Details of cannabinoid companies the LDS Church is invested in
- Thread starter Engorged On Unborn Gore
- Start date
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Wish I knew how to invest my money like the mormon church.
I'd have lots of monies.
TIL the mormon church has invested in WWE.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
This is a truly stupid article. The guy who wrote it must be smoking dope. The LDS church is very wealthy and has a massive portfolio. Does anyone really believe that they couldn't reposition their money to take advantage of virtually any circumstance they want? I'm stunned that there are people who can convince themselves that the reason they object to legalized marajuana is the effect it might have on their portfolio.
Why buy a new cows if this one is still producing tons and tons of milk? Your argument is dumber than you imagine the first to be. I totally agree that the reason to keep it illegal is not likely money. Certainly could be a factor, and needs to be considered.
In my opinion, It's less about the money and more about the old-boyisms. It's a bunch of old white guys that never had a chance to truly branch out on their own and think for themselves, due to a religion taking their youth(between a mission and repopulating ASAP). They've been given an opinion from their predecessors, and never had a chance to truly challenge it before they had to get 'responsible', and fall in line.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Easy. Get 16,000,000 people to donate ten percent to you. If Kenneth Copeland can do it so can you.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
You and I have different definitions on what easy means.
Engorged On Unborn Gore
Well-Known Member
Sure, the Institution could just re-invest that money. But the fact that they are currently invested in those companies and pushing voters to kill Prop 2 looks like cold-*** commerce.
I have no doubt that their real motive is to stop recreational use. But the fact that they will profit off of its continued illegality in Utah should be known.
I have no doubt that their real motive is to stop recreational use. But the fact that they will profit off of its continued illegality in Utah should be known.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight: You believe the LDS church is against this because it has a monied interest in keeping, what, up to maybe 20,000 or 30,000 additional people in Utah from using medical marijuana because it will adversely affect a portion of the business of a portion of the businesses in their $32 billion dollar portfolio?
Definitely onto something here. Quick, somebody call Mueller.
good show kiddies.
Sixteen Million Mos ain't 16M tithepayers. But it is all about the fundamental beliefs of Mos and what to do that the tithepayers will support.
Mos do pay out of the Bishop's Office a lot of family support, and they even support deadbeats strung out on weed. How do I know? I get the rent checks when a tenant is in that neck of the woods. I've cleaned up more than my share of rentals left in shambles by irresponsible young families whose parents went on weed so much that I had to evict. I got to where I'd call the bishop and tell'm they're enablers of addicts. Not too sure if weed was all that was in use. Some say weed is a gateway drug. I've had paramedics going in to my places to save opioid overdose people too.
For kids educated on valueless pablum like modern statism, secular humanism, and godless Marxism, about all there is to life is feeling good, and too many don't have anything going for that but weed.
When there's a wildfire, you try to put up a line of control anywhere you can.
I'd give the LDS Church high marks for issuing an addendum to the Word of Wisdom that reaffirmed herbal uses of natural products in moderation but made temple worthiness or Priesthood worthiness subject to abstention standards, with a medical committee who would review medical use to qualify the faithful user with need for it. Requiring a statement from a Church-evaluated or selected doctor, not just some Dr. Joe running a fentanyl retail shop on the QT. Requiring a counselor doing reviews once a month.
Then I'd put it in the lesson manuals that guvmint has no moral or educational or societal expertise and that Mos should always vote down any form of guvmint indoctrination, propaganda, or laws on conduct, health, or speech. And rely on conscience as the most sacred human right.
The LDS Church stock portfolio is small in reference to real estate holdings and wholly-owned operations like welfare farms and ranches. I don't think stock investments in companies affected by medical marijuana are even a fly on the teat of the LDS cash cow.
Well, I know the sentiment of the leaders pretty good. Their conscientious concern is how to steer people into better lives more effectively. They hire folks to study policies and the effects of their teachings or values. They drop major "theological" lines when they realize it isn't working out very good, or there's a better way. So far, there are no reports done on the financial impacts of policies that override the human impacts.
The hard truth of Moism is the idea that humans should manage their conduct, and so sorry.... recreational drugs with any cognitive effects and any forms of addiction just don't fit. Not really.
Sixteen Million Mos ain't 16M tithepayers. But it is all about the fundamental beliefs of Mos and what to do that the tithepayers will support.
