NOM

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:55 pm**

I was thinking if there is anything that can save the church. Given the corner the leaders have backed into seems unlikely that anything can rescue the church. If the leaders come clean as many advocate, would that not just destroy the church? Who is going to pay tithing when they know it was a hoax? What would bind the members together without the truth claims?

It does not seem as of late the leaders put policies in place to appeal to a larger group of people, more like playing to the core audience. But even the core is getting disillusioned to some degree and that will probably just increase over time.

If they do some half measures like the BofM is fiction but we are still inspired that opens a can of worms. They would have to disavow years of claiming the opposite, and would most likely be the crack in the dam.

I can not think of a scenario that works the church out of its tight corner and allows it to stay vibrant and intact.

I am not wishing the demise of the church but what is the alternative long term other than to become a much smaller church based on real estate holdings.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:12 pm**

Ya know that couplet

What is good about the church is not unique
What is unique about the church is not good

I think the church could start there.

There are a lot of people who believe in God.

There are people who want community and to be involved in something bigger than themselves.

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are very good.

Many of Paul's teachings are worth keeping.

If Jesus is the Savior of the world, then I think it's perfectly plausible that Savior would visit sheep of another fold. The Native Americans who greeted Columbus did mistake him for Quetzlcoatl (sp?). I just don't like the BofM's version of events.

There are some things that are unique about Mormonism that have a good basis, if they could be revamped that would be s good thing.

Heavenly Mother: get rid of polygamy. Just disavow it. There is one Heavenly Mother and bring her out into the sunshine where she belongs.

Emphasis on family: good foundation, but shouldn't be the only thing about a person. Some people just won't have families. Some people just won't have good Mormon families. Teach about being a good individual. Open up the possibility of found families.

Visiting teaching/Home teaching-revamp and overhaul. No spying. No prying questions. No lesson required. This is about service. If the sister wants you to watch the kids while she takes a nap, that's VT. That could be the modus operandi for several years of motherhood.

Anyway, there's a saying in business "grow or die". This implies to me, the leadership taking the pulse of the members, finding what they need and providing it.

It wouldn't be the same organization, by a long shot. I'm not sure "church" would be an accurate descriptor. Spiritual community would be closer.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:56 pm**

If we look at the RLDS, Community of Christ and offshoot polygamist groups as a model, they just keep splitting with a lot of infighting and getting smaller and smaller.

I think once you lose the "priesthood leadership unity model" that has evolved, it would be very interesting to see if there were some schism and power struggles once the church faces up to the truth.

There would be a portion who would continue to believe in the Joseph Smith fiction no matter what is declared from the conference pulpit. They would live in denial because facing the truth is just too painful.

There would be disagreement about what to do with all of the holdings and wealth. Then come the law suits. The appeals for members to follow different factions. Not much different than what occurred after Nauvoo.

It would be great if they could just become a good Christ centered community. Save the good stuff, jettison the bad stuff. Would their egos, unrestrained by "priesthood" and deference to leadership culture allow them to do it?

Not too sure about that....

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:09 am**

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:55 pm I can not think of a scenario that works the church out of its tight corner and allows it to stay vibrant and intact.

DW and I had a conversation about this recently. I think if they go really really slow. Think about the Catholic church, their history has some big black eyes to say the least, and yet they are still around.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:43 am**

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:09 am
1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:55 pm I can not think of a scenario that works the church out of its tight corner and allows it to stay vibrant and intact.
DW and I had a conversation about this recently. I think if they go really really slow. Think about the Catholic church, their history has some big black eyes to say the least, and yet they are still around.

I agree. I think that is the best model for the church. The COC path is admirable, but it will not ensure future survival. I am not Catholic obviously, so I cant say for sure but it seems like they have kept the Pope infallibility thing and the belief that God actually leads the church, but they have kept it with a *wink wink. Everyone knows that the Pope is just a guy. Everyone knows that the church is just a big institution. I feel like we are slowly marching towards the *wink wink* model. I mean those guys are already saying things like, "We cant tell you how to repent *ha ha ha ha*"

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:39 am**

OK, let's face it. We're not really talking about the survival of a "church" here. We're talking about the survival of a billion-dollar corporation that has a "church" (religious community) as a division that more than likely provides the corporation with it's largest form of income.

There is some anecdotal evidence that the corporation is in the process of attempting to increase income via their commercial holdings. That may mean that the income from the religious community division is falling, or it may not. Very few people know what's actually going on financially, and I doubt schlubs like us will ever know.

I don't think the corporation is going to die any time soon. They've made some pretty major changes in the past and survived, so they might be able to do the same again. I guess it will be interesting to watch.

