posted
"NOW-- of all those things, only one of them counts as Tithing. That'd be the amount on the line labeled "Tithing." If I gave $5000, and only $50 of it was marked on the Tithing line, then within the definition embraced by Mormonism I only paid $50 to tithing. I gave $4950 in Offerings, which are kept separate from tithing (I know this is tracked, because members receive a statement each year of how much they paid in tithing, and how much they gave in offerings.)"
But how do you know where the money went? The church doesn't release its financial records.
"Aha. If that's how you feel, then consider my above comments directed toward everyone else. You, Paul, needn't consider them at all. Your mind is made up, apparently. You are certain. "
My mind is made up that the mormon church will lie about gay marriage. It has done so REPEATEDLY, and so statements from the church about gay marriage cannot be trusted, and should probably actively be disbelieved without substantial external corroborating evidence. My mind is also made up that finances cross contaminate, even when businesses claim that they don't (and especially when those businesses do not release detailed financial statements). This belief is independent of the question of tithing vs offerings vs commercial investments within the Mormon Church. My mind is further made up that opposition to gay marriage is evil.
There are many things I am not certain of. For example, I could be convinced that all members of the mormon church are not, at best, passively supporting evil. You'd have to release the financial records of the mormon church and demonstrate that all its commercial ventures were set up without any money from tithing, that the tithing money does not cross contaminate with other funds, that no funds from anything other than commercial ventures were used to promote proposition 8, AND, that no tithing money was used to produce the infrastructure that allowed the church to mobilize its members. And you'd have to do so using non-church affiliated accountants... because the church is not trustworthy when it comes to statements related to gay marriage.
But I didn't come into this thread in order to become convinved of anything. I came into this thread because blackblade, and now you, are making statements that I consider to be totally illogical and at odds with financial reality.
N.B. I withdrew my statement about "more than prop 8," before your post, because I had an incorrect number about what was spent on prop 8 in my head that I found to be wrong. So, one of the things I can be convinced of is how much was spent on prop 8.
"Assuming that the statement you're talking here is "No tithing was used to support prop 8," I think your point has been disproved by the articles I linked to above."
If by "disproved," you mean "presents no substantial opposition to the original claim," than I agree with you.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mind is made up that the mormon church will lie about gay marriage. It has done so REPEATEDLY, and so statements from the church about gay marriage cannot be trusted, and should probably actively be disbelieved without substantial external corroborating evidence.
Is this in part based on the church's use of a front group in hawaii to conceal their role in working against gay marriage? do you have other examples in mind?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the statements they've made concerning the effects of gay marriage. Commercials they've funded. Those things are primarily what I had in mind.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
Anyone know of a place I can look these papers they filed up? Members of the church may have contributed money, but it seems the church did not.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What! No. I am talking about the businesses that the church controls. Commercial enterprises and the like.
Your statement was:
quote:The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
Can you show how you came to this conclusion?
quote:Saying "no tithing was used to support" proposition 8 is such a completely meaningless statement on the part of the lds. I could be a church that runs a business on the side, take the budget appropriation for employee salary and donate it to the proposition 8 campaign, then pay the employe salaries with an infusion of tithe money. Then exclaim 'gosh, its not like we medddled in politics with tithe money'!
It is no different. It is all church money. This should not be that hard to figure out.
It IS different to LDS members. That was my point. Saying "no it isn't" a hundred times isn't going to make your point better understood to an audience of LDS.
quote:Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
From what I understand, they acted as a receiver for the donations, which they then turned over to be used in the Yes On 8. At least one source maintains that Tithes and Offerings slips were used for some of the funds.
quote:Most of the statements they've made concerning the effects of gay marriage. Commercials they've funded. Those things are primarily what I had in mind.
quote:What! No. I am talking about the businesses that the church controls. Commercial enterprises and the like.
