Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[SleepingWillow]

Is this the corporate version of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day,,,,,but teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime" gig?

I guess I can live with that. The ends justify the means sort of thing? As long as the "ends" actually come. What I mean by that is at some point, in a non-profit organization, you actually have to start giving the money away, or "spending" it. I truly am grateful for the frugal use (and growth) of our tithing funds (parable of the talents has been used), but at what point can you start really putting it to use and loosen the belt a little? This is always a fine line and dilemma for those leading charitable organizations, keep the organization strong while still giving a healthy portion away. Just because our church leaders don't drive Mercedes like the wealthy super-church pastors of protestantism, doesn't mean it's okay to horde wealth.

Pres. Hinckley wisely initiated one of the greatest spending sprees in church history when he exploded the temple building and the new Conference Center, when the church's accountants, even as frugal as they are, hinted to him that church coffers were so full we had enough to last until the second coming (my words, not theirs). I think our leaders spend cautiously, and I"m glad for that, but I wouldn't mind seeing those coffers opened again to see some humanitarian spending on a massive scale.

In support of SleepingWillow, I admit that I too was a little surprised to see how low in percentage our outside donations are. Even if those numbers are 10-fold off, it seems we can afford more. I'd support that.

Well said.

[urroner]

This is the controversial "carrot" that missionaries use in third world countries.

I went to a foreign mission (and no, it wasn't Texas) and never used anything for a controversial carrot. What are you talking about?

[USU78]

This is the controversial "carrot" that missionaries use in third world countries.

We hear that many have joined hoping for a hand-out from the Bishop's storehouse . . . yet I've seen precious little beyond anecdotals. Has anybody seen any studies on the issue?

[Kemara]

SleepingWillow

It's whiners, not whingers, Mr. High Wattage.

Oh my, I could tell a really funny joke about people openly revealing their own inadequacies and making a real fool of themselves, but since you have already been corrected by someone who obviously has a much better grasp of the English language than you do I shall forbear. (forbear - to refrain or abstain from; desist from)

It doesn't take a high-wattage bulb to decide that a church that donates .5-2% of its income to helping the poor and needy is not run personally by the Christ most of us are familiar with. You seem to worship a different Christ--a Christ that would be more at home running a company like Exxon than administering to the poor.

Yet another well thought out and reasoned argument. Now if only you could provide any substance, any evidence to go along with your Homeresque (esque - suff. In the manner of; resembling: Lincolnesque.) position of â??Dohâ?.

It chooses to continue to pour them back into business pursuits even as my brother on a mission has to eat bananas and ice in a blender because the Church won't give him enough money to eat properly.

The Church supports your brother on his mission? How lucky is he, I had to work and save money for mine. And he gets bananas and ice and a blender, how many millions in the world would love to have this problem?

You really think .5-2% is the best the Church could do?

You have been asked for references yet you have failed to supply one and yet continue to harp on about the .5-2% as though this figure was factual. If you want to rise above the lofty heights of â??Dohâ? you really need to try and do better.

Donating .5-2% of its profits to charity is an outrage. I rather suspect that is the reason it refuses to release its financial records--the Church would become a laughingstock.

How on earth can you possibly present the figure .5%-2% as though it were factual and beyond doubt and then mention in the same sentence that the church refuses to release its financial records and then accuse the Church of being a laughingstock â?? the irony of it all.

He referred to himself as a high wattage bulb.

And speaking of references please provide one for this piece of nonsense.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe a dictionary would help?

Please, no more empty rhetoric, lets have some substance (substance - the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality; Antonym SleepingWillow)

[Teancum]

Ironically, so are you. Do you have evidence of the origin of the money?

How about the statement at the most recent General Conference by President Hinckley that no tithing money is being used for this project. Are you saying that he was lying?

For the umpteenth time.... all money is fungible. No, Pres. Hinckley was not lying. But so what if not tithing money is used. All the money the Church has comes initially from donations from members in the form of tithing, fast offerings, missionary contributions and so forth. At some point there were surpluses that the church was able to invest in a variety of things, among them for profit activities. As these generate income the Church has the choice of what to do with the money.

