the charitable expenditure levels over the same period.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1889
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: What would the downside have been?

Post by Dr Moore »

You might notice the outsize large allocations to Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Google. Keep in mind, however, that these companies are all worth >$1 trillion now and make up a notable outsize weighting in the S&P 500.

Somewhat counterintuitively, when compared with the S&P 500, Ensign Peak is effectively underweight AAPL, AMZN and MSFT, while holding a slightly overweight position in GOOGL.

AAPL
6.4% S&P weighting
5.4% EPA weighting

AMZN
4.5% S&P weighting
3.6% EPA weighting

MSFT
5.4% S&P weighting
4.8% EPA weighting

GOOGL
1.8% S&P weighting
2.5% EPA weighting
Post Reply