Your statement was:
quote:The church started them. [the businesses I'm talking about] It says as much in its own story. [for more consult official LDS website which talks about how today's commercial enterprises which are explicitly used to further the church's 'mission' were an outgrowth of businesses the church started when it was isolated in the west and started opening its own newspapers and crap] [for additional resources consult websites critical of the church analyzing collected data on outgrowth of the chrch's financial holdings and real estate purchases over the years both before and after the 1959 hiding of the church's financial records which are disallowed from being posted here]
posted
Scott R: From an outside perspective, your argument looks like willful ignorance and blanket denial. Not much of an argument either.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not. Its a clarification for a person who ended up thinking I was talking about 'individual congregations as businesses'
FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH: 'that's not much of an argument *shrug*' is a great way to make even less of an argument in return.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]It IS different to LDS members. That was my point. Saying "no it isn't" a hundred times isn't going to make your point better understood to an audience of LDS.
If you think my position is equivalent to saying no it isn't a hundred times, you are handwaving. If my point isn't accepted by an lds member, it is not because it does not make sense. Its because they want to deny it.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's puzzling to the outsider, knowing very little about either the Mormon church or the civil rights of homosexuals in USA, is the rhetorical style adopted by both sides. The barely masked virulence of the Sam/Orin/PG nexus vs. the provocative passive-aggressive legalisms of the ScottR nexus (each sustaining the other in the only harmony worth humming). It seems to take precedence over what otherwise would obviously be a nuanced debate, one requiring a lot of good will on both sides to be worth the effort.
From a naive perspective (mine), obviously the Mormon church has made mistakes, will continue to make mistakes as all human organizations do. This would have to be weighed against the good things the church has done, does and may well do. It's normal that the members of the church defend their beliefs and also normal that they perhpas read the 'record' differently than their critics. What is abnormal is holding a religious culture to the scientific standards of rationality...especially when the societies that have emerged from the implementation of those very high standards have also committed or been party to a 'systemic' that allowed many of this world's worst atrocities. (The same might be said of the world's largest religious organizations too--except, these organizations, at least, were not hypocritical about their beliefs or, unfortunately, their hatreds.)
On the other hand, I'm surpised that the Mormon faithful are concerned with scoring any debating points on the issues raised here (prop 8, early episodes of racism in the church, uses/misuses of funds) at all. One would think that the underlying notion of having and sharing a faith, something practiced and lived--precisely things not developed through a sterile dialectic--would take precedence. If you want, the living, material strength of what the opponents would call the irrationality.
Everything is not the same.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to weigh, like, the LDS's material support of prop 8 against, say, the whole 'systemic.' I'm just going to analyze what they did and call it what it is.
I'm also super proud to be part of a Barely Masked Virulence Nexus for making statements such as these. Even if, were I to actually hate the mormon church, I would just say so. Right now, I don't hate it at all, I just can't excuse the brazen actions of its leadership in being politically active to fight homosexual rights. Not that I'm even really talking about that right now. Everything I've brought up can be summarized to a pretty simple point: 'the church saying it didn't use tithe money to finance the proposition 8 campaign doesn't actually mean anything. It used its monetary resources and efforts to involve itself politically with prop 8, and the tithe money isn't specially, artificially disconnected from that'
Oh man, look at my BARELY CONTAINED VIRULENCE. =)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
From what I understand, they acted as a receiver for the donations, which they then turned over to be used in the Yes On 8. At least one source maintains that Tithes and Offerings slips were used for some of the funds.
If this is the case then I disagree with it. I am interested to know if the church leadership actually approved this or if it was a decision made by bishops or stake presidents in California. The Prop 8 campaign was political, and the slips should not have been used. The church should not have handled the money in any way. This would open the way for other political contributions to be made through tithe and offering slips.
If the members had given a check to a designated person (preferably not at church) and that person would then go down and turn it over, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. As far as I am concerned, as soon as you involve tithing and offering slips, the money is being donated to the church and the church contributed the funds.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mean to be provocative, but what any Church says to its members means a lot more than you are giving it credit for. I'm not sure why you can't see this?
edited to add: in fact, this is the crux of your whole position -- you're calling them liars (the leadership), but using the perspective of a non-believer to make the evaluation.
