No more Mr. Nice Mormon? LDS scholars speak on reaction to Bloomberg story

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • SparkyVA Winchester, VA
    Aug. 29, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    @Skeptic I see you have bought into the idea that it is only by the grace of Government that you are allowed to keep anything that you make. Since all that the Church takes in reduces what the government takes in, government has the right to demand a full accounting. I think you have confused Government with God, or maybe Government is your god.

    The message of the articles by Bloomberg should be understood: Become a practicing Mormon and become rich. It is true! The best way to be poor is to not finish high school, do drugs to dull your mind, and to become a single mom or an irresponsible man who cares not for the women he impregnates. The best way to be rich is to finish school, learn good social skills while serving a mission, wait until marriage to have children, to not do drugs, and to be in a loving long lasting relationship. Some would say it is simple mathematical probability. Do the right things and your chance of success goes way up. We call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    Aug. 1, 2012 4:53 a.m.

    @ A voice of sincerely don't think that Mission Presidents don't "push" numbers? Seriously. It's what they do. Missions are not only a tool for membership. Which they are. But they're also the binding force that keeps young men in the Church for a lifetime. It's so odd that members don't understand the missionary concept of the Church as is obvious by the responses posted throughout this article.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2012 10:39 p.m.


    To clarify, by "objectively apparent" I wasn't trying to say "well duh!" but that to anyone who believes in the LDS Church, the cover isn't congruous with LDS beliefs on how revelation functions (for lack of a better word) and the sacredness of it. In this day and age, and with as much access to information as there is- to design such a letter means one thing, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.

    Wayne Rout,

    "It really is a no-win approach to respond to them, but perhaps it is something that has to be done."

    Well said! That's about how I view it. I see no benefit in any of us worrying too much about this. It's no-win anyway. For the church, I imagine addressing these things matters for other good reasons. As for me... I'll keep moving forward.


    If you went on a mission and everything was about numbers, then clearly the focus of the mission for anyone pushing numbers wasn't congruous with actual LDS teachings. I've yet to hear anyone push numbers at conference. Although, I do hear uplifting messages on occasion. ;)

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2012 10:13 p.m.


    Thank you! I always love reading comments like yours (whether directed to me or not).

    "All we need to do is listen to the prophet and prayerfully exercise our agency, immerse ourselves in the scriptures and continue to stand on solid ground in a world in a world of shifting values."

    Very well said!



    The cover portrayal of revelation is contrary in every way to how members of the LDS Church understand and practice revelation. Whether you or anyone agrees with the portrayal on the cover or not, it is objectively apparent that it was designed to patently offend the LDS paradigm of revelation and in doing so- criticize how prudent and fiscally responsible and such operations are.

    Moreover, the official LDS response more than adequately addressed the most fundamental problem with such a criticism. To suggest any form of wrong on the LDS Church for making money, spending it, or managing it- without even slightly examining the beliefs behind being prudent and what ultimate goal is in mind- is prejudicial. Unless Bloomberg spends its own money more effectively for the human cause, or can outline a better method- they have no grounds against the LDS Church.

  • Wayne Rout El Paso, TX
    July 31, 2012 3:30 p.m.

    The article in question was published in an effort to hurt Romney and help Obama. Almost the entire media and entertainment structure of this country is geared to be anti-family, anti-religion, and anti-conservative. Honesty and truthfulness are things of the past with respect to these organizations. Their agenda about life is all that matters to them. It really is a no-win approach to respond to them, but perhaps it is something that has to be done. I choose to not buy their publications, go to their movies, do anything to help them make money. Newspapers and magazines are loosing circulation in part because people realize that they are not reporting news but publishing propaganda.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 31, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    Skeptic; members of churches do pay taxes, and if the government can require a full disclosure of income for a church, then cannot they not control that church. is that not interfering with an establishment of religion? that brings up a lot of interesting things even you may not like to have happen.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    July 31, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    Sow the wind and reap the whirl wind.

