Is BYU at Risk of Budget Cuts?

The only thing I’m arguing is is that the message doesn’t always reflect the actions of an organization. It’s not irrelevant, but it’s not the end all be all.

Yet you choose to blow it way out of proportion by creating all these other narratives. This is why people hate on the Mormons. One negative LRC thread and you’re writing 5 paragraph essays responses to any little quip about your religion. Just let it go and pay your 10%, it would get you a lot further in life.

unpressedented wrote:

My son is enlisted, combat arms MOS. Currently home on block leave. Deploying overseas soon to a sketchy part of the world. So please find some other lie to tell. Not this one, you pathetic, spineless coward.

Dear observers: Please note how this works. These people who hate Mormons don't care about facts or truth. They don't care if something they say is easily and instantly disproved, as just occurred. No LDS leader served in the armed forces, they say. Here are two obvious examples to disprove that point, we say. That just proves our point, they say, because they are shockingly ignorant and unencumbered by the a need to argue in good faith or respect facts. These are not good people and should not be trusted.

The one thing that caused me to leave the Mormon religion was the Mormon Church being dishonest. I value honesty. There are a lot of reasons to criticize Mormonism. However, saying they hate the US military and won’t serve simply isn’t true. Many Mormons have served in the military and I was never taught to be unpatriotic when I was a believing member. In fact, I was taught to be patriotic. One of Mormonism’s doctrines is that America is God’s chosen land.

Pickle lover 87 wrote:

...people hate on the Mormons.

You've got that part right, "blind hate" I might add, and the rationale you give for the hate? That we go overboard in our defense? Compare that with the mindless accusations (most, not all) hurled our way. Yet you argue that we are the unreasonable and out of touch ones to justify the hate accosted against us.

nofacetimber wrote:

Pickle lover 87 wrote:

...people hate on the Mormons.

You've got that part right, "blind hate" I might add, and the rationale you give for the hate? That we go overboard in our defense? Compare that with the mindless accusations (most, not all) hurled our way. Yet you argue that we are the unreasonable and out of touch ones to justify the hate accosted against us.

You responding so vigorously to an LRC thread full of trolls is like being the try hard in middle school gym class dodgeball that coordinates an attack on the girl that’s just there for attendance. Sure, it’s within the rules, but have some common sense and pick your battles. Otherwise you’re just feeding the trolls (aka “what not to do on the Internet 101”) or you’re arguing against someone that’s not going to change their opinion (aka “what not to do on the Internet 102”).

Now if the WaPo headline tomorrow is “Mormons are trash human beings because they have money” maybe a more measured response is in order.

People like you that get so easily offended is why LRC is so troll infested. It’s a 2 way street. If the trolls don’t get acknowledged they eventually leave. But when there’s a near 200 post thread of trolling where 2-3 people are making most of the posts, they’re licking their chops.

Trololololol wrote:

You responding so vigorously to an LRC thread full of trolls is like being the try hard in middle school gym class dodgeball that coordinates an attack on the girl that’s just there for attendance. Sure, it’s within the rules, but have some common sense and pick your battles. Otherwise you’re just feeding the trolls (aka “what not to do on the Internet 101”) or you’re arguing against someone that’s not going to change their opinion (aka “what not to do on the Internet 102”).

Thank you for the advice. I agree with you, to stop trolls perhaps my course of action is off base or lacking.

I don't know that "easily offended" is the right word to describe my actions. Sure i'll admit at the beginning when I first encountered the "slander" it annoyed me and I took it somewhat personally even though I didn't respond to it, I just wished it would stop. Overtime though the wave of slander turned into something more akin to amusement at least insomuch as I could call out people on their accusations. So yeah it's slim pickings, but if someone even shows a limited capacity or desire for a reasonable argument I don't mind engaging even if it leads to more of the same from unreasonable trolls.

My conclusion also is that they are trolls because they are not rational in their responses, don't answer questions and ignore evidence supplied. It is a weird thing for me to deal with myself. I don't understand how people get off being a troll, it's a warped thing to do in my opinion. I get sucked into these things as well because I'm not used to dealing with these types.

Trolls and/or pathological haters or a mixture of both. I think anyone who isn't blinded by hate also can easily see their tactics and what they are. I will try to not feed the trolls. Not sure how to deal with the haters, probably just ignore them also and try to be civil if I do reply.

blamb61 wrote:

http://www.ldsliving.com/General-Authorities-in-the-Military-In-Their-Own-Words/s/69913

And then there was this guy. Paul H. Dunn (why do Mormon leaders always need to use their middle initial?) a General Authority but not a Prophet or Apostle. Apparently he took a little too much "liberty" in describing his war time service. He later admitted to his embellishments of events he may or may not have participated in.