So the question really becomes is purchasing a mall across from temple sqaure in SLC a good use of these fund for the Church of Jesus Christ? Should the money be used to feed the poor, house the homeless, find missionary work and reduce this cost for families sending missionaries, build water projects for poor people is say Africa and on and on.

Some feel buying a mall is ok. And in may well be a great investment and generate lots of money to feed the poor in the future. And it may not be.

However, it does not give me any warm an fuzzy that tithing was not used as it is an irrelevant point. Personally, I believe the money should have been used for something else. I do not think a mall in downtown SLC benefits a majority of the Church and it is not really in line with the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ. But nobody asked me and it is not a deal killer for me. I still pay tithing and plan on continueing.

The other thing this illiustrates it the fact that closed books fosters unaccountability and can result in decisions that are really not the best. But that is another topic.

Teancum

[USU78]

Teancum: they've owned those two malls for decades -- and the dirt underneath them for far longer. This is not a new purchase, but rather rennovation of existing commercial space to be more green and inviting (they're going to bring City Creek up above ground and have it run through a part of the 2 block development).

They're also tearing down some old, dreadful-looking buildings (that some folks think are historic -- not this kid, however).

[Avatar4321]

We hear that many have joined hoping for a hand-out from the Bishop's storehouse . . . yet I've seen precious little beyond anecdotals. Has anybody seen any studies on the issue?

How many missionaries even know there is a Bishop's storehouse?

[saemo]

What's wrong with running a company like Exxon? Can't a person run Exxon, and administer to the poor? Or is this an either/or thing?

It is run like a corporation. This strange idea that the leaders of a very large corporation doesn't know what's going on in their business is ludicrous. Beginning with the fact that the majority of the GA's are or were very successful businessmen in their pre-GA-calling life.

The Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is run as a business, in every way, shape, and form. Accounting is maintained very tightly to modern standards. Bishop Burton has his finger on everything. There is nothing that is done, spent, considered, without his approval, and often he consults with Pres. Hinckley.

Which, if I had an interest in those funds as something I contributed, I would be glad to know this. Mismangement of funds would be much worse, don't you think?

I agree that the church can do whatever it wants with its own money. However, it is not immune to criticism. To spend $750m over 20 years??? When they are a multi-billion dollar corporation, on the for-profit side, which does not include tithing? $750m is nothing. It could do more, and as an organization that proposes it is lead by Christ, it should.

As for downtown. I work in the heart of this mess and I hear plenty of stories, from both sides. The church is strong arming people, but there are people strong arming the church. This is called business, ladies and gentlemen. Perhaps people believe that a Church should be more merciful in their business dealings? To what point? To the point of giving it all away to other businesses? Would any business do this?

Spend away on whatever, but don't flinch under the microscope of criticism. It shouldn't be any mystery as to why the criticism exists.

[Deborah]

Everyone can complain all they like but I really like the changes made in downtown around the temple already. I'm looking forward to the rennovations. This after all is a mecca for many cultures and businesses and church members all over the world. If the church can afford to do this, and it obviously can, then what is the big fuss? It's not as if the church isn't using funds to help the poor and needy throughout the world. There is only so much that can be done in that area contrary to what some humanistic thinkers may believe.

[saemo]

There is only so much that can be done in that area contrary to what some humanistic thinkers may believe.

Wow. That is cop out at the worst, closing your eyes to the world at the best. At the least, a $100 billion is needed between now and 2015 just to meet the following world wide goals:

Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day

Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling

Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferaably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015

Reduce by two thirds the mortality rate among children under five

Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio

Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS

Halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases

Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources

Reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water

Achieve significant improvement in lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020

Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory, includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reductionâ?? nationally and internationally

Address the least developed countries' special needs. This includes tariff- and quota-free access for their exports; enhanced debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction

Address the special needs of landlocked and small island developing States

Deal comprehensively with developing countries' debt problems through national and international measures to make debt sustainable in the long term

In cooperation with the developing countries, develop decentand productive work for youth

In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries

In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologiesâ?? especially information and communications technologies

[antishock8]