  • ItrustNo1 La Grange, TN
    July 31, 2012 6:25 a.m.

    The good news is no one buys and/or reads "BusinessWeek" and everyone knows that Bloomberg is a die hard liberal who is publishing junk like this in an attempt to survive. Romney is who they really want, not the LDS Church. The bad news for Bloomberg and the rest of those who oppose Romney as President,is that they can't find any dirt on Romney that they can make stick, so they have to resort to going after the mans faith. I actually feel sorry for Bloomberg, and agree with "Say No to BO" above....."this incident says more about Bloomberg than it does about the LDS Church and its finances". I am a Jon Stuart fan so I hope he didn't get down in the dirt with Bloomberg.....That would be a waste....He has some talent.

  • The Stache Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2012 1:27 a.m.

    Mormons have a reputation for being the nice guys, who when getting kicked in the stomach smile and say "more please!" We should stand up and firmly call out outright lies and bigoted stereotypes. If we don't we will be painted by the words and conclusions of others. I thought the Church's response to the Business Week article was too soft, but then again, I'm not a public relations expert.

  • Ilovethejjs medford, MA
    July 30, 2012 1:58 p.m.

    @a voice of reason: I couldn't have said it better. "Fools mock but they shall mourn" Let those who do not know the deeper meaning of our doctrine mock, laugh and scorn. We can do what Nephi said, "...heed() them not" and press on in following the Savior. All we need to do is listen to the prophet and prayerfully exercise our agency, immerse ourselves in the scriptures and continue to stand on solid ground in a world in a world of shifting values.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 30, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    Would we really want to see the Mormon religion forever handled with kid gloves? Treated as something eccentric, quaint, and so fragile and delicate it might shatter if touched? What dignity is there as America’s religious freak show huddled away in its own protective little corner?

    Today’s media coverage of the Church is mild in contrast to the demonizing of the 1800s which saw Mormons driven from their homes and across a continent. Our Mormon forbears of that era knew the meaning of faith. They must be amazed at how indignant, huffy, and soft much of their posterity has become.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 30, 2012 1:07 p.m.


    Did you ever go on an LDS Mission?

    I did. We were required to report every single week the number of doors we knocked on, the number of people we stopped on the street, the number of "lessons" we gave, the number of referrals we got from members, the number of baptisms (ESPECIALLY THE NUMBER OF BAPTISMS), etc. We were pushed to "work harder". It was about numbers, numbers and more numbers. It was about conversions pure and simple.

    Looking back now, it was nothing more than a sales job, without any pay.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    July 30, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    The LDS church did nothing wrong by simply trying to set the record straight: the picture on the magaizine cover was offensive and demeaning and the Bloomberg article was highly misleading.

    Tens of thousands of Salt Lake Valley LDS members will leave the Church but the caravan will keep moving along just fine without them.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 30, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    Culture shock is the price of a protracted alienation. For decades, the Church insulated itself from an outside sphere of worldly ‘gentiles’ it regarded as hostile to the Kingdom of God restored to Earth. Now times are changing.

    Reminds me of the opening scene in Shane when Joey sees Shane riding in and alerts his father saying “someone’s coming, Pa!” Joey’s father responds with “let him come.”

  • Disco Vega MoTown, CA
    July 30, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    I hope the LDS Church comes out swingin' and sets the record straight when these attacks are perpetrated on the LDS Church, it’s people or even the Book of Mormon...personally, I'm sick and tired of all the Mormon bashing, whether it's in print or over the pulpit by others.

  • LordPillsbury Mcminnville, OR
    July 30, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    In the Old Testament, we learn of a man named Joseph, sold into slavery into Egypt. He eventually rose to power by interpreting the pharaohs dreams. This led to Egypt, the most powerful and wealthiest of nations to start a "rainy day fund", if you will, by storing 7 years of food and supplies to weather out a forthcoming drought, foreseen by a Prophet.