People get their truths from different places. In fact, the whole notion of a 'people' may well be circumscribed by this very notion. (or, circumcised!!sp??)
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: edited to add: in fact, this is the crux of your whole position -- you're calling them liars (the leadership), but using the perspective of a non-believer to make the evaluation.
I'm saying they are lying? No. Neither am I unaware that the church's narrative is more easily believed by a faithful member of the church, especially what with that entailing they think the leaders of the church are divinely appointed prophets spoken to by God to run the one true church. I have never indicated otherwise.
quote:People get their truths from different places.
You mean people get their beliefs from different places. People get their truths only from things which impart beliefs upon them which are true.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then what's the big deal? The Church of Mormon, a well funded, politically sophisticated, often brazen, sometimes charming, occasionally confused, full of well-intentioned believers, mildly indifferent members, networking socialites......etc.....says "X"....
..AND....
The politically sophisticated, well funded, historically signifigant, socially powerful, etc. Gay Rights Movement (or "church" if you use the term loosely) suffers a very mild and probably temporary set back on the relatively trivial issue of the recognition of marriage (that is, certainly not worthy of being called a "human rights" violation, unless you've got nothing more important to argue about...i.e. immigration, slavery, institutionalized poverty etc.)
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
Right, this isn't because you've been confronted with the lie you've been telling yourself over this issue for two years. Now you're gonna take your ball and go home. Lame dude, really really lame.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: NOW-- of all those things, only one of them counts as Tithing. That'd be the amount on the line labeled "Tithing." If I gave $5000, and only $50 of it was marked on the Tithing line, then within the definition embraced by Mormonism I only paid $50 to tithing. I gave $4950 in Offerings, which are kept separate from tithing (I know this is tracked, because members receive a statement each year of how much they paid in tithing, and how much they gave in offerings.)
K. You support the church financially. The church uses its resources and or the ones you give it to pay for political adds. Whether your actual dollar went into the account of the add agency or not, you are paying for those adds to be made. You are paying the salary of the secretary who takes the call from the ad man, or you are paying for the car of the elder who drives to the meeting, or you're buying them lunch, or helping fix their air conditioning. You are paying them. They are doing things. You are supporting it. Nothing can possibly change that, no accounting practice can make it not so- other than all the tithing money being lit on fire as soon as it is received.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Well, then what's the big deal? The Church of Mormon, a well funded, politically sophisticated, often brazen, sometimes charming, occasionally confused, full of well-intentioned believers, mildly indifferent members, networking socialites......etc.....says "X"....
..AND....
The politically sophisticated, well funded, historically signifigant, socially powerful, etc. Gay Rights Movement (or "church" if you use the term loosely) suffers a very mild and probably temporary set back on the relatively trivial issue of the recognition of marriage (that is, certainly not worthy of being called a "human rights" violation, unless you've got nothing more important to argue about...i.e. immigration, slavery, institutionalized poverty etc.)
Isn't a bit of a staw horse?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask beyond 'what's the big deal?' this is very confusingly written.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
Right, this isn't because you've been confronted with the lie you've been telling yourself over this issue for two years. Now you're gonna take your ball and go home. Lame dude, really really lame.
You're right Orincoro I am taking my ball home. Why would I play ball when I'm not enjoying it? Don't tell me I'm too cowardly or afraid to face the truth. You have not been discussing in good faith, that's what I'm not dealing with right now. Even KOM didn't feel the need to constantly rail and insult me when we discussed religion. To me topics are unimportant, you can talk about just about anything and I'll discuss it. Like I said earlier, I don't think you want me to change my mind because then immediately it's a shift to, "See see...no consistent beliefs, you just shift to where the winds blowing!" It's already been done in regards to polygamy and black's holding the priesthood. I don't really want to play in that game, you can have my ball if you want it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get what deerpark is saying, it is the general rationalization that due to the fact that X is happening at the same time as Y and X is far worse then Y then there should be no action to fix Y. Generally bad thinking as it does not take into account that something like gay marriage is actually very easy to institute, whereas things such as poverty, immigration reform, etc are actually very tricky issues that do not have a simple easy one tap fix.