Not only is it a business, but it's a tax-exempt business (more or less) in addition to being politically active corporate entity. The Church simply reminds me of a business like Ford Motor Company that has its charitable enterprises. I think those enterprises are more PR than anything else. In the Church's case it couldn't afford to NOT do anything... so it calculates a PR cost-benefit ratio regarding its charity and acts accordingly. I think most of its charitable enterprises are done to simply show its core consumers it's doing something charitable. Frankly, the Church is interested in longevity. Again, this isn't a bad thing per se... but I certainly wouldn't confuse the Mormon church's motivation for existing with a humanitarian organization like Red Cross. It's not. It's more like a gated community in which you're welcome to join, but have to pay a fee to belong rather than a non-profit hospital ran to minister to the poor and needy. The idea being that the community is an entity designed to bring happiness in a holistic sense to those willing to join, whereas the critics want to assign to the Mormon church an entirely different purpose for existing and then beat it up when it surely fails to live up to its newly assigned mission. I'm not sure how people see the LDS corporation for anything besides what it purports to be... which certainly isn't an endeavor to alleviate physical suffering, but rather an attempt to change cultural habits that bring about a better temporal lifestyle (and, in their opinion, eternal progression). If you don't like it, don't give money to it. It certainly doesn't need it.

[Free Agent]

This thread is very long and I've tried to keep up. It doesn't appear to me that we have really addressed the issue of "SHOULD A CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, REALLY BE INVOLVED IN BUSINESS???????". The churchwide lesson in RS/Priesthood this past Sunday should have been about temporal labor and Wilford Woodruff's take on that. The tone of it is that he espoused riches. If we have sufficient for our needs, then all is well, basically. So, perhaps what the Church is doing isn't wrong in the regular world, but for those of us who really take our lessons to heart, and think, "Wow, I just got a big commission check and I don't need all of it, HMMMMMM , should I invest in some real estate for a rainy day, or should I do some good with it, because I have enough to meet my needs. Do you see where I'm going? I just wish people would lose the attitude on here because those of us who question the wisdom of where the church puts its money aren't so much finding fault, at least me, but just trying to put into practice what we are taught as members of this church.

[urroner]

Not only is it a business, but it's a tax-exempt business (more or less) in addition to being politically active corporate entity.

So it's a tax-exempt business. Could you personally expound a little bit more upon that? Please nobody help while antishock attempts to explain the Church's relationship is with paying taxes upon its businesses.

[antishock8]

So it's a tax-exempt business. Could you personally expound a little bit more upon that? Please nobody help while antishock attempts to explain the Church's relationship is with paying taxes upon its businesses.

You don't think the Mormon church is a business?

[The Traveler]

So it's a tax-exempt business. Could you personally expound a little bit more upon that? Please nobody help while antishock attempts to explain the Church's relationship is with paying taxes upon its businesses.

You are waisting your time urroner: I doubt Antishock8 is capable of grasping the concept you are talking about. From their post I think they believe that the LDS church does not pay any taxes and uses it's church status to avoid taxes on business. I do not think telling them otherwise will change anything - I think you have already gone far beyond their intelligence abilities.

The Traveler

[antishock8]

You are waisting your time urroner: I doubt Antishock8 is capable of grasping the concept you are talking about. From their post I think they believe that the LDS church does not pay any taxes and uses it's church status to avoid taxes on business. I do not think telling them otherwise will change anything - I think you have already gone far beyond their intelligence abilities.

The Traveler

It's a little strange you're referring to me in the plural.

I understand LDS Inc. pays taxes on the income-producing businesses that it owns, however I was referring to the Church arm of the conglomerate that collects billions in tithing revenue. I think that's a pretty good business strategy if you ask me, and I'm sure the LDS President of the Corporation along with the board would agree. I wonder why I'm getting such a hostile response when I'm not stating anything unusual about the business practice of the LDS corporation and its subsidiary the LDS Church? I think it's savvy, and I'm sure the Lord would agree, no?

In fact, I'm a little perplexed as to why more members of the LDS church on this board aren't touting this strategy as a manifestation of the Lord's blessings? It's a good thing for the Mormon church's longevity.