    Unlike any other government or even church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lives providently, just as it instructs it's adherers. Live within your means, stay out of debt, give to the Lord through tithes and offerings and save for a "rainy day", meaning a time when one can't provide.

    In the churches official response it said,"Today, the Church's business assets support the Church’s mission and principles by serving as a rainy day fund." In other words, the church is saving, putting aside the profits of it's business assets (after paying taxes) for future use in times of need.

    I thank Thee, Oh God, for a Prophet, to guide us in these latter days!

  • sue1951 MAY, TX
    July 30, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    Finally the Church says something. The folks at this magazine know better than to put garbage in there. that is one reason I dumped them a couple of years ago. I could write better. Yes, I could write better.If anyone wants to see financial report of the church can and do. And I love the Church. I know what I believe an dI know where the money goes. Could give a great many examples of non-memebers having their needs met.

  • Mark Webster WEST CHESTER, OH
    July 30, 2012 7:40 a.m.

    There is a common misconception that tax exempt somehow equals receiving tax money. You are not owed an accounting of what your tax money was used for - it wasn't your money. Churches are not out spending the money that you paid in taxes. They owe you nothing.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    July 29, 2012 4:33 p.m.

    First, I did not say laws are voted on by national ballot. I was posing a hypothetical. Please reread my post and you will see that I suggested people who would like more disclosure should contact our elected representatives.

    Second, I belong to a church (just returned home) and want disclosure. My guess is many churchgoers would also favor disclosure. In fact, I'll bet many of the people who have already indicated on this site that they would like disclosure belong to churches. They can speak for themselves, but your conclusion that people belonging to churches would not be in favor of disclosure is certainly wrong in my case and is not supportable.

    Finally, I stated in my post "there are no valid arguments for nondisclosure in the U.S.". Since you did not comment on or challenge that assertion, I suppose you agree. So I must ask, why you believe people belonging to churches would not be in favor of disclosure? What would be the (valid) reasons?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    July 29, 2012 11:46 a.m.

    @The Tax Man

    "It sounds like several posters (I count at least 8) on this site would like to see the (disclosure) laws changed, and I'll bet if it were on a national ballot over 50% would approve."

    Then all the churches could weigh in and since more people belong to churches than do not, they could also write their representatives in congress and express their views. I think those that want disclosure would be in the minority then. BTW I have never heard of laws being voted on by national ballot. I think that is the job of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    July 29, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    @ J-TX

    "Good luck with getting the laws changed, though. Who are you going to get on your side, I wonder?"

    It sounds like several posters (I count at least 8) on this site would like to see the (disclosure) laws changed, and I'll bet if it were on a national ballot over 50% would approve. In the UK, churches (including the LDS Church) are required to publish financial statements, so it's not unheard of. If you look at the LDS UK statements' you can see that the UK LDS Church brings in more than it spends, and sends the excess to the U.S. (where we cannot tell what happens to it).

    There are no valid arguments for nondisclosure in the U.S.; disclosure has worked fine in the U.K.. Those of us who would like more disclosure (from all charities) should contact our elected representatives and express our views.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    July 29, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    Skeptic; Your logic is flawed.

    However, if you wish to change the laws to have all churches give full financial disclosure, I would welcome that. I'd like to see how many $M the pastors make at these Megachurches in Dallas....whereas the LDS Church would have nothing to hide. Good luck with getting the laws changed, though. Who are you going to get on your side, I wonder?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 29, 2012 7:51 a.m.

    Cinci Man

    You state that you feel that if I am given a little bit of truth then I am just going to ask for more truth, Yes; you are correct, I do want more transparency and honesty from the LDS church so as to know the truth that I seek. I wish to know the truth through my own experience and knowledge and not be deceived. Is that so bad. I do see good things with the LDS church, but is it all true, if so why with hold the information needed to verify. The church is not god; it is a man made institution subject to inspection.

