Meadowchik wrote:They're not God. This "the same as by my mouth" is not very moral and not necessarily devout.
In fairness, Meadowchik, they would say that they are not claiming to be God. These are the very important disagreements that divide people on MDB from the LDS Church. I think it is important to distinguish between our interpretations and theirs. We can stand by ours, and they will stand by theirs.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Elder Andersen said the significance of the meeting with Vice President Mohadi was to “express to him our desire to help improve Zimbabwe.” He noted that Vice President Mohadi had made a specific request for support with the development of clean-water wells in more remote areas of Zimbabwe. “We want to help in every way we can,” said Elder Andersen. “We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have,” he added.
A penny for Vice President Mohadi’s current thoughts about Elder Anderson...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Meadowchik wrote:They're not God. This "the same as by my mouth" is not very moral and not necessarily devout.
In fairness, Meadowchik, they would say that they are not claiming to be God. These are the very important disagreements that divide people on MormonDiscussions.com from the LDS Church. I think it is important to distinguish between our interpretations and theirs. We can stand by ours, and they will stand by theirs.
It's a distinction without a difference, in terms of LDS practice. Not all religions do this and I am inclined to emphasize that practice. Too much hubris in the powerful.
Meadowchik wrote:It's a distinction without a difference, in terms of LDS practice. Not all religions do this and I am inclined to emphasize that practice. Too much hubris in the powerful.
No argument from me. But our perceptions are just that: ours.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
In an article expressing the view that there’s nothing to see here from an IRS perspective, Forbes contributor Peter J Reilly ends with the real outcome that needs to come from this disclosure...
If LDS has accumulated $100 billion and not been transparent about it, it is really up to the members to deal with their leadership.
Members have got to insist on full disclosure, and the way to deliver that transparency is to leverage their time and money. Withhold all donations from the Church (donate elsewhere) and withdraw service (don’t fulfil callings, assignments, cleaning, temple visits etc) unless or until Church Leaders fully disclose the finances of the Church, and has them audited by an Independent auditor.
$100 billion and you’re cleaning the toilets...
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I wonder how many members will notice that the goal of the church to collect money so they can spread Christ's gospel has become more important than actually living it?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Fence Sitter wrote:I wonder how many members will notice that the goal of the church to collect money so they can spread Christ's gospel has become more important than actually living it?
Members will reframe the evidence to support what they want to believe. The Deseret News has started that process. Reports and comments have gone from “The Church doesn’t have much money but does what it can”, to “of course the Church has got pots and pots of cash, it’s exactly what we expect are leaders to do” literally overnight. In time members will be blamed for not knowing the Church stashed pots and pots of donations. It’s a pattern common in members of cults.
Of course that won’t be the case for all members. Some will now see the 3-fold mission of the Church and it’s humanitarian programmes for the lip-service smoke & mirrors that they are. People on the verge of baptism getting the lesson from the missionaries on tithing might now be thinking twice. Members already concerned about where the money goes, like Riess, will be giving very serious contemplation about their future donations.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:Members already concerned about where the money goes, like Riess, will be giving very serious contemplation about their future donations.
If I were a true-believing, tithe-paying member, I'd probably be more inclined to pay on my gross income, rather than on my net.
At best, this $100B revelation has to have implications for the Church's bottom line.