Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can do both at the same time Of course you can. Do you know whom that quote came from?
L. Ron Hubbard?
The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
301–310 of 537 posts
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a close friend who experienced this. Just because the church has no official policy doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People showing up at your door for years when you've repeatedly asked for it to stop happening, including new addresses you move to after asking not to be contacted again (I've witnessed this personally, and it is deeply distressing and invasive), is harassment no matter what the intention behind…
I can second this. I left over a decade ago. I've moved through four states, and probably a dozen addresses in that time. This is the first year where missionaries have not shown up at my door. I always had the same conversation with them: "Elders, I left the church for a reason and have no desire to come back. If you ever need water or to use the restroom, you are welcome to come by. I understand that what you are d…
I have always rejected all attempts to "re-activate" me. I have never provided notice of my leaving, and I have never as much as attended church once in any of these locations. Several of the moves I didn't even leave forwarding addresses or change of address at the post office. Heck about a year ago I missed some important documents from the IRS, because even they didn't know my new address. They were contacting a previous address, yet the Mormon church had already visited me (against my requests) a total of three times at that new address.
The Mormon church in fact does encourage harassment of ex members, they just don't advertise it as harassment. I am assuming the top comment in this feed that claims they never promote harassment is probably from a current member. The church promotes and encourages members to visit ex-members "out of love" to "save them". It even goes as far as assigning certain members to "re-activate" specific lost members as a task or chore that they must report back progress on.
So the members are harassing, but they do it under the guise of "love" and "salvation". The leaders of the church teach this twice a year in their worldwide broadcast conference (General Conference) where they tell stories (generally fictitious but claiming to be true-to-life) about how active members have gone to ex-members' homes and pushed and prodded for months and years to get members to re-activate. They will hail these persistent efforts to ignore the privacy requests of the ex-members and to push them even despite threats, because according to the story it eventually worked. They will laugh and say that "the spirit" will eventually get through to these ex-members if you just push them hard enough. This is all harassment. Yes, it is done naively from brainwashed members who think they are helping, but it is indeed harassment.
Imagine breaking up with a significant other who then continues to say they know you were meant for each other. They keep showing up at your work and at your house trying to get you to fall back in love with them. They are convinced that if they insert themselves back into your life that you will feel that love again. But you want nothing to do with this person. That person feels like they are doing something out of love, but to you it is harassment.
I've watched countless families destroyed over mormonism. It is toxic, but in the most crafty ways possible. Looking back, I did it all. I harrassed exmembers and gained pleasure from it. I thought I was truly helping them. We would laugh afterward at the threats we got. It was harrassement but I did it... i was brainwashed without realizing it. I am sick to my stomach for admitting it, but I was guilty of these acts for 30 years. My perspective has changed with many years out of the church. But trust me, it is part of the Mormon culture. I speak from experience. I am guilty of harrassing hundreds of people against their will as a Mormon.
Further, it is worth noting that according to Mormon doctrine, someone who is an active member and leaves the church is "an apostate". Depending how far they went through the ladder of Mormonism (such as going through the temple or even working at the temple) this actually destines someone to a future life in "outer darkness". This is a place reserved for basically only apostates (people that left the church). The mormon church has even taught terrorists and hitler will be able to seek forgiveness in the next life and go to a lower form of heaven, but not as low as outer darkness. This literally puts people who leave the church as worse than mass murderers.
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is fine. Families have the right to criticize each other for how they raise their children and to enforce common norms, where they genuinely believe decisions to be harmful. If my brother was raising my nephews/nieces in a way that I felt was harmful you bet he’d get an earful. Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property.
I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs. Lots of people genuinely believe in a lot of harmful things. Some people genuinely believe they need to kick their gay kid out on the street in order for them to learn what's good for them. Some people with great political power genuinely believe that starting an apocalyptic war in…
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could respond to me directly and I could clarify my position so there aren't mistaken presumptions. I'm not religious, yes, about that you would be right. I presume you are religious but it makes no difference. Where you fall off though is in assuming I'm anti-Mormon or anti-Christian. Not at all. I have friends that are religious and respect the right to be so 100%. This is very different from a church with apoc…
You may not be rabid in opposition to religion or caustic towards personal adherents--that's not what I had in mind--but your second paragraph to me clearly reads as anti-religion. Apocalyptic teachings or teachings that the church will become part of a world government are part of religion. (I happen to disagree with these things, if you are referring to what I think of). What you still seem to be saying is that tho…
But dangerous apocalyptic cults do exist. They harm adherents and harm society at large. So yes, it can and it does happen.