  • sisucas San Bernardino, CA
    July 29, 2012 1:55 a.m.

    I thought the cover was hilarious. Lighten up people. The article could have been more fair, but the cover cracked me up.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2012 1:36 a.m.

    J-tx, they don't seek to  convert people? Well, that's fine, whatever you want to call it. My point was not with the young men and women that go on missions for their church. It was with the apparent strong arm tactics bragged about by the previous poster. I would imagine the young missionaries are taught to politely disengage from awkward situations. 

    But they are out teaching, right? They give lessons. As such they should be ready to tackle some difficult questions. Right? But I would be surprised if they were ready to deal with someone that is knowledgable about early LDS church history and its many controversies.  It never ceases to amaze me that many intelligent Mormons are oblivious to most of the legitimate issues concerning Joseph Smith and the early LDS church. 

    300K a year for equipment cost? $25,000 each month? Really? Seems high, Say no.

    I don't know if churches should have to make public their finances. I would be curious though about the LDS churches finances. Of course, if they get involved in politics like the LDS church maybe they should have to. 

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    July 29, 2012 1:04 a.m.

    Hutterite said, "Another example of why I've abandoned organised religion." Sorry, Hutterite, but I haven't a clue as to what you mean by 'another example'. But, I am not curious enough, really, to ask (or care) why you've "abandoned organized religion". Let us know how unorganized religion works out for you.

    As I suppose, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NY, is the principal stock holder of 'Bloomberg Corporation" that owns "Business Week" now. I doubt he has any direct input regularly into what is editorialized by his media outlets. However, I would bet no major media outlet has done such a blatantly hateful hack job since against Mormonism since perhaps the early 20th century. I have to ask, is this the direction "society" is going, is with trash like the crass and totally distasteful edition cover picture they did?

    Since Michael Bloomberg is so big now on "nannyism", (no 32 oz soda drinks in NYC), you'd tjink he'd have someone keeping the infantile stuff going on at Business Week in regards to this 'story'. But, whatever they think will sell issues, they'll do. Perhaps he could learn that self control is better than other control.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    July 28, 2012 11:40 p.m.

    Well, if the church can afford to spend over $1 billion on a shopping, luxury condo complex they can't be doing too bad. They didn't spend that much on welfare/charitable work the past 2 (or the past 10 yrs), so the question becomes to what extent should a religious organization use for-profit enterprise for commercial purposes vs. charitable purposes?

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    July 28, 2012 10:56 p.m.

    How does the disclosure of all things financial make you satisfied? It is my opinion that if they did what you suggest, you would simply move your objections to another point. And I can say that with all confidence because you comment negatively on all aspects of the LDS church. If I'm wrong, please tell us all the good things you see about the Church, such as how many people are better people through membership or how families can often find a greater family relationship through living the precepts and following the prophets. Please tell us how you know of the lives that are enriched and blessed by membership. Now THAT would be news! One could say that you know a good thing when you see it and that you are willing to admit to some truth about the Church.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    July 28, 2012 10:18 p.m.

    Two points:
    1) Police and fire departments (paid for by taxpayers) guard churches. Churches use electricity and plumbing supported by infrastructure provided by taxpayers. Why should churches not pay their fair share for benefits provided by our taxes?
    2) The Church does not spend every cent it takes in through tithing every year. The excess is lent to Church-owned for-profit businesses at low interest rates. The low-interest rate loans enjoyed by Church-owned businesses give them a competitive advantage over businesses that must raise capital (at much higher interest rates) in normal capital markets. Why should church-owned businesses have this competitve advantage?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 28, 2012 9:41 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist2, Sorry but it is you that is not understanding the economics of business or taxes. If you read my post I did not refer to the church's for- profit business. When a non-profit church property is not having to pay taxes all the other properties that are taxed properties pay extra because the church property could be used as a taxable property. Nothing is for free.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 28, 2012 7:25 p.m.