[maxrep12]

Here's a story from a related post from the past:

Bob is a stay at home Dad. One day Bob closes out an investment account and goes over to the Harley Dealership and purchases a new motorcycle.

Later that evening Bob's wife, Elen, comes home from work.

Elen: Bob, who's bike is in our garage?

Bob: oh, hun thats my bike. I just bought it at the dealership today.

Elen: bought it? With what money? I didn't even get my Christmas bonus from work yet.

Bob: Oh no, it wasn't your money. Remember when we got married 30 years ago and my uncle grunwald left me $1000? Ya well I put that into an account. Then I had the guys over for poker that one time and I made a little spare scratch that night, and oh yea remember when the car got wrecked and we got a little extra from the insurance? So I put it all into this account way back when and invested it.

Elen: Why didn't I know about this growing nest egg?

Bob: Well cause thats my thing, I do the bills and take care of the house and kids and you work. But its all straight hun, I never misspent your money.

Ellen: Bob, how much did the bike cost?

Bob: $25,000. But I didn't use any of your money. See your money went for the electricity and the gas and the food and the rent and the clothes and stuff. Your money gets used up each year. I bought my new bike with extra money I "came into" you know.

Elen: How much money did you "come into"?

Bob: well, it was only about $2000 total. But that all happened along time ago and with the compound interest and stuff....well, there it is, my new bike.

Elen: BOB!! If I had known about all this EXTRA money that isn't MINE, maybe I wouldn't have had to work all those overtime hours through the years. Maybe I could have had a little time off. I have brought in $50,000 a year for the past 30 years and you try to tell me that the $25000 bike is yours no thanks to busting my butt all this time?.

Bob: No see, calm down Elen.... see your money never got invested...see, remember I paid the bills with your money....see but it was other money I sorta tucked away that you didn't make.........see

As the story goes, Bob mysteriously turns up missing and the police never find his body. Elen trades the Harley for a BMW and she lives happily ever after.

It would be perfectly acceptable for the twelve to say, "These are not tithing funds" only IF, historically, the church could always function without tithes from its members. Since the existence of the church is realized through tithes, the financial landscape is completely incompatible with the claim from the twelve. The luxury of the church even having the possibility of investing monies and watching compound interest grow is realized ONLY because the sheer volume and consistency of tithing eclipses in such magnitude the sporadic donations the church may bump into. The church also bumps into these happenstance donations because it is in existence through tithing in the first place.

[Deborah]

Wow. That is cop out at the worst, closing your eyes to the world at the best. At the least, a $100 billion is needed between now and 2015 just to meet the following world wide goals:

Get real! You apparently don't understand that many of those most underdeveloped countries are that way because of corrupt leaders who take whatever resources are poured into the country for the poor for their own selfish gain.

Apparently you expect the LDS church to take care of all those things you listed. Many of the things you listed are not in the venue of any church to fix. You are in a dream world if you think that many of those governments even want the things you are listing and you obviously are unaware of the programs the church has for work missionaries who do go into countries and teach the people such things as sanitation and irrigation and farming as well as the schools the church has established to educate the young.

[Avatar4321]

This thread is very long and I've tried to keep up. It doesn't appear to me that we have really addressed the issue of "SHOULD A CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, REALLY BE INVOLVED IN BUSINESS???????". The churchwide lesson in RS/Priesthood this past Sunday should have been about temporal labor and Wilford Woodruff's take on that. The tone of it is that he espoused riches. If we have sufficient for our needs, then all is well, basically. So, perhaps what the Church is doing isn't wrong in the regular world, but for those of us who really take our lessons to heart, and think, "Wow, I just got a big commission check and I don't need all of it, HMMMMMM , should I invest in some real estate for a rainy day, or should I do some good with it, because I have enough to meet my needs. Do you see where I'm going? I just wish people would lose the attitude on here because those of us who question the wisdom of where the church puts its money aren't so much finding fault, at least me, but just trying to put into practice what we are taught as members of this church.

Actually, I think its you who missed the point of this weeks lesson: That temporal matters are important for our spiritual growth.

The fact is a Church that has no ability to act for the temporal welfare of the community has no power to save anyones spiritually.

