YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[Moksha]

It is a matter of what one believes what "Jesus said about such things". On that point I think we can agree.

Regards,
MG

Are you referring to that Jesus quote of "Blessed be the deceivers for they shall inherit the Land of Provo"? What if he never said that?

Three cheers for Alyssa Grenfell!

[drumdude]

She's such a lovely person, and someone who apologists like DCP simply cannot label away as a "rabid, mouth foaming, angry atheist."

I think it's clear the LDS church is losing their best people, and (on the whole) those with low IQ or low moral character are quickly becoming the majority left behind.

Wow. This may say more about you than it does those "low IQ" folks. In regards to "low moral character" that hasn't been my observation at all. Some of the most moral people on the planet are those that attend the LDS Church on Sunday.

Would Alyssa Grenfell be "such a lovely person" if she was still a member of the church? What's changed??

Regards,
MG

Those are just my observations as someone who was Mormon and has personally seen the best people in my ward leave one by one.

I imagine she was just as lovely when she believed silly things like that Jews traveled to the Americas in 600BC.

[malkie]

Two of the more interesting callouts from the survey:

First, only one of the religious groups has a net favorable view of Mormons, Catholics at a measly +2%. Yes the unaffiliated are much more prone to unfavorable responses but it isn't like Mormons are winning the hearts and minds of everyone else. As for why the unaffiliated have such strong feelings, my guess would be that politics has the biggest role in that.

Second (and maybe more importantly, or at least funnier in my opinion), Mormons are the only group who's favorability doesn't improve when a respondent knows a member of the religion. I know the authors in MG's link suggest bridge building as a key focus, but so far the data hasn't really backed up that assertion.

Interesting data point and observation. So to know, know, know him, is not to love, love, love him if he's a Mo.

What this tells me is that it very much depends on who it is you know who is a Mormon - it's not the fact of their belief, it's the kind of person they are.

Further, I find myself led to believe that Mormons are like the little girl:

---There was a little girl who had a little curl,
---Right in the middle of her forehead.
---When she was good she was very very good,
---But when she was bad she was horrid.

So, on balance, non-members seem to know, in roughly the same proportion, very very good Mormons, and horrid ones.

[malkie]

I don't think it will. The church, even though criticized for its mistakes recently, has a barrel of cash and will continue to invest wisely into the future. If I was a bettin' man I'd give the church at least a 90%+ chance of managing and growing their funds into the future.

And saving for a rainy day ain't such a bad idea.

...

[The Church's] behavior is consistent with a hedge fund that is accumulating wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth. It is also consistent with a dysfunctional organization that has no vision, plan, or courage to deploy its resources for any worthwhile purpose, so it hoards them by default. The latter is what’s really going on.

Ultimately the Church can do whatever it wants with its own money, but the laws should be changed so that its investment income is taxed like a hedge fund.

But the more relevant question is that if an individual rejects what Jesus said about such things and personally believes that extreme saving “for a rainy day” is really a virtue, they should save that money for themselves rather than giving it to the Church. Because unless you are already independently wealthy and your income only comes from investment sources, you are going to need money when you can no longer work. In contrast, the Church will always receive enough donations to do its work. People need savings for when they retire. The Church will never retire and doesn’t need to save very much for the future.

It's sometimes said that the Church is guarding its wealth to see humanity through some kind of catastrophe that only hundreds of billions of dollars can handle.

That makes me wonder, however: for any such imaginable catastrophe (perhaps I lack imagination) is it likely that the Church would be able to do anything with its vast wealth, tied up as it is in property and investments? Even liquid/near liquid investments may be worthless if, for example, a big asteroid were to precipitate an ice age.

I guess my question should be: what kinds of (likely worldwide) catastrophes requiring such vast amounts of wealth could actually be mitigated with the form(s) of wealth the Church has? Or any reasonable forms of wealth? I'm open to suggestions.

[I Have Questions]

People who need to believe in a supernatural thing to whom they are accountable, seem to lack the adult skill of taking responsibility for their own actions, and acting accordingly within the realm of being a good, considerate, moral person.

Common refrain. Regards, MG

Why do you post cheap little dismissive responses like that instead of responding properly? Is it your arrogance, rudeness, or something else? Do you think it shows Mormons in a good light? You could have provided a rebuttal, some examples of why I’m wrong. But you’re too damn lazy to do that aren’t you. You could have simply not responded at all to something you felt didn’t warrant a proper response. Or perhaps you’re incapable of that so you have to convince yourself you’ve waved it away. Pathetic.

[I Have Questions]

Interestingly, through “knowing” a Mormon on this board (MG 2.0) has anyone’s opinion of Mormons improved directly because of how MG 2.0 behaves and interacts?

Of course not. This would be a skewed sample.

Regards,
MG

So you acknowledge that you’ve improved nobody’s impression of Mormons throughout your long history of posting extensively on this forum and the previous one. And your introspection has concluded that’s everyone else’s fault…priceless.

[Analytics]

It's sometimes said that the Church is guarding its wealth to see humanity through some kind of catastrophe that only hundreds of billions of dollars can handle.

That makes me wonder, however: for any such imaginable catastrophe (perhaps I lack imagination) is it likely that the Church would be able to do anything with its vast wealth, tied up as it is in property and investments? Even liquid/near liquid investments may be worthless if, for example, a big asteroid were to precipitate an ice age.

I guess my question should be: what kinds of (likely worldwide) catastrophes requiring such vast amounts of wealth could actually be mitigated with the form(s) of wealth the Church has? Or any reasonable forms of wealth? I'm open to suggestions.

Risk management professionals would agree with your sentiments here, 100%.

The Church isn’t really saving up money for some sort of catastrophe. For example, say the only way a catastrophe could be avoided was by Goldman Sachs receiving a bailout, and the only institution in the world with enough assets to bail them out was the Church. Would the Church do that? Of course not. Even if that were the right thing to do, they wouldn’t have the courage and altruism to make that decision.

The truth is the world is already suffering catastrophes. Today is a rainy day.

[MG 2.0]

Common refrain. Regards, MG

Why do you post cheap little dismissive responses like that instead of responding properly? Is it your arrogance, rudeness, or something else? Do you think it shows Mormons in a good light? You could have provided a rebuttal, some examples of why I’m wrong. But you’re too damn lazy to do that aren’t you. You could have simply not responded at all to something you felt didn’t warrant a proper response. Or perhaps you’re incapable of that so you have to convince yourself you’ve waved it away. Pathetic.

I've heard this trope over and over again over the years. It deserves no response.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Of course not. This would be a skewed sample.

Regards,
MG

So you acknowledge that you’ve improved nobody’s impression of Mormons throughout your long history of posting extensively on this forum and the previous one. And your introspection has concluded that’s everyone else’s fault…priceless.

I didn't acknowledge anything except that the reporting system here on this board leans heavily in one direction.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Why do you post cheap little dismissive responses like that instead of responding properly? Is it your arrogance, rudeness, or something else? Do you think it shows Mormons in a good light? You could have provided a rebuttal, some examples of why I’m wrong. But you’re too damn lazy to do that aren’t you. You could have simply not responded at all to something you felt didn’t warrant a proper response. Or perhaps you’re incapable of that so you have to convince yourself you’ve waved it away. Pathetic.

I've heard this trope over and over again over the years. It deserves no response.

Regards,
MG

So shouldn’t you have typed TTOC? Or can’t you remain consistent on that either?