Who Says The Church Doesn'T Love All Of The Attention From The Bom Musical?

[Calm]

I contend that the seed money.... can trace their beginnings to tithing funds donated by faithful members..but lets be honest about it and not claim otherwise.

It would not be honest to ignore the reality that many saints over the years have donated outside of tithing to the Church, including properties, stocks and other similar resources. While it is likely the majority of the "seed money" was from tithing...perhaps even the vast majority, let's be honest and accept that other sources were available to the Church as well (some that Lehi pointed out but I did not see you acknowledge, nor did you acknowledge my previous post making this post but instead repeated your claim).

[Calm]

Do not confuse the exception for the rule.

10% of one's increase is the rule. How is paying 0 dollars on 0 increase an exception to that rule?

[Craig Paxton]

It would not be honest to ignore the reality that many saints over the years have donated outside of tithing to the Church, including properties, stocks and other similar resources. While it is likely the majority of the "seed money" was from tithing...perhaps even the vast majority, let's be honest and accept that other sources were available to the Church as well (some that Lehi pointed out but I did not see you acknowledge, nor did you acknowledge my previous post making this post but instead repeated your claim).

Sorry I have a life outside of this forum...

But since you'd like me to acknowledge you...consider yourself acknowledged.

With respect to your earlier post...

There have been and are many individuals who make gifts to the Church over the years in property, stock and money that have nothing to do with tithing and allow the Church to do with it what they want as opposed to go into a specified fund.

While I am aware that many people makes gifts of stocks, real estate and money to the church...no one donated KSL, Deseret News, Beneficial Life, Agra Reserves Inc. etc. While I believe it is reasonable to assume that the church used some of the moneys that they received in the form of non-tithing gifts to assist in funding these companies and others...I do not think it reasonable to assume that all of these companies were initially funded from non-tithing donations alone.

If one is to assumes that the mall is being funded solely from profits derived from profit-only church owned companies as claimed by President Hinckley...I think it’s fair to also follow the branch of those companies back to the trunk and to their roots...to see where those for- profit companies were initially funded. And guess what…low and behold it was tithing...which makes the claim that no tithing funds are being used disingenuous.

Did ZCMI just miraculously appear? Did Deseret News? Did people just deed over millions of acres of farm land to the churches for-profit agra- businesses? Now don’t get me wrong…I’m NOT saying this is bad, I’m not saying there wasn’t a need that the church filled…but it was the CHURCH that filled these needs…and the only funds available to it was through tithing. But come on…Joseph F. Smith was the founder and first CEO of Beneficial Life…at the same time he was President of the church…where did the seed money come from? Trees? Donations? I don’t think so…but if you want to think that no tithing money has ever found its way into for-profit church ventures…I’ve greatly underestimated the intelligence of this forum.

For those who are still skeptical…I point to the 1997 TIME magazine article. Time was given…in their words…” unusual cooperation from the Latter-day Saints hierarchy (which provided some financial figures and a rare look at church businesses)” they go on to say that…”TIME has been able to quantify the church's extraordinary financial vibrancy. Its current assets total a minimum of $30 billion. The Mormons are stewards of a different stripe. Their charitable spending and temple building are prodigious. But where other churches spend most of what they receive in a given year, the Latter-day Saints employ vast amounts of money in investments that TIME estimates to be at least $6 billion strong. Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or stock in other peoples' companies but is invested directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns.

Did anyone note that? They invest their money directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns....and it would be financially foolish of them not to do so.

But if it makes you feel better to believe that your tithing donations aren’t being invested in these church owned for-profit companies…that is your right.

I should add....that I am amazed that a post on Time Square advertizing has morphed to a question of whether or not the church invests its tithing money into its for-profit companies which are then used for church desired for-profit projects...is plain and simply silly...I really can't believe that this isn't obvious...

[KevinG]

The Church separated its for profit ventures from donations long ago. They are accounted for differently. This is public record.

Please see earlier threads on the funding of the mall on Church property with accompanying articles.