Mos do pay out of the Bishop's Office a lot of family support, and they even support deadbeats strung out on weed. How do I know? I get the rent checks when a tenant is in that neck of the woods. I've cleaned up more than my share of rentals left in shambles by irresponsible young families whose parents went on weed so much that I had to evict. I got to where I'd call the bishop and tell'm they're enablers of addicts. Not too sure if weed was all that was in use. Some say weed is a gateway drug. I've had paramedics going in to my places to save opioid overdose people too.
For kids educated on valueless pablum like modern statism, secular humanism, and godless Marxism, about all there is to life is feeling good, and too many don't have anything going for that but weed.
When there's a wildfire, you try to put up a line of control anywhere you can.
I'd give the LDS Church high marks for issuing an addendum to the Word of Wisdom that reaffirmed herbal uses of natural products in moderation but made temple worthiness or Priesthood worthiness subject to abstention standards, with a medical committee who would review medical use to qualify the faithful user with need for it. Requiring a statement from a Church-evaluated or selected doctor, not just some Dr. Joe running a fentanyl retail shop on the QT. Requiring a counselor doing reviews once a month.
Then I'd put it in the lesson manuals that guvmint has no moral or educational or societal expertise and that Mos should always vote down any form of guvmint indoctrination, propaganda, or laws on conduct, health, or speech. And rely on conscience as the most sacred human right.
The LDS Church stock portfolio is small in reference to real estate holdings and wholly-owned operations like welfare farms and ranches. I don't think stock investments in companies affected by medical marijuana are even a fly on the teat of the LDS cash cow.
Well, I know the sentiment of the leaders pretty good. Their conscientious concern is how to steer people into better lives more effectively. They hire folks to study policies and the effects of their teachings or values. They drop major "theological" lines when they realize it isn't working out very good, or there's a better way. So far, there are no reports done on the financial impacts of policies that override the human impacts.
The hard truth of Moism is the idea that humans should manage their conduct, and so sorry.... recreational drugs with any cognitive effects and any forms of addiction just don't fit. Not really.
Last edited:
Not exactly a new record, but this is where your argument lost credibility.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You only think my argument is dumb because you disagree with me politically. In fact, you admit to agreeing with me completely only one sentence after you say that my argument is dumb. Duh.
No, I think your argument is dumb because you appear not to have any real argument for/against the subject(The churches push back on Prop 2). All you've provided is logic that attempts to innoculate against someone else's opinion.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I can only assume that you didn't read the article that you are arguing about.
Yeah... a guy that's staunchly against religious zealots using "God's authority" to sway politics, and has been for years, isn't going to read an article providing a view that turns a church's stance sideways. Said guy probably hasn't read any of the other articles, that date back quite some time. Shouldn't said guy be jumping on the chance to derail, and depreciate the church's influence by pointing at cold hard numbers?
You've been living under a rock if this is the first time you've seen the shady, albeit financially lucrative, investment companies the Church runs with.
Please allow me to point out that you may have missed the simple argument I offered in response to your question of does anyone believe they couldn't change investments. Let me apply it more specifically for you, in a way that perhaps illustrates why I believe your question to be flawed. Why would the church change their investments(which costs money), when they're doing nothing illegal, AND making money hand over fist? Of course they could, but those companies could blow up and release a Balrog from the planets core. But why would they? What's their incentive to change? There isn't one. Not until the people of the church call on them to support their stated values, which does not headline financial gain.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Someone posted an article that claimed the LDS Church's stance against legalized marijuana is all about the money because they have some cash invested in pharmaceuticals. I pointed out why I thought that logic was probably incorrect. Then you came in and called my argument dumb before "totally agree"ing with it. When I pointed out the inconsistency in your statement you went on a nonsensical rant assigning positions to me that I have not taken, and accusing me of living under a rock for taking the positions that you simply dreamed up for me. Logic is not your strong suit. G'bye.
Also incorrect. I pointed out how your argument that "the could" can't hold it's salt, and/or wouldn't make sense at the current time with the current data. I'm not sure how I "totally agree with you", as that would imply that I, too, would want to push argument and outlet that doesn't make sense, and I would like to waste everyone's time bringing it up.
I have plenty more entertaining ways to waste other people's time.
I have plenty more entertaining ways to waste other people's time.
Engorged On Unborn Gore
Well-Known Member
No, their securities do make them hypocritical on this issue. It’s part of the equation.
Their history of controlling the alcohol market through legislation is far more prescient of what they are likely after.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The one thing this exchange has proven to me is that it's silly to expect a gorilla to speak comprehensible English.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
In that case, boo hoo.