Originally posted by Green Monstah
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by LVAllen View PostNot sure if this belongs in the sports forum or here, but this BYU pole vaulter has gone viral:
Trigger warning: nut shot
https://www.tiktok.com/@zach_mcwhort...11744542280966
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostI recall reading clarifications on the aid amount prior to the whistleblower. I recall reading an article recently from 2012.
No issue whatsoever.
What makes you think the education is part of that $1B number? Yes, they talk about education in the article, but it is part of a broader discussion about the church's overall expenses. Furthermore, they claim that CES costs $1.5B per year. If that is true, how would the $1B part include CES? The article also talks about the expenses of building temples - and that is clearly not part of the humanitarian budget. Here is what is says about aid:
That is quite specific language. So yes, I am going to double down and say that your claim that the church is fudging the numbers here is based solely on your cynicism.
Since there’s a clear re-classification of what is humanitarian, I don’t think it’s at all cynical to ask what has changed and why it’s changed.Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.
"Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson
Comment
-
Originally posted by wapiti View PostMore likely that they've added in the churches welfare program. And that should count.
But we don’t really know, right? Real transparency makes these discussions superfluous.Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.
"Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View PostI don’t think redistribution of fast offerings should count, but I’m also not willing to argue about it.
But we don’t really know, right? Real transparency makes these discussions superfluous.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View PostWeird that you read $1B in 2012, but Oaks was touting $40MM in 2016.
Since there’s a clear re-classification of what is humanitarian, I don’t think it’s at all cynical to ask what has changed and why it’s changed.
http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1446582"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostJesus wants me for a sunbeam.
"Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View PostYou didn’t answer anything. At best you postulated. Kathleen Flake is a professor and moderate apologist. Her article is not authoritative.(sorry—I guess that was tooblue)."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View PostWeird that you read $1B in 2012, but Oaks was touting $40MM in 2016.
Since there’s a clear re-classification of what is humanitarian, I don’t think it’s at all cynical to ask what has changed and why it’s changed.
When the framing of the question is humanitarian spending with respect to total assets, then an answer now has to respond within the broader formulation that the question was made. Long term and short term assistance? Is education humanitarian? Do you include missionary spending? In some cases this alleviates families from sacrificing resources that otherwise are routed to food and shelter, in some cases not.
It's a complicated set of questions with very nuanced answers. Which means the framing of the question will result in different answers dependent on implicit and explicit expectations set by the audience and nature of the question.
So the first thing that must be answered is it even the same question?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View PostI don’t think redistribution of fast offerings should count, but I’m also not willing to argue about it.
But we don’t really know, right? Real transparency makes these discussions superfluous."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View PostYou didn’t answer anything. At best you postulated. Kathleen Flake is a professor and moderate apologist. Her article is not authoritative.(sorry—I guess that was tooblue).
Though not openly expressed (but interpreted by me) the logical conclusion the author draws is that in 2018 the church possibly contributed more than a billion dollars for humanitarian efforts. Those humanitarian efforts range from: food donations and clean water initiatives to emergency response, refugee response, vision care and providing wheel chairs to name a few.
None of what is listed under WHAT WE DO on the LDS charities Web site mentions LDS welfare programs, CES, Universities, pathways programs, temple building, building maintenance or missionary programs etc. Your efforts at conflating the day-to-day organizational operations of the LDS church with what is listed in the previous paragraph and clearly designated as humanitarian efforts is disingenuous.
Your only motive can be to validate the cynical narrative you have constructed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by swampfrog View PostIt's a fair question, as is the recognition that one of the things that changed is the public framing of the question--including the accusatory nature. When someone offers information as Oaks did, the audience and context matters. Sometimes the context would be specifically visible goods and services provided for immediate relief to parties external or independent of church membership, and sometimes not.
When the framing of the question is humanitarian spending with respect to total assets, then an answer now has to respond within the broader formulation that the question was made. Long term and short term assistance? Is education humanitarian? Do you include missionary spending? In some cases this alleviates families from sacrificing resources that otherwise are routed to food and shelter, in some cases not.
It's a complicated set of questions with very nuanced answers. Which means the framing of the question will result in different answers dependent on implicit and explicit expectations set by the audience and nature of the question.
So the first thing that must be answered is it even the same question?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostThat doesn't make sense to me either. I mean, I guess since all the churches' money started by member's donations at some point in time, you can add fast offerings along with other humanitarian aid. But if fast offerings makes up a significant amount of that yearly humanitarian number (no idea if it does or not), I will agree with you that it seems a little disingenuous."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by swampfrog View PostIt's a fair question, as is the recognition that one of the things that changed is the public framing of the question--including the accusatory nature. When someone offers information as Oaks did, the audience and context matters. Sometimes the context would be specifically visible goods and services provided for immediate relief to parties external or independent of church membership, and sometimes not.
When the framing of the question is humanitarian spending with respect to total assets, then an answer now has to respond within the broader formulation that the question was made. Long term and short term assistance? Is education humanitarian? Do you include missionary spending? In some cases this alleviates families from sacrificing resources that otherwise are routed to food and shelter, in some cases not.
It's a complicated set of questions with very nuanced answers. Which means the framing of the question will result in different answers dependent on implicit and explicit expectations set by the audience and nature of the question.
So the first thing that must be answered is it even the same question?"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostThat doesn't make sense to me either. I mean, I guess since all the churches' money started by member's donations at some point in time, you can add fast offerings along with other humanitarian aid. But if fast offerings makes up a significant amount of that yearly humanitarian number (no idea if it does or not), I will agree with you that it seems a little disingenuous.
The church also contributes to at least 155 humanitarian initiatives in "195 different countries." The presiding Bishopric, who manages and administers this aid has stated those contributions are close to a billion dollars annually.
How is any of the above disingenuous?Last edited by tooblue; 02-21-2020, 12:20 PM.
Comment
Comment