    If LDS leaders were living extravagantly off of LDS investments while asking the people to donate money this article would have a very valid point. LDS top leadership who require it are given a modest living allowance which allows them to devote their full time to their calling.

    Given this the LDS church has nothing to be ashamed of in this regard.

    There are many t.v. and Mega churches where the ministers live very extravagantly on donations of their often lower middle class followers. It is these churches that need to have a finger pointed at them.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 28, 2012 6:21 p.m.

    Skeptic, I always marvel at people like you who obviously don't understand the tax system and how tax-exempt organizations like the LDS church operate.

    The church owns a number of businesses that hopefully each return a profit. Those businesses are like every other business that pays taxes. They have to report everything to the IRS just like everyone else.

    The church also has operations that fall under the tax-exempt umbrella. Those are things like church buildings, temples, and welfare farms. They don't generate any profits and are not taxed. They don't pay property taxes. The money that is donated to them by members is also not subject to taxation.

    Just because this money is not taxed, doesn't mean that the rest of us have to pay more taxes. When I give $10 of my hard earned (and taxed) money to the church or to The Red Cross the government does not get yet another percentage of it.

    Are you saying that the church should have to give the government a portion of every donation? If not, what is your beef?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 28, 2012 4:51 p.m.

    RE: Cinci Man,

    Thank you for your insighs, they support my position that all churches, (including LDS) should be tranparent in their finances and disclose all income and expeditures. If as you say, this will permit everyone interested to share your insights and learn how the LDS church uses its public tax exempt money, efficiently, honestly and for public good. Thx.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    July 28, 2012 4:03 p.m.

    I used to wonder about all that cash until I served as stake PFR. It takes a boatload of cash to keep up the buildings. Roofs, gym floors, HVAC, carpet, pews, pianos, organs, parking lots, copiers, projectors...
    From the ward's perspective it seems like they don't replace these things soon enough, but you should see the equipment costs each year for a 1962 building. $300K is not uncommon. Then there's the lights and the gas and the phone.
    And knowing the tithing receipts for our ward the members are getting a good deal.
    How many chapels did you say the church owns?
    Then there's the fleet of missionary cars.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    July 28, 2012 3:03 p.m.

    You are welcome to take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to read about the church's massive welfare system. Better still, take a tour of a canning facility or one of the other many welfare facilities all over the country and a few outside of the U.S. Listen to stories about the Bishop's Storehouse. Financial disclosure will never replace your best opportunity to learn for yourself. Once you have done that, you can volunteer your time in the same way that thousands of members do in work that your taxes do not have to pay for. If, after seeing what is done with your own two eyes, you are not convinced that it is beneficial to you, attend a few meetings where senior couple missionaries report on the incredible humanitarian service they perform so that you tax dollars are not required. And how then go back and read the BW article again and see if you thing they even scratched the surface near some truth and completeness. Then you will understand the outrage at such a joke of an attempt at journalism.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 28, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    I think Dr. Reeve is on to something. I've heard several people who work in LDS owned business express the concern that church members will overreact to the size of these enterprises and feel they no longer need to support the Church.

    As far as the cover art is concerned, I think a little investigation will reveal that this isn't the first time BW has created something in poor taste hoping to stir up some controversy. My guest is that all the protests will only encourage them to do more of it.

  • cpafred SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 28, 2012 2:27 p.m.

    @ A Voice

    "The publication misled people about the church, sacred events, and doctrine; it distorted reality."

    Oh really Voice? How so? The Church didn't dispute any of the facts in the article. Which specifics claims made in the article are you disputing and what is your evidence that they are wrong?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 28, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    All churches, including the LDS, should be required by law to give full financial disclosure. All citizens are made to supplement the churches finance by the church's non-profit status of not paying taxes so all citizens taxes are increased to cover what the churches don't pay. Therefore, all citizens should receive an accounting for what they are giving their tax money for. The same goes for governments. The federal government should be required to give an annual audited financial statement to the citizens the same as corporations do for their share holders.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    July 28, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    This incident says more about Bloomberg than it does the LDS Church and its finances. It tells me that they are more than willing to shill for the left than inform the business sector.
    Once you take tasteless (and unnecessary) swings at organized religion, you've lost journalistic integrity.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    July 28, 2012 11:18 a.m.