If gay marriage where somehow a really tricky issue to fix that would require billions of dollars to somehow implement with no sure chance of it happening... sure I could see the argument. However, that is far, far, extremely far from the case.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary (with the highest regard and, in most respects, full agreementwith your argumentation)
What I'm saying is that your vague and somewhat predictable indignation is far more telling than the probably temporary confusion of a massive and unweildy organization like the Mormon church.
Do you the hold "wherever it is you're coming from" to the same standards? Or, are you, in fact, coming from nowhere?
The Mormons have a stick in the very muddy mud. Lives depend on it. Where's yours? Wherever it's easy to make an elegant argument from?
I think you're way more on the hook to confront the "So What?" argument. For the Mormons, it makes a difference to get this right. To you, it's merely an argument or, at best, a lesson.
I admire your tenacity and your effective analysis of the confusing facade the Mormon church feels obliged to present to the media. Their engagement is indeed problematic and may well shape the contours of the institution for the worse. On the other hand, the simple fact of the human possibility of faith and the cultivation of human communities that can be shaped by this engagment seems to far outweigh, as least so far, the hiccups. After all, what, precisely, is the alternative?
The alternative is an empty city and, as you probably already suspect, the empty city is a crypt.
Where are you coming from? The echo of the enlightenment? The ideology of the self-actualized individual?
Myself, I am in darkness and perhaps severely disordered. I wish I could make more sense, but all I hear are echoes.
I'm just saying: once you win, then what?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm saying is that your vague and somewhat predictable indignation is far more telling than the probably temporary confusion of a massive and unweildy organization like the Mormon church.
How is an intentional and strategic statement a 'temporary confusion?' Unless you are saying that the LDS's anti-homosexual political involvements in general are a 'confusion?' A backwards, mistaken policy they'll clear their heads of someday?
quote:I admire your tenacity and your effective analysis of the confusing facade the Mormon church feels obliged to present to the media. Their engagement is indeed problematic and may well shape the contours of the institution for the worse. On the other hand, the simple fact of the human possibility of faith and the cultivation of human communities that can be shaped by this engagment seems to far outweigh, as least so far, the hiccups. After all, what, precisely, is the alternative?
The alternative is an empty city and, as you probably already suspect, the empty city is a crypt.
I am still lost. Where does the alternative come into play? What does it mean? Disband the church and turn salt lake city into a ghost town? Is this being unknowingly proposed by people who criticize the LDS's political meddling? Am i taking this too literally and this is an artistic way of presenting a deterministic quandary?
quote:I'm just saying: once you win, then what?
If I 'win' this argument? I suppose if that's how you want to frame my participation's goal: even if it emotionally incenses people to see their church challenged with the same well-earned scrutiny that can be regularly applied to other fallible human institutions, all it means is that an effectively meaningless gimmick is seen as a gimmick rather than an indemnification.
If you liken this to Predictable Indignation, you should see me talk about organizations I actually hold contempt for, like the church of scientology. You'll see what my indignation actually looks like. I don't hate the mormon church. I even find it a fascinating study in autocratic religious systems of social control and intergenerational methods of indoctrination.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deerpark: I'd say that all the gay couples who want to get married have a much bigger stake in this than all the Mormons who want to control their lives even though (or perhaps precisely because) they will never meet.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, this isn't because you've been confronted with the lie you've been telling yourself over this issue for two years. Now you're gonna take your ball and go home. Lame dude, really really lame.