[saemo]

Get real! You apparently don't understand that many of those most underdeveloped countries are that way because of corrupt leaders who take whatever resources are poured into the country for the poor for their own selfish gain.

Apparently you expect the LDS church to take care of all those things you listed. Many of the things you listed are not in the venue of any church to fix. You are in a dream world if you think that many of those governments even want the things you are listing and you obviously are unaware of the programs the church has for work missionaries who do go into countries and teach the people such things as sanitation and irrigation and farming as well as the schools the church has established to educate the young.

What countries are you referring to, exactly? There are poor, hungry, sick, under-educated, etc. in every country in the world.

First you say there is only so much to be done. And then you site examples of the LDS church's involvement in humanitarian efforts. Are you saying the need is proportional to what the LDS church can provide?

I responded to your statement that "There is only so much that can be done...". My response was meant to show you that what needs to be done has no end. I know of the church's humanitarian missions. My POV is that the nearly $2 billion the church is spending on downtown SLC would feed, clothe and house a lot of people who are in extreme need.

Where did you see that I expect the LDS church to take care "of all those things"? As I stated, the LDS church proposes that it is headed by Christ. As such, would Christ build condos to house the extremely rich, or would he take care of the poor? Does this make the church a poor representative of Christ? This is what is at the heart of the criticism for me. I could care less if the money came from tithing or not.

[Jan]

But so what if not tithing money is used. All the money the Church has comes initially from donations from members in the form of tithing, fast offerings, missionary contributions and so forth.

Teancum, just a small aside (I haven't read the whole thread yet - my usual refrain):

Not all donations are tithing right? Don't many people make "pure" donations to the church --- not tithing, not fast offereings, not missionary funds, etc --- just donations. Is it feasible that donations of this sort, that have been wisely invested, were used to finance the downtown area?

And, isn't it possible that some large donors may have even earmarked what their donations were and were not to be used for?

Just wondering.

Jan

[The Traveler]

It's a little strange you're referring to me in the plural.

I understand LDS Inc. pays taxes on the income-producing businesses that it owns, however I was referring to the Church arm of the conglomerate that collects billions in tithing revenue. I think that's a pretty good business strategy if you ask me, and I'm sure the LDS President of the Corporation along with the board would agree. I wonder why I'm getting such a hostile response when I'm not stating anything unusual about the business practice of the LDS corporation and its subsidiary the LDS Church? I think it's savvy, and I'm sure the Lord would agree, no?

In fact, I'm a little perplexed as to why more members of the LDS church on this board aren't touting this strategy as a manifestation of the Lord's blessings? It's a good thing for the Mormon church's longevity.

The mixing of tithing funds with business funds to save taxes is not legal. I do not believe you ought to accuse the LDS Chruch of illegal activities. In fact the LDS church in the state of Washington is not allowed to even have a car wash on it's church (tax exempt) property for the scouts or any other church sponsered group - because nut cases accuses the LDS of misusing tax exempt status - as you are now doing.

Please make a effort to be honest - it makes it better for us all to get along.

The Traveler

[Beowulf]

Someone mentioned last week's priesthood lesson, on Temporal and Spiritual.

He also said that Wilford Woodruff thought that getting rich is good....

Well, I TAUGHT that lesson in my ward, and I never came across THAT part.

What he SAID (over and over) was that temporal is just as much a part of our lives as spiritual. We cannot separate them, and neither can the Church. This does not mean, however, that everybody should be out making a buck. WW hated speculators, get-rich-quick schemes, leverage (well, maybe he didn't know that term, but he DID use the word "credit" back in the 1880s). He wanted good hard-working people, making sufficient to survive and live reasonably well, but no one needs more than that...

Aside: I blasted the sillier antagonists on this thread with a Japanese saying. Iikagen ni shiro.

Someone emailed me to ask what this might mean. I had avoided this thread all day because I thought someone (the moderators?) might get upset at the use of such a term. But now coming back I see that it was mild indeed compared with some (whingeing indeed... heh).

