Did Ed Snowden do the right thing?

Nicholas Leippe nick at leippe.com
Tue Jun 11 00:08:35 MDT 2013


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Marsh <joshua at themarshians.com>wrote:

> The $50m/yr figure you are quoting is related to fast offerings. They are
> two funds that serve completely different purposes. If you lump them
> together, it looks bad, but so does thinking Romney would win off of a poll
> taken in Provo.
>
>
Are you suggesting that 100% of the $52 million/year in fast offering funds
are spent in the communities they originate from, and that 0% of the $7
billion/year in tithing collected is spent on the members (or anyone else)
in need at all?

That doesn't just look bad, it looks worse IMO.

[snip]


> You are using a lot of absolutes in this statement that I'm not convinced
> you can back up. Nonetheless, the same could be said about just about
> anyone with whom we look back upon with tinted glasses.


To some extent, yes, we will usually discover that any person highly
revered is not nearly as perfect as they are held out to be. But in some
cases we find that the persona glorified is so wildly different than the
actual person that they aren't even the same, and in fact are quite the
opposite in character.


> I've been reading
> about Abraham Lincoln and several of our founding fathers and many of the
> things I read blow my mind. I have to step back and look at it in the right
> frame of reference to make sense of it.
>
>
And what is the "right frame of reference" required to justify (or apply
cognitive dissonance) character flaws in revered men. Does the magnitude of
the flaw matter, or does the preconception/myth of the man have to be
upheld so strongly that any flaw too great is simply discounted?


More information about the PLUG mailing list