Feel better? You're a smart dude, and this is obviously not an attempt at an actual conversation, which trims down the list of motives to 'makes me feel good about myself' and...well, that's it really.
At least you've somewhat backed off the false dichotomy nonsense, though. Very rational of you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Scott R: From an outside perspective, your argument looks like willful ignorance and blanket denial. Not much of an argument either.
Well, for one thing, I wasn't arguing anything. I asked for proof; Samprimary provided snark, and then stated how proud he was to have provided that snark.
Snark != a good argument. It might be clever; but it seems to me that he is not so interested in having a discussion as in scoring points.
Paul Goldner provided links to support his position on the finances of supporting Prop 8; I provided links to support my position. Samprimary has not provided any proof to support the position I questioned.
:shrug:
I'm not required to make his argument for him. That's like a basic tenet of Hatrack.
quote:If you think my position is equivalent to saying no it isn't a hundred times, you are handwaving. If my point isn't accepted by an lds member, it is not because it does not make sense. Its because they want to deny it.
I'm absolutely positive that you are not qualified to comment on my intentions.
quote:You support the church financially. The church uses its resources and or the ones you give it to pay for political adds. Whether your actual dollar went into the account of the add agency or not, you are paying for those adds to be made. You are paying the salary of the secretary who takes the call from the ad man, or you are paying for the car of the elder who drives to the meeting, or you're buying them lunch, or helping fix their air conditioning. You are paying them. They are doing things. You are supporting it. Nothing can possibly change that, no accounting practice can make it not so- other than all the tithing money being lit on fire as soon as it is received.
Yep. I support the Church financially. I imagine an argument could be made that tithing money was used to make the broadcast to members in CA; and that tithing money was used to buy the paper that the official letter was sent out on.
So you're not wrong...is that the granularity you were shooting for, though? To be honest, I was focusing on direct support to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So you're not wrong...is that the granularity you were shooting for, though?"
Tithing money is part of the overall wealth of the church (as far as I can tell, its about 85-90% of the church's income). Any money spent by the church on an advertising campaign is available to be spent because of the tithing money that the church takes in. If the church lost 90% of its income, it would not have the resources available to spend money on an advertising campaign without shutting down church infrastructure. And, of course, the infrastructure that the church has was built upon the backs of tithing monies, so if the church uses its infrastructure to promote an advertising campaign, it is using tithing money to support that ad campaign.
The statement "No tithing money was used to fund prop 8," might be true to the extent that the dollar bills the church collected from its members were not the same dollar bills that were used to buy TV ad time. But, the argument being put forth is that this is a meaningless statement. The dollar bills might not be the same ones, but those dollar bills are only available because of tithing, and moreso, tithing dollar bills being used to fund the means to purchase those TV minutes.
" To be honest, I was focusing on direct support to the Yes on 8 campaign. "
No one on my side of this argument ever said anything that should have been construed as focusing solely on this.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any money spent by the church on an advertising campaign is available to be spent because of the tithing money that the church takes in.
Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?" How about the letter?
quote:The dollar bills might not be the same ones, but those dollar bills are only available because of tithing, and moreso, tithing dollar bills being used to fund the means to purchase those TV minutes.
I don't think so. The offerings collected (assuming that were collected using the tithing slip, and sent from the LDS wards to the Yes on 8 campaign) were in addition to tithing.
At least, that's my understanding. That was part of my point in explaining what tithing is, separate from what offerings are. Like I said above, there is one source that maintains that money was collected this way. There are plenty of other sources (see the link I provided earlier) that point to Mormons who made contributions to the Yes On 8 campaign without going through the Church. (A $1 million dollar donation from the co-founder of WordPerfect, for example.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You have not been discussing in good faith, that's what I'm not dealing with right now. Even KOM didn't feel the need to constantly rail and insult me when we discussed religion.