    Believe it or not, our missionaries are not sent out to "convert" people. They have a very narrow mission, to share the barest principles of the gospel of Christ with people who are prepared to receive manifestations of the Spirit. The Spirit does the converting. The missionaries are a resource, a conduit to find truth.

    When someone ambushes the missionaries and attacks them with obscure facts or deep doctrinal questions, that lands well outside the scope of their missions. Don't know how to handle it? Possibly. I learned much more about the Church in my 30's and 40's than I knew as a missionary.

    But the assignment of the missionaries is not to contend, nor to defend, but to preach, teach, exhort and expound, and invite all to come unto Christ. And that they do to a marvelous degree. That they do.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    Let the comedians laugh.

    The publication misled people about the church, sacred events, and doctrine; it distorted reality. Only someone who's already made up their mind will see attempts to redress libel as being hostile.

    President Monson spoke of a "metamorphosis of society’s morals" and an already "wide chasm" growing between society's morals and our own.

    Today, we are finding that larger numbers are finding it easier to ridicule the standards that we know to be true. Some distort reality, ridicule what is sacred, and mislead others about what path to follow. Whatever they say, whomever they convince, and however easy it is to get distracted by such publications and their aftermath- I figure we have more important things to do instead of dwelling on these things.

    For me, I figure the best thing to do is to just let them laugh and move forward. That chasm is getting bigger and the only place I want to be is where the rod is; I struggle enough with that as it is. We have enough work cut out for ourselves to deal with instead of worrying about the pride of those who laugh at the church.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 28, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    Good on the Church for refusing to be a passive punching bag.

    Of course, the Church is not the real target for the defamation, slurs and innuendo. The real target is Mitt Romney, and the liberals seek to destroy him by denigrating his religion.

    I am not LDS, but I am as offended and outraged as any member would be from this baseless and calculated disinformation campaign.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    July 28, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    The comparison between "The Book of Mormon" musical and a news article is telling. One is a parody, not meant to be taken seriously, the other is a allegedly professional NEWS article meant to be as truthful as possible. Church leaders and PR held Bloomberg to a higher level of accountability than they did a silly and childish stage production. I do not perceive a shift in practice or policy.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    "Let's just say that when we learned what was going on and older, far more experienced and knowledgeable members accompanied the elders to these "investigators", the pretenders received an experience they will never forget, nor shall they repeat this deceit."

    Good heavens! What did you do, Rock? It sure sounds like you older, more experianced and knowledgeable members strong armed them. It sounds like the mob. Do you mean it to sound that way? Or, heaven forbid, did you actually do that? I would have thought a responsible organization would have just told its people not to go back, or had the older members talk to these people with love and compassion and try to show them the Christ's love. But you guys intimidated them some way? And you brag about it?

    Even more so, your church sends out people to convert people, and your missionaries aren't ready for criticism about your religion, and don't know how to handle it?

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    July 28, 2012 6:32 a.m.

    The "Media" is only crossing the line because the "Church" responds as such.
    When neither of the parties are willing to tell the whole truth and are back peddling to save face it puts critics on the offensive and stalwarts on the defense. And nothing gets accomplished. The entire charade looks disingenuous.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    July 28, 2012 6:14 a.m.

    I was very pleased to see this response. While turning the other cheek is good advise, Christ didn't say what to do after they strike you more than twice. We have turned the other cheek until we are out of cheeks.

    There was a group of people pretending to be interested in joining the LDS church. They sought out the missionaries, acted interested in our faith and attempted to destroy the faith of our young full time missionaries.