I keep a tiny seed of hope in my heart that there's something going on in the corporation akin to Enron, and the entire thing will burn to the ground quickly, but I doubt it, maybe I should doubt that doubt? Whoever they've got running the financial side of things seems to be doing a pretty decent job. The 15 old white guys on the board of directors are either letting those advisers run all the finances, or they're a lot better at finances than they are at being hip in front of a camera.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm**

wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:39 amthey're a lot better at finances than they are at being hip in front of a camera.

Dang the video got taken down by "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." Is that the church's bully division?

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:26 am**

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm
wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:39 amthey're a lot better at finances than they are at being hip in front of a camera.
Dang the video got taken down by "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." Is that the church's bully division?

It's the holding corporation for the Church's intellectual property. So... yes, for some things. Every company that wants to control their creative works has to do the same thing. The difference is that most do it to maintain the value of their creative works, while the Church does it to maintain facades and secrets (like Handbook 1).

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:55 am**

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm
wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:39 amthey're a lot better at finances than they are at being hip in front of a camera.
Dang the video got taken down by "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." Is that the church's bully division?

I guess you have to go directly to the source...

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/face-to- ... d?lang=eng

If they actually leave that up...

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:56 am**

I want to chime in on this thread a little. I remember reading Lyndon Lamborn's book and learning about some of the psychology involved in cults. I also have listened to Bill Reel's podcasts on cognitive dissonance, particularly the one on the "Backfire Effect". From those two sources, it appears it doesn't matter WHAT the church does, no matter how hideous; there will always be a segment of membership that will remain and will double down, re-entrench, and remain the "loyal".

From what I can see, the church has isolated and protected its financial assets to such an extreme, very little if anything will dislodge it. Historically the church has lied, and so I don't consider the church above fraud or perjury now. It makes sense, for example, that if a lawsuit came up in the United States (like it did in the UK), perhaps a class action suit requiring the church to return some of its assets stolen from its members via tithing, that the church would be quite able to hide away its assets through whatever means necessary to live through such a suit.

I think the church will be around for the foreseeable future. I don't think it matters about the church 'being saved"; the corporate arm is the one that is being watched, IMHO, by the leadership. The other aspects of the church, like the ministry, are secondary.

Isn't that sad? I actually see the ministry of the LDS church as being a secondary objective of the CHURCH!

WOW

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:04 pm**

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm Dang the video got taken down by "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." Is that the church's bully division?

"Intellectual Reserve, Inc." is the legal, corporate entity that holds all intellectual property of the LDS church. They would hold the copyright to the Book of Mormon if that were still possible. They absolutely do hold the database has your membership ID as the electronic record of your ordinances and activity in the LDS church. They definitely hold all lesson manuals, books, movies, and music they produce.

When you say you are a "member" of a The Church, you are not a member of a legally recognized entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This formal name of the church is not an organization. It is a protected and regiseterd trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve. In turn, Intellectual Reserve is owned by the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is the legally recognized entity that holds title to all church real estate including temples and churches.

Most modern churches are tax exempt 501c3 organizations. The Corp of the President of JCoLDS is an older structure called a "corporation sole" that is also used by Catholic diocese. It retains the same tax exemptions but has more financial privacy. No, you cannot easily start your own since you did not have a team of lawyers back in the 1920s.

The "Sole" part of Corporation Sole means that only one person is the sole owner of all assets. Currently that is Thomas Spencer Monson and the succession plan is currently arranged for the next fourteen apostles to take their place in order of seniority after the death of corporate sole member.

This is a long winded and overly detailed way of showing from a legal standpoint, the LDS church already saved itself for the long future. They also have bullet proof finances to help in the money department. They only thing they don't necessarily need is you.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:09 pm**

My head just exploded.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:25 pm**

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:04 pm
slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm Dang the video got taken down by "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." Is that the church's bully division?
"Intellectual Reserve, Inc." is the legal, corporate entity that holds all intellectual property of the LDS church. They would hold the copyright to the Book of Mormon if that were still possible. They absolutely do hold the database has your membership ID as the electronic record of your ordinances and activity in the LDS church. They definitely hold all lesson manuals, books, movies, and music they produce.

When you say you are a "member" of a The Church, you are not a member of a legally recognized entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This formal name of the church is not an organization. It is a protected and regiseterd trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve. In turn, Intellectual Reserve is owned by the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is the legally recognized entity that holds title to all church real estate including temples and churches.

Most modern churches are tax exempt 501c3 organizations. The Corp of the President of JCoLDS is an older structure called a "corporation sole" that is also used by Catholic diocese. It retains the same tax exemptions but has more financial privacy. No, you cannot easily start your own since you did not have a team of lawyers back in the 1920s.

The "Sole" part of Corporation Sole means that only one person is the sole owner of all assets. Currently that is Thomas Spencer Monson and the succession plan is currently arranged for the next fourteen apostles to take their place in order of seniority after the death of corporate sole member.

This is a long winded and overly detailed way of showing from a legal standpoint, the LDS church already saved itself for the long future. They also have bullet proof finances to help in the money department. They only thing they don't necessarily need is you.