During his time as a general authority, Dunn often included in his speeches and books extraordinary "real life" experiences that he claimed were from his past. In the late 1980s, a number of investigators, including Arizona Republic reporter Lynn Packer and church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner, accused Dunn of fabricating or embellishing many of these events. Among Dunn's claims that came to be questioned were:

that Dunn had played major league baseball with the St. Louis Cardinals;

that Dunn was one of only six in his 1,000-man combat group who survived World War II, and was the only one of the six survivors who wasn't wounded;

that Dunn was the sole survivor among 11 infantrymen in a 100-yard race against death, during which one burst of machine-gun fire ripped his right boot off, another tore off his ammunition and canteen belt and yet another split his helmet in half—all without wounding him.

that Dunn's best friend died in his arms from serious injuries sustained in a battle on Okinawa.

When confronted with evidence that several of his stories were either completely falsified or substantially embellished, Dunn admitted that the stories were not completely true, yet continued to defend his use of the stories: "I haven't purposely tried to embellish or rewrite history. I've tried to illustrate points that would create interest. [I was] simply putting history in little finer packages." Dunn compared his stories to the parables of Jesus—although they were not true stories, they were nevertheless valuable means of teaching gospel principles.

In 1991, Dunn asked the church's First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for permission to issue an open letter to all Latter-day Saints. The church agreed, and on October 26 the following letter was published in the Church News, a supplement section of the Deseret News, a newspaper owned by the LDS Church:

"October 23, 1991

"I have been accused of various activities unbecoming a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I confess that I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings. Furthermore, I have indulged in other activities inconsistent with the high and sacred office which I have held.

"For all of these I feel a deep sense of remorse, and ask forgiveness of any whom I may have offended.

"My brethren of the General Authorities, over a long period of time, have conducted in-depth investigations of the charges made against me. They have weighed the evidence. They have censured me and placed a heavy penalty upon me.

"I accept their censure and the imposed penalty, and pledge to conduct my life in such a way as to merit their confidence and full fellowship.

"In making these acknowledgements, I plead for the understanding of my brethren and sisters throughout the Church and give assurance of my determination so to live as to bring added respect to the cause I deeply love, and honor to the Lord who is my Redeemer.

"Sincerely, Paul H. Dunn"

The exact nature of this "heavy penalty" imposed upon Dunn is unclear. It is clear that Dunn was not excommunicated from the church, though it is not known whether or not he was placed under some other form of church discipline, such as disfellowshipment or probation.

My purpose with the attachment was to disprove the accusation that no leaders served which that piece did. Do you acknowledge members serve? To the veracity of the stories they claim, I obviously can't prove those. Paul Dunn lied and got caught, no one has shown these men are not telling the truth. If we go by the standard that no leaders can sin, then there isn't a single church that can stand including Christ's original Church (think Judas who betrayed Jesus). What point are you trying to make?

nofacetimber wrote:

Pickle lover 87 wrote:

...people hate on the Mormons.

You've got that part right, "blind hate" I might add, and the rationale you give for the hate? That we go overboard in our defense? Compare that with the mindless accusations (most, not all) hurled our way. Yet you argue that we are the unreasonable and out of touch ones to justify the hate accosted against us.

"And if they have a Catholic background, they don't know who God is. They don't know who the Saviour is nor do they know who the Holy Ghost is."

- M. Russell Ballard (Buenos Aires, 2014)

Five years later he had the audacity to show up at the Vatican with LDS President Nelson in tow. Pope Francis should have had them escorted off the premises.

The LDS Church has only been around for two centuries.

They have flat out excelled at flip flopping during that timeframe.

As arguably the most truly bizarre church around, they probably shouldn't be throwing bricks at other Churches (Scientology possibly excluded).

Glass house construction Inc. wrote:

"And if they have a Catholic background, they don't know who God is. They don't know who the Saviour is nor do they know who the Holy Ghost is."

- M. Russell Ballard (Buenos Aires, 2014)

Five years later he had the audacity to show up at the Vatican with LDS President Nelson in tow. Pope Francis should have had them escorted off the premises.

The LDS Church has only been around for two centuries.

They have flat out excelled at flip flopping during that timeframe.

As arguably the most truly bizarre church around, they probably shouldn't be throwing bricks at other Churches (Scientology possibly excluded).

It's no secret that the views and teachings surrounding the nature of God differ between the two churches. And the purpose of said meeting wasn't intended to pretend otherwise.

A quote from president Nelson regarding the meeting:

“The differences in doctrine are real,“ he added. “They are important. But they are not nearly as important as things we have in common—our concern for human suffering, our desire for and the importance of religious liberty for all of society, and the importance of building bridges of friendship instead of building walls of segregation.”

.

churchofjesuschrist.org

/church/news/president-nelson-meets-with-pope-francis-at-the-vatican?lang=eng

And from a report from catholic news:

"The Vatican included the pope's meeting with Russell M. Nelson, president of the Latter-day Saints church, in a list of Pope Francis' encounters March 9, but did not provide further information.

