YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[MG 2.0]

The amount of people who leave has had little significant financial impact as of yet.

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.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

The amount of people who leave has had little significant financial impact as of yet.

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.

Regards,
MG

Almost every tenant of Christianity is contrary to the mass collection of wealth. Yet somehow members find a way to ignore all of those teachings in favor of whatever the church is doing at the time.

[Poly G Porter]

MG

I am thirsty.

May I stop by your place in Happy Valley and chug a Snapple iced tea from your secret stash in your garage????

[Dr. Shades]

Belief in the supernatural doesn't come very easily for many of us. The question is, what are you going to replace it with that takes you into the realm of existence after death and continued eternal progress?

It doesn't matter what you replace it with, because you have no control over it whatsoever. Or do you think that merely believing in something magically makes it come true?

[I Have Questions]

Belief in the supernatural doesn't come very easily for many of us.

That’s a big assertion. You’re stating that as a fact. What is your basis for making it? Because there seems to be evidence that you are absolutely wrong.

The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) attempts to answer such questions using interdisciplinary methods derived from neuroscience, anthropology, and experimental psychology. According to Justin Barrett, a foundational member in CSR, “the cultural phenomena typically labeled as ‘religion’ may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.”

This is an apt summary of the naturalness-of-religion thesis, which is the assumption that religion results from ordinary cognitive processes, rather than arising from rare or extraordinary cognition. In this view, belief in supernatural agents isn’t extraordinary, but a natural part of the human experience.

I look forward to you quoting your sources and reasoning for coming up with such a radical assertion (along with quotes from sources and links to those quoted sources). Or should people just go ahead and assume you’ve taken yet another dump of vacuousness on the board?

[Chap]

Unfortunately, my experience has been that the Mormon religion is not the only one in which the maintenance of belief ultimately demands unacceptable intellectual compromises.

[...] The question is, what are you going to replace it with that takes you into the realm of existence after death and continued eternal progress?

I'd be interested in what folks here think in that regard.

Regards,
MG

I am puzzled by the idea that a person ought to ask "what [can take me] into the realm of existence after death and continued eternal progress?"

Surely the vital question is "What is the case?" Is there any solid evidence for the claims of any particular brand of Abrahamic religion (of which Mormonism is only one amongst many) about what, if anything, might be the experiences of a human being after they have died? On the whole, I would say not. if there is in fact no "existence after death and continued eternal progress", then I don't see how a person can change that by - what? Trying very hard to believe that it is, contrary to evidence, the case?

[MG 2.0]

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.

Regards,
MG

Almost every tenant of Christianity is contrary to the mass collection of wealth. Yet somehow members find a way to ignore all of those teachings in favor of whatever the church is doing at the time.

The church would not be able to spread throughout the world in the way that it has, especially in the building of chapels and temples, without accumulating great wealth. And to have a backup for downturns in the world economy is just plain common sense.

As it is, the church's teachings encourage members to seek FIRST the Kingdom of God. THEN all else may be added to that first priority. Wealth is then used to clothe the needy and support the needs of others including our families. Sure, you can judge what some members might do with their wealth as being selfish and/ or for self aggrandizement. Humans are going to be humans.

Often I think critics spend a bit too much time judging members and the church for being successful in their temporal affairs. I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so but nonetheless, I don't see what the big deal is. We should, in my opinion, be happy for the success of others. At the same time, we might hope that those who are financially successful are also thinking of others beyond themselves and their own needs/wants. But that's their gig, not ours.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Belief in the supernatural doesn't come very easily for many of us.

That’s a big assertion. You’re stating that as a fact. What is your basis for making it? Because there seems to be evidence that you are absolutely wrong.

The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) attempts to answer such questions using interdisciplinary methods derived from neuroscience, anthropology, and experimental psychology. According to Justin Barrett, a foundational member in CSR, “the cultural phenomena typically labeled as ‘religion’ may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.”

This is an apt summary of the naturalness-of-religion thesis, which is the assumption that religion results from ordinary cognitive processes, rather than arising from rare or extraordinary cognition. In this view, belief in supernatural agents isn’t extraordinary, but a natural part of the human experience.

I look forward to you quoting your sources and reasoning for coming up with such a radical assertion (along with quotes from sources and links to those quoted sources). Or should people just go ahead and assume you’ve taken yet another dump of vacuousness on the board?

Yes, the natural tendency for humans is to seek that which is beyond themselves. What I'm saying is that in today's world with all the technology and material distractions people tend to put that natural 'drive' in the backseat in preference to seeking material pleasures and satisfaction. The gospel of Jesus Christ, fortunately, teaches us to put spirituality in the front seat of our consciousness and put the natural man in the backseat.

In my opinion if a person's spirituality is centered on following the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and putting the pleasures of the flesh in a place where they are being controlled and not being controlling, they are moving in a positive direction towards God. The natural man, however, is a powerful driver that can take one off course and even lead away from belief in a supernatural force/being to whom we are accountable for our actions and for our very being.

My opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[...] The question is, what are you going to replace it with that takes you into the realm of existence after death and continued eternal progress?

I'd be interested in what folks here think in that regard.

Regards,
MG

I am puzzled by the idea that a person ought to ask "what [can take me] into the realm of existence after death and continued eternal progress?"

Surely the vital question is "What is the case?" Is there any solid evidence for the claims of any particular brand of Abrahamic religion (of which Mormonism is only one amongst many) about what, if anything, might be the experiences of a human being after they have died? On the whole, I would say not. if there is in fact no "existence after death and continued eternal progress", then I don't see how a person can change that by - what? Trying very hard to believe that it is, contrary to evidence, the case?

I choose to believe that there is purpose and meaning to existence beyond that which we experience in the flesh. In doing so, I seek for what I believe to be the 'course of action' that will ultimately lead towards the greatest degree of happiness and progress.

Mormonism fits the bill. Your mileage my vary.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Almost every tenant of Christianity is contrary to the mass collection of wealth. Yet somehow members find a way to ignore all of those teachings in favor of whatever the church is doing at the time.

The church would not be able to spread throughout the world in the way that it has, especially in the building of chapels and temples, without accumulating great wealth.

Sure they would.

And to have a backup for downturns in the world economy is just plain common sense.

Because Jesus said to be sure to accumulate more money than you know what to do with.

As it is, the church's teachings encourage members to seek FIRST the Kingdom of God. THEN all else may be added to that first priority.

Talk is cheap. Behavior is more difficult. The Church is teaching by example. The way that the religion exalts the hoarding of money over contributing to charity speaks louder than anything they say.

Wealth is then used to clothe the needy and support the needs of others including our families.

Statistically speaking, no it's not. The wealth is largely used to generate even more wealth.

Sure, you can judge what some members might do with their wealth as being selfish and/ or for self aggrandizement. Humans are going to be humans.

I'm not judging 'some members.' I'm critiquing the covert policies an behemoth organization that I support through their government tax exempt status.

Often I think critics spend a bit too much time judging members and the church for being successful in their temporal affairs.

Sure you do. You would love it if no one said anything about your church's immoral and illegal behavior.

I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so but nonetheless, I don't see what the big deal is.

Which is your way of contributing to their immoral and illegal behavior. Bravo.

We should, in my opinion, be happy for the success of others.

Generally speaking, I am.

At the same time, we might hope that those who are financially successful are also thinking of others beyond themselves and their own needs/wants. But that's their gig, not ours.

Not so. It absolutely is our gig. We have a duty to call out evil and corruption whenever we see it--don't you think?