So Corsair, how do we characterize our "membership" in the "church"? Are we in actuality just participants?

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:50 pm**

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:25 pm
Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:04 pm
slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm Dang the video got taken down by "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." Is that the church's bully division?
"Intellectual Reserve, Inc." is the legal, corporate entity that holds all intellectual property of the LDS church. They would hold the copyright to the Book of Mormon if that were still possible. They absolutely do hold the database has your membership ID as the electronic record of your ordinances and activity in the LDS church. They definitely hold all lesson manuals, books, movies, and music they produce.

When you say you are a "member" of a The Church, you are not a member of a legally recognized entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This formal name of the church is not an organization. It is a protected and regiseterd trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve. In turn, Intellectual Reserve is owned by the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is the legally recognized entity that holds title to all church real estate including temples and churches.

Most modern churches are tax exempt 501c3 organizations. The Corp of the President of JCoLDS is an older structure called a "corporation sole" that is also used by Catholic diocese. It retains the same tax exemptions but has more financial privacy. No, you cannot easily start your own since you did not have a team of lawyers back in the 1920s.

The "Sole" part of Corporation Sole means that only one person is the sole owner of all assets. Currently that is Thomas Spencer Monson and the succession plan is currently arranged for the next fourteen apostles to take their place in order of seniority after the death of corporate sole member.

This is a long winded and overly detailed way of showing from a legal standpoint, the LDS church already saved itself for the long future. They also have bullet proof finances to help in the money department. They only thing they don't necessarily need is you.

So Corsair, how do we characterize our "membership" in the "church"? Are we in actuality just participants?

As Daymon Smith discusses in Mammon, we are the "product" of the corporation.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:51 pm**

Talk about brand loyalty.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:54 pm**

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:25 pm
Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:04 pm "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." is the legal, corporate entity that holds all intellectual property of the LDS church. They would hold the copyright to the Book of Mormon if that were still possible. They absolutely do hold the database has your membership ID as the electronic record of your ordinances and activity in the LDS church. They definitely hold all lesson manuals, books, movies, and music they produce.

When you say you are a "member" of a The Church, you are not a member of a legally recognized entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This formal name of the church is not an organization. It is a protected and regiseterd trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve. In turn, Intellectual Reserve is owned by the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is the legally recognized entity that holds title to all church real estate including temples and churches.

Most modern churches are tax exempt 501c3 organizations. The Corp of the President of JCoLDS is an older structure called a "corporation sole" that is also used by Catholic diocese. It retains the same tax exemptions but has more financial privacy. No, you cannot easily start your own since you did not have a team of lawyers back in the 1920s.

The "Sole" part of Corporation Sole means that only one person is the sole owner of all assets. Currently that is Thomas Spencer Monson and the succession plan is currently arranged for the next fourteen apostles to take their place in order of seniority after the death of corporate sole member.

This is a long winded and overly detailed way of showing from a legal standpoint, the LDS church already saved itself for the long future. They also have bullet proof finances to help in the money department. They only thing they don't necessarily need is you.
So Corsair, how do we characterize our "membership" in the "church"? Are we in actuality just participants?

"Legally" "membership" consists of this:

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:04 pmThey absolutely do hold the database has your membership ID as the electronic record of your ordinances and activity in the LDS church.

Seriously. That's it. That and nothing more. As "the church" does not exist legally as a "church" there's no way to be a member. As far as "membership" in The Corporation that owns the trademark: Nope. Members are not part owners of the Corporate Sole.

Who "owns" the database? Intellectual Reserve? The Corporation of The President? The Corporation of The Presiding Bishop? Some other corporate entity regular old "members" don't even know about? Regular old "members" will never know.

Even if one resigns their "membership", The Corporation still keeps that record. It's either flagged as "resigned", or moved to a different database but rest assured, The Corporation will retain that information for eternity.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:21 pm**

Give It Time wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:12 pm Ya know that couplet

What is good about the church is not unique
What is unique about the church is not good

I think the church could start there.

If we were to approach the unique LDS canon as a Sacred Fictitious History it might help. That and viewing all we perceive through the lens of love.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:36 pm**

I get it that the corporation will stay solvent for some time. I was just wondering if the religion could find its way to be more truthful and survive. That’s seems much harder then becoming a real estate mogul.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:27 pm**

If the church confessed it's sins and accepted Jesus as its personal saviour it could be saved. Until then it will continue on its merry way to Hell.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:40 pm**

Maybe the more important question is: "Does the church WANT to be saved?"

It doesn't matter what the everyday people do, if in the end, the leadership is instant on following their current path, then there is nothing that can be done. It will be a long slow slide in to obscurity and public derision, but that is the course they are on at the moment.

NOM

Can the church be saved?

Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?

Re: Can the church be saved?