Catholic and Mormon leaders, especially in the United States, have increased their official contacts in recent years, working together on many social projects and joining forces to promote issues of common concern, particularly policies to support traditional families.

But the Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a valid Christian baptism.

The Catholic position was issued formally in 2001 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

While the Mormon baptismal rite refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Mormon beliefs about the identity of the three persons is so different from Catholic and mainline Christian belief that "one cannot even consider this doctrine to be a heresy arising from a false understanding of Christian doctrine," said a Vatican explanation of the ruling."

.

catholicnews.com

/services/englishnews/2019/pope-meets-top-leaders-of-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.cfm

What the meeting did show, is that despite the differences and disputations between the faiths, civility and respect can and should prevail. Hopefully the same can be said from us posters on these boards someday as well.

This is an interesting thread.

I am impressed with the pro LDS posters ability to deflect and obfuscate the meat of the issues. When someone points out the hoarding of a hundred billion dollars while continuing to force members who can scarcely afford it to pay more into the slush fund. The rationale for this is that LDS might need to build some more church buildings at some point in the distant future. Pretty fancy digs for a non profit must be in the offing. Scientology used the same tactic, except for the fact that they actually built a massive amount of facilities, which mostly go unused.

Then there is criticism that the LDS is very miserly in the amount of its vast fortune that it uses for charity. And even worse, the LDS doesn't dip into the capital which may be understandable, but they have ten billion a year of profit coming in every year which they will only give much less than one percent to charity. The overwhelmingly large fraction of those profits go into the slush fund never to be seen or used for good works. The defenders point out that in real dollars over a period of decades it is a large amount, but compared to the PROFITS it is a tiny amount. Much less comparatively than a Wall Street crook dropping a penny into the cup of a beggar.

It has been pointed out that LDS is heavily involved in for profit businesses and doesn't pay taxes because it claims non-profit status. Also, powerful LDS leaders own and otherwise get significant financial gain from these LDS funded private enterprises. All the while forcing the lower members to pay for privilege of sacraments, using the money to buy these private businesses. I haven't seen any cogent rebuttal of these facts by the apologists.

There is ample evidence that LDS had an organized operation for its members to avoid the draft. Posters have shown that a few of the leaders actually did serve in the military, albeit at a much lower rate than other Americans of those generations.

The LDS history and ongoing stain of racism hasn't been responded to. I can't really imagine how this could be spun.

The fact that LDS and Utah is the highest perpetrators of fraud in the world is brushed off by saying that Utah is a good place to do business. Well, I suppose it is for the criminals.

Obviously not every LDS member is a crook, non-patriot, racist. Some LDS surely, and gladly, contribute to charity. It is unfair to convict every LDS even if, let's say, 99.99% are rotten. It is also unfair to exonerate the institution if, let's say, .01% of its actions are not evil or criminal. There will always be some good and bad in any lot.

Toll alert! Troll Alert! "...lets say, 99.99% are rotten" LOL.. Most of what you talk about has been addressed by the defenders. You are probably one of the original attackers just posting under a different name like usual.

Bring ‘em Young wrote:

The one thing that caused me to leave the Mormon religion was the Mormon Church being dishonest. I value honesty. There are a lot of reasons to criticize Mormonism. However, saying they hate the US military and won’t serve simply isn’t true. Many Mormons have served in the military and I was never taught to be unpatriotic when I was a believing member. In fact, I was taught to be patriotic. One of Mormonism’s doctrines is that America is God’s chosen land.

For all our differences, I do appreciate you saying that. Thank you.

I agree with you on one thing, I do think this is an interesting thread. Despite your feigned impartiality or perhaps prejudice. I'm happy to oblige on a few points.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lower members", however if you are referring to poor members who pay tithing while the church has vast reserves then let me remind or reveal to you that the Lord requires and honors sacrifice from all his people not only the rich.

Malachi 3: 8-12 (showing and emphasizing certain parts)

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house,

The temple treasury is God's storehouse.

Luke 21: 1-6

1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,

6 ...

Look at this similar situation, Christ is condoning the major sacrifice of a poor widow, while the temple and treasury is richly adorned. Would you condemn and criticize Christ as well? Do you know better then he?

I'll touch on this next.

nofacetimber wrote:

Fair and Balanced wrote:

The LDS history and ongoing stain of racism hasn't been responded to. I can't really imagine how this could be spun.

I'll touch on this next.

Oh, that should be good.

Fair and Balanced wrote:

The LDS history and ongoing stain of racism hasn't been responded to. I can't really imagine how this could be spun.

For reference, the definition of racism:

"A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

I can surmise the following criticisms or allegations of racism based on what I've heard.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches or promotes racism.