Right, blame me. Buddy, you're the one who isn't discussing in good faith. You come up against a certain set of lies you can't float over our heads to distract is from the truth, and when those get pointed out, it's *our* fault. I reserve the right to be disgusted by that attitude.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yep. I support the Church financially. I imagine an argument could be made that tithing money was used to make the broadcast to members in CA; and that tithing money was used to buy the paper that the official letter was sent out on.
So you're not wrong...is that the granularity you were shooting for, though? To be honest, I was focusing on direct support to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Scott, that isn't particularly granular. Even if you are completely sanguine about the idea that the church separates these two cash flows to a ridiculous extreme, which is highly doubtful, you still financially support the church. Perhaps there is more granularity in the idea of supporting the church by doing business with it, but you are *giving it money*. Gratis. There is not much granularity in that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Scott R: From an outside perspective, your argument looks like willful ignorance and blanket denial. Not much of an argument either.
Well, for one thing, I wasn't arguing anything. I asked for proof; Samprimary provided snark, and then stated how proud he was to have provided that snark.
Snark != a good argument. It might be clever; but it seems to me that he is not so interested in having a discussion as in scoring points.
quote:for more consult official LDS website which talks about how today's commercial enterprises which are explicitly used to further the church's 'mission' were an outgrowth of businesses the church started when it was isolated in the west and started opening its own newspapers and crap] [for additional resources consult websites critical of the church analyzing collected data on outgrowth of the chrch's financial holdings and real estate purchases over the years both before and after the 1959 hiding of the church's financial records which are disallowed from being posted here]
It was an answer to your question. If you thought it was insufficient or you had different standards for what you weren't going to *shrug* away because you didn't consider it proof enough for you, you should have said so instead of handwaving it away as snark.
Right now I appear more interested in providing an argument, and you appear more interested in concluding dismissively that nobody else is interested in providing an argument. Don't you realize that makes you seem, between the two of us, the one more interested in scoring points?
Anyway, PG seems to have you on the rest of it, so.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?"
I don't think that's the advertising Samp is thinking about -- but, that said, wouldn't you?
I was thinking about what now?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, blame me. Buddy, you're the one who isn't discussing in good faith. You come up against a certain set of lies you can't float over our heads to distract is from the truth, and when those get pointed out, it's *our* fault. I reserve the right to be disgusted by that attitude.
Lookit how virtuous and truth-loving you are!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole argument reminds me of the Va State Lottery debate many years ago. The pitch was that the state needed more money for the school system. Being a fairly conservative state, no one wanted to pay more taxes to get that money. So they started the lottery and ALL the money goes to education. Problem solved right?
Well no, actually not. Yes, all the lottery money goes to the schools but all the funding that had previously gone to the schools gets diverted elsewhere. The end result, the government has more money but the schools are still broke. Their budget hardly changed at all. How is that any different from a lottery where all the proceeds go to the general fund with no change in school funding? Would anyone have voted for that? I doubt it.
One of the only things I liked about our last Governor is that he at least openly admitted these facts in a radio interview a year or so ago.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You have not been discussing in good faith, that's what I'm not dealing with right now. Even KOM didn't feel the need to constantly rail and insult me when we discussed religion.
Right, blame me. Buddy, you're the one who isn't discussing in good faith. You come up against a certain set of lies you can't float over our heads to distract is from the truth, and when those get pointed out, it's *our* fault. I reserve the right to be disgusted by that attitude.
Why don't you listen to yourself Orincoro? You could try the approach, "I'm sorry you're getting that vibe from me, it's not what I'm selling. I'd like to keep discussing this with you. I really think you're making some big mistakes."
But no, instead I'm not only lying, I'm actively attempting to deceive, and I just can't handle having my sins laid bare. For an atheist, you argue remarkably similar to evangelicals I've talked to, i.e I'm blinded by sin, and you aren't going to apologize for simply stating the truth.
posted
There's a reason he sounds like evangelicals you've talked to: he is one. Around here when religion comes up, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?"
I don't think that's the advertising Samp is thinking about -- but, that said, wouldn't you?