    Let's just say that when we learned what was going on and older, far more experienced and knowledgeable members accompanied the elders to these "investigators", the pretenders received an experience they will never forget, nor shall they repeat this deceit.

  • DonO Draper, UT
    July 28, 2012 6:10 a.m.

    The article was incomplete but the cover was beyond offensive. Finances are fair game but the Church needs to respond strongly to blatant irreverence and disrespect.Had it not been for the cover I believe the "official" response would have been more measured.

  • DVD Taylorsville, 00
    July 28, 2012 3:02 a.m.

    When you get a verbal rebuke from the church that responded so calmly to "The Book of Mormon", the play, you ought to realize that any other organization so targeted by that kind of 'news piece' would probably have you in a court case?

    And as stated before in 'offending millions of Mormons', are we really back to the day when targeting segments of the population is now ok in newsprint? Who's next?

    And I was sad to read what the connection between the picture and the headline really was. My initial thought was 'Jon Stewart and Colbert" are now LDS scholars? Sweet!

  • cpafred SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 28, 2012 1:56 a.m.

    The Church's response to the Businessweek story was anything but strong. The word feckless comes to mind. No facts were disputed, no correcting information was provided and the thrust of the story (that the Church is very wealthy) was not rebutted.

    By responding that the article did not tell the whole story without further dispute or elaboration essentially confirms that the part of the story covered by the article is accurate.

  • SammyB Provo, UT
    July 27, 2012 11:37 p.m.

    The Church gave a measured response, not nasty or impatient. It is rare that the media crosses the line as drastically as Bloomberg. Sometimes a straightforward response is best.

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    July 27, 2012 10:55 p.m.

    As a member of the LDS church, I'm grateful and proud to be a part of a church that uses wisdom with it's investments, plans for future expenses (or emergencies), is not in debt to anyone, utilizes the talents of it's people, donates millions to humanitarian aid, takes care of it's own, teaches it's members to be provident in their living, expects it's member to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ to love one another and allows me my agency to participate or not. It's marvelous!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 27, 2012 10:54 p.m.

    Another example of why I've abandoned organised religion.

  • InspectorC Wasatch Front, UT
    July 27, 2012 9:02 p.m.

    RE: Claudio @ 7:33 pm---

    Read the caption under the photo, and read the opening few paragraphs of the article.

    RE-read both... until you "see" the connection!

    IOW: Comedian Jon Stewart (as depicted in the photo) coined the phrase "No more Mr. Nice Mormon".... Which TIES IN (as you wondered in your post) to the basic theme of THIS article, ala: the LDS Church took a much more "assertive" stance in responding to the Bloomberg cover art and schlocky article.

  • InspectorC Wasatch Front, UT
    July 27, 2012 9:01 p.m.

    RE: Claudio @ 7:33 pm---

    Read the caption under the photo, and read the opening few paragraphs of the article.

    RE-read both... until you "see" the connection!

    IOW: Comedian Jon Stewart (as depicted in the photo) coined the phrase "No more Mr. Nice Mormon".... Which TIES IN (as you wondered in your post) to the basic theme of THIS article, ala: the LDS Church took a much more "assertive" stance in responding to the Bloomberg cover art and schlocky article.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    July 27, 2012 7:33 p.m.

    Explain to me how this picture has any relation to the story?

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    July 27, 2012 6:35 p.m.

    I didn't see the Church's response as anything but educational; for people who don't know Church policy, and those who should know better. Not sure what this article is about, except for the self-absorbed attitude of people who live in "the bubble." British Prime Minister David Cameron was right, Utah is in "the middle of nowhere." Church headquarters may be important to those of us who are members, but a lot of people still don't know what a Mormon is. Instead of obsessing about what people are saying about "us," members would do better to focus on living the teachings of Jesus and thinking about others.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    July 27, 2012 2:44 p.m.

    this isn't the 1800s. fight fire with fire and let the chips fall where they may.