I told him, but I will parse it for you here... It means (very roughly) "Stop acting like idiots"

Word for word? Ii = good, kagen = moderation (but also lukewarm, wishy-washy, indecisive), ni = particle pointing back to subject, shiro = command form of verb "to do"

Japanese lesson over: Try it out on that cute Japanese girl you met at school. (You might get slapped...)

Beowulf

[Catholic Girl]

All I ask is that someone point out to me the religious organization that is doing a better job (more successful) of taking care or it's poor? What church has a better program for the poor? And while you are answering that question answer this one last question - Is the best way to help the poor - to just give them money or to create jobs and give the poor an opportunity to earn a dignified living?

Um, that's easy.

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/about/stats.cfm This is just ONE network in the USA. We're not even talking about the charity worldwide provided by Catholic organizations.

Catholic Charities USA is the membership association of one of the nation's largest social service networks. Catholic Charities agencies and institutions nationwide provide vital social services to people in need, regardless of their religious, social, or economic backgrounds.

What I think Jesus really taught.....to assist those in need regardless "of their religious, social, or economic backgrounds" There are no Catholic charities JUST for Catholics. Catholic charity is for everyone in need.

Nearly 90 cents of every dollar donated to Catholic Charities agencies goes directly to programs and services, making the Catholic Charities network one of the most efficient in the country

Total Income: $3,363,106,510

Government Revenue 65%

Program Fees 12%

Community Support 11%

Diocesan and Church Support 3%

United Way and CFC 2%

Investment, Business, Other 4%

In-kind Contributions 3%

Total Expenses: $3,320,433,179

Program Costs 90%

Management and General 9%

Fundraising 1%

Provided Food Services to 5,677,257 people

Food banks and food pantries 2,349,333

Soup kitchens 1,266,246

Congregate dining 1,156,308

Other food services 644,180

Home delivered meals 261,190

Provided Services that Build Strong Communities to 3,411,470 people

Social support services 1,638,256

Education and enrichment 768,428

Socialization and neighborhood services 533,293

Services to at-risk populations 300,720

Health-related services 170,733

Provided Services that Strengthen Families to 1,150,226 people

Counseling and mental health services 539,990

Immigration services 339,872

Addiction services 104,026

Pregnancy services 80,691

Refugee services 69,958

Adoption services 42,852

Provided Housing Related Services to 591,757 people

Temporary shelter 251,837

Housing services 191,129

Supervised living 90,958

Permanent housing 39,139

Transitional housing 18,694

Provided Other Basic Needs Services to 1,578,579 people

Other basic needs assistance 654,296

Clothing Assistance 532,289

Emergency Financial Assistance(not rent, mortgage, etc.) 189,531

Utilities Assistance 162,795

Medication assistance 39,668

[antishock8]

The mixing of tithing funds with business funds to save taxes is not legal. I do not believe you ought to accuse the LDS Chruch of illegal activities. In fact the LDS church in the state of Washington is not allowed to even have a car wash on it's church (tax exempt) property for the scouts or any other church sponsered group - because nut cases accuses the LDS of misusing tax exempt status - as you are now doing.

Please make a effort to be honest - it makes it better for us all to get along.

The Traveler

I'm not sure how you got that I was accusing the LDS Corporation of illegal activities. I was lauding its business practices.

The LDS Church is simply a subsidiary of the LDS Corporate entity. In fact, may of its business ventures are not-for-profit business ventures ran under notion that they exist for charitable enterprise. All that is fine. It's good business practice.

The for-profit business ventures do pay taxes. Tax evasion would be counterproductive to the longevity goals of the incorporated entity. Of course, IF the Mormon Church were a truly "charitable enterprise" then it wouldn't have a problem being completely transparent in its finances... so to speak. That's why I say it's not really a charitable enterprise, but rather a completely different organism all together. The Mormon Church, again to default to my analogy, is less "charity hospital" and more "gated community". Neither of which is good nor bad in my opinion... they just have different goals. I also never thought for a moment the the Mormon Church or LDS inc has ever presented itself as the "charity hospital". I think it's very clear that the idea of Mormonism is to effect cultural change in addtion to achieve eternal salvation for everyone who wants to pay their dues.

All that being said, I find your defensiveness at this perspective interesting.