No, I really wouldn't. Why would you?
It was Paul Goldner who stated that, BTW.
quote:it was an answer to your question. If you thought it was insufficient or you had different standards for what you weren't going to *shrug* away because you didn't consider it proof enough for you, you should have said so instead of handwaving it away as snark.
I did:
quote:Paul Goldner provided links to support his position on the finances of supporting Prop 8; I provided links to support my position. Samprimary has not provided any proof to support the position I questioned.
:shrug:
I'm not required to make his argument for him. That's like a basic tenet of Hatrack.
So there are the standards. I'm sorry, I thought that was pretty well established here on Hatrack.
quote:Even if you are completely sanguine about the idea that the church separates these two cash flows to a ridiculous extreme, which is highly doubtful, you still financially support the church. Perhaps there is more granularity in the idea of supporting the church by doing business with it, but you are *giving it money*. Gratis. There is not much granularity in that.
I'm not sure what your point has to do what we're talking about, Orincoro.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is, I don't see what my supporting the church has to do with the level of granularity at which we're considering the use of tithing in the support of Prop 8.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your tithing dollars make the church's support of proposition 8 possible. Whether the dollar bills you give to the church are the dollar bills that are given to the TV station to purchase air time, or not, your dollar bills either free up dollar bills to purchase air time, or to pay for the phone line that is used to purchase the air time, or used to maintain the church from which the call is made to parishoners to work to pass prop 8. Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not helping any of this is even when you ignore how you can launder the financial support through the church's various holdings to make the church's statement true, the church hides its financial records even from its own members. They would be unwilling to demonstrate that tithing cash was somehow completely unrelated to the prop 8 financing.
So, yeah.
But it would be interesting just to see the guts of the LDS's financial scheme. they're big on multibillion dollar shopping malls and real estate right now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Now you're getting onto much shakier ground, though, because this kind of reasoning applies to a great deal of spending that all sorts of Americans engage in every day in great amounts without being condemned. For instance, some of the stuff I buy from Wal-Mart is made in the USA. (Much more isn't, of course). But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott is trying to say that none of his tithing dollars went to funding proposition 8. This is a false statement. Degrees of moral liability, as far as I can tell, haven't been a part of the discussion. As well, inconsistencies between what other people might argue in a different discussion, and what I am arguing in this thread, are not relevant to what I'm saying here.
However, if you shop at wal-mart, you are morally liable for practices that wal-mart engages in.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Now you're getting onto much shakier ground, though, because this kind of reasoning applies to a great deal of spending that all sorts of Americans engage in every day in great amounts without being condemned. For instance, some of the stuff I buy from Wal-Mart is made in the USA. (Much more isn't, of course). But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
Me, I would leave the labor practices abroad out of it and simply say that you are supporting Wal-Mart's business practices. If you are ok with that, great. If you are not, look into a new store.
Same thing with the church. If you believe in and support the same things they do (for the most part anyway) then keep giving to them. If you don't, time to find a new church.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott is trying to say that none of his tithing dollars went to funding proposition 8. This is a false statement. Degrees of moral liability, as far as I can tell, haven't been a part of the discussion. As well, inconsistencies between what other people might argue in a different discussion, and what I am arguing in this thread, are not relevant to what I'm saying here.
I don't see where you've conclusively demonstrated that none of his tithing dollars went to Prop 8, Paul. In fact the arguments you're making - that tithing dollars 'make possible' financial support for Prop 8 - seems pretty similar to a question of moral liability to me. Supporting someone who supports something objectionable is not necessarily the same thing as supporting it directly yourself. How much it is or isn't seems a pretty moral question.
And the inconsistency seems pretty darned relevant to me, since the discussion is all about how objectionable it is to support something wrong with money. Looking at supporting other things that are wrong with money...how is that not relevant?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I asked for proof; Samprimary provided snark, and then stated how proud he was to have provided that snark.