2. The church is racist because African Americans allowed to be ordained the priesthood until 1978.

3. The church is lagging behind society, clinging to their racist views long after segregation was abolished.

1. Not going to go much into this one right now. Suffice it to say that I believe this to be false, there is text in the Book of Mormon that can be construed as racism, however interpreting it that way is in-congruent with the text as a whole. If any have interest, or objection to this, then I would be happy to go into further detail at a later time.

2. This is a difficult one, I don't know the answer as why the priesthood was withheld for a time. There were a few African Americans who joined and received the priesthood in the early days of the church. But later on priesthood ordination for African Americans stopped. I can guess that it had something to do with racism in society, the great racial divide in the country where the church was founded. That said, African Americans were not dissuaded from membership in the church and there were no church-wide policies for segregated congregations.

3. The perception that the church has some unprecedented racial stain/history is just that. The same could be said for many other churches in the United States during the racial divide and segregation that existed in our society even into the late 70's. I'm going to demonstrate with the Catholic church since it was brought up previously.

Statement of the Black Catholic Clergy Caucus 1968: (excerpts)

"The Catholic Church in the United States, primarily a white racist institution, has addressed itself primarily to white society and is definitely a part of that society."

...

"The appropriateness of responsible, positive militancy against racism is the only Christian attitude against this or any other social evil. Because of it's past complicity with and active support of prevailing attitudes and institutions of America, the Church is now in an extremely weak position in the black community. In fact, the Catholic Church is rapidly dying in the black community. In many area, there is a serious defection especially on the part of black Catholic youth. The black community no longer looks to the Catholic Church with hope. And unless the Church, by an immediate, effective and total reversing of its present practices, rejects and denounces all forms of racism within its ranks and institutions and in the society of which she is a part, she will become unacceptable in the black community."

U.S. Catholic Bishops Pastoral Letter on Racism 1979:

"Racism is an evil which endures in our society and in our Church. Despite apparent advances and even significant changes in the last two decades, the reality of racism remains. In large part it is only external appearances which have changed. In 1958 we spoke out against the blatant forms of racism that divided people through discriminatory laws and enforced segregation. We pointed out the moral evil that denied human persons their dignity as children of God and their God-given rights. (1) A decade later in a second pastoral letter we again underscored the continuing scandal of racism called for decisive action to eradicate it from our society.(2) We recognize and applaud the readiness of many Americans to make new strides forward in reducing and eliminating prejudice against minorities. We are convinced that the majority of Americans realize that racial discrimination is both unjust and unworthy of this nation.

We do not deny that changes have been made, that laws have been passed, that policies have been implemented. We do not deny that the ugly external features of racism which marred our society have in part been eliminated. But neither can it be denied that too often what has happened has only been a covering over, not a fundamental change. Today the sense of urgency has yielded to an apparent acceptance of the status quo. The climate of crisis engendered by demonstrations, protest, and confrontation has given way to a mood of indifference; and other issues occupy our attention."

...

So racism existed and was still entwined within American society into the late 70's and beyond. It looks like the Catholic church took steps to condemn attitudes of racism within the church as early as 1958, however there are those who would call it a half-hearted, poor effort.

2017

...

"Noting the historical systematic exclusion of African-Americans from U.S. seminaries, and that there are currently just 14 African-American bishops and 250 African-American priests, the dream of the founders of the National Black Catholic Congress, "of a fully integrated American society and Catholic Church became a dream deferred, a dream deferred even to this day," Braxton said.

U.S. bishops are working on a new pastoral letter to follow up on the 1979 pastoral letter "Brothers and Sisters to Us" on the sin of racism which condemned racial prejudice as a heresy, Braxton said. While it is hoped the letter will contribute to a process of reconciliation, Braxton noted that the bishops are "somewhat chastened" by the awareness that many Catholics haven't ever heard of the 1979 letter and that its goals were not discussed or achieved. While the 1979 letter and a later pastoral letter by African-American bishops in 1984 were published, "Sadly, they were never read, never discussed, never prayed upon, never acted on … why not?"

The point i'm trying to reiterate here, is to counter the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stands out with it's "egregious history of racism", like a stain as you put it. Compared to the rest of of society or other church's in America dealing with the same societal issues at the time. That is simply not the case.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that God cursed a wicked group of people with dark skin so they wouldn’t be appealing to the white righteous people. That’s a racist teaching!

2. The priesthood ban was racist. It’s not difficult to understand. The ban was based on the Mormon teaching at the time that blacks were cursed.

3. Mormons claim to have a prophet. Prophets should be able to be a head of damaging beliefs and practices that are popular in society. Many churches had changed their racist stances before Mormons did. To this day, the Mormon Church has still not apologized for its instructional racism. They just say it was gods will.

*Institutional racism, not instructional