The ability to accumulate massive wealth is not needed for spiritual practice, provides severe moral hazards (often contrary to the stated purposes of the religion) and provides means to carry out social agendas which affect non-adherents. So the simple and common sense solution is to legally prevent this accumulation.
There are already restrictions on freedom of religion (and speech, and firearms etc). You can't slap a "Church" label on a prostitution ring and have it fly (this actually has happened). Nor in my estimation should you be able to slap a Church label on a business or real estate company and have it fly. You are one or the other, you get to chose for tax purposes and amount of wealth the organization is allowed to accumulate.
A bit off topic but for the record, I think it is manifestly dangerous to allow individuals or corporations too much power (financial or otherwise) also. But religions have a history of behaving much more irrationally because it is such a personal emotional issue and is less regulated by rational self interest. Thus it can be more dangerous. Keep churches churches and they will be better churches. Make them businesses (or even worse governments) and everyone is screwed.
Also someone downvoted you because they apparently don't agree. For whatever it's worth I'm reversing that because I think your points are worth considering.
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#305That is just what is uncovered in the investment market with one subsidiary. They also own 2% of Florida[0], huge land tracts in Argentina, Oklahoma and elsewhere, and attractive urban real estate in most major metropolises including apartment complexes in PA. They centralize donation collection of tithes and good will offerings such that about 8% stays back at congregations (based on personal observation as the fina…
It always surprises me that wealthy churches pretend to take Christ seriously, when Jesus was not very fond of amassing money. I get why the churches do it (of course they don't believe in Christ), but why do the exploited masses believe them?
Christ taught: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, give all you have to those in need then come follow me, else there's no path to heaven if you're a shallow rich person.
I'm no expert on Marxism, but I think there's quite a bit of crossover in ideologies.
But the point of my argument is most church's don't practice what Christ preached, they're essentially anti-christian churches.
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno. One has to deal with the random crying, the questions of "Why haven't you baptized your children? I want to spend eternity with my grandbabies!", "They need primary!", etc. Then there's the endless gossip at family activities when you're absent about how you're leading your family to hell.
Again, how do you know that what you are assuming is "common" isn't just a warped perception due to distillation effects of internet fora? My brother and his wife asked us not to bring up church stuff to them, and like normal humans and family members who respect each other, we obliged. And it's a two way street; when they come visit us we still say prayers for meals and they don't make a bug fuss about it.
If your experience were more common, the exmormon subreddit would probably be as dead as the /r/excatholic subreddit. Now that is a community that really doesn't give a shit if you decide to not show up to church anymore.
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#307Any discussion related to "church" funds makes me go back to a very interesting question: how much is the Catholic church worth today? I remember a while ago spending a few hours trying to dig some useful info. Of course there's not much online, and estimates range from 100s of B$ to something between 1 and 2 T$. Still credible. The even more interesting part is how the Catholic church managed to amass this huge weal…
Really? I thought it was pretty obvious. They literally pass around a plate and millions of people around the world are expected to put in 10% of their salary. In addition they have been around forever so have a vast collection of property and priceless art etc.
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you need to understand is that Thomas Monson, who was an employee of the church (notorious for their extremely low pay) for his entire career, had an estimated net worth of $14m. That is excluding the church owned property that he gets to use free of charge, including private jets, cars, and homes. This is excluding free income sources such as free university for all family and extended family members. Outside o…
When I was very young I worked at a non-Church-owned bank for a while. Thomas Monson sat on its board, or at least showed up to a nice employee dinner/dance I attended. He had a business career before he was a Church General Authority, was brilliant, and for a time continued serving on various corporate boards, until GAs all stopped doing that. The GAs I know of personally who did not obtain wealth in their private c…
https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compi...
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't acquire wealth.
I would imagine that the moneychangers were paying some amount to the church. I think the issue was that the church was being used as a place for worldly pursuits.
Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that person is really an "ex-member" (meaning they had their name removed from the church's records), This is the issue. The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that. Tell me you don't see people talking about how to get them active again. Because I've been to a lot of wards and seen that discussion in every single one. "They are just inactive". I've told membe…
> The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that. I don't see that. If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see.