[Craig Paxton]

The Church separated its for profit ventures from donations long ago. They are accounted for differently. This is public record.

Please see earlier threads on the funding of the mall on Church property with accompanying articles.

DaddyG...really? You really believe that the church doesn't invest its tithing earnings? Come on you can't seriously be that naïve...of course they invest it...and of course it earns a profit and the church uses these profits in its for profit ventures to earn more profit. AND there is NOTHING Wrong with them doing this..in fact if they didn't do this THAT would be wrong.

My neighbor is one of the church employees that invests the churches tithing money....and believe me...the church expects him to earn a profit for them. But believe what you want to...hey, people still believe in Santa Clause too

Ok Nemesis, I'm ready to be banned from another of my threads....(I'm trying so hard to be nice and reasonable)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

DaddyG...really? You really beieve that the church doesn't invest tithing money? Come on you can't seriously be that naïve...of course they inverst it...and of course it earns a profit. My neighbor is one of the church employees that invests the churches tithing money....and believe me...they church expects him to earn a profit for them. But believe what you want to...hey, people still believe in Santa Clause too

Separating tithing donations from profit ventures does not mean one cannot invest tithing. However when the church comes out and says that no tithing has gone to the city creek project, why do the critics think they are lying? Were is the evidence?

[thesometimesaint]

ZCMI was started by BY.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZCMI/110773688947581

[Craig Paxton]

ZCMI was started by BY.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZCMI/110773688947581

Your not suggesting that ZCMI was not a church owned for-profit company are you?

[rodheadlee]

Yes, my reference to "the world" was in specific resposne to the poster who asked "Would it be a "right thing to do" for you to publish to the world your personal finances?" (emphasis added by me)

And let's be straight, the church is not only asking believing members to "give"....it is making that gift a prerequisite for access to the highest orders of the church. Don't pay your tithing, can't go to the temple. Can't go to the temple, can't get sealed for eternity or take part in the ordinances that are necessary for admittance into the celestial kingdom.

Sort of like a pay to play scheme.

Probably you shouldn't be going to the Temple if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is at the head of the Church, that Thomas Munson is truly a prophet today and that the Apostles are called by Jesus Christ. This issue just separates the wheat from the chaff. If you're doing Temple work and you don't believe, you're just lying at your TR interview and you don't belong in the Temple. If you do sustain the leaders of the Church then you can have confidence that for the most part they do the right thing with the money as they are lead by Jesus Christ.

[Craig Paxton]

Separating tithing donations from profit ventures does not mean one cannot invest tithing. However when the church comes out and says that no tithing has gone to the city creek project, why do the critics think they are lying? Were is the evidence?

We're going in circles...saddly all the evidence that you would accept...is not available because the church has decided not to disclosed its financial records...

Oh and I'm not a church critic...but I do ask alot of questions ... and I never said the church is lying...

OH and I forgot to mention that they are also placing ads on 12,000 NYC Cabs.... http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/play_the_hook_of_mormons_JtGMGbKuiJo3lnYH6XmhpO

[Sky]

10% of one's increase is the rule. How is paying 0 dollars on 0 increase an exception to that rule?

I think Walden’s point is that one of the requirements to enter the temple is to be a full tithe payer, which is completely true. Not being employed, and therefore earning no income, and therefore paying no tithing, would seem to me like an exception. We are expected to find gainful employment and provide for ourselves and our families.

In the case of a stay-at-home mom who relies solely on her husband’s income, but the husband pays a full tithe, both the husband and the wife are considered full tithe payers. If the husband doesn’t pay tithing, but the wife would pay a full tithe if she had income, as far as I know she is considered a full-tithe payer and would not be kept out of the temple just because her husband doesn’t pay tithing.

Or, in the words of Mosiah 4: 24:

And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

By the way, I disagree with those who say that tithing is only about obedience and not about money. Yes, it’s about obedience, but money is also a big part of it, and I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. I gladly donate 10% of my income to the Church. The Church could not function if it did not receive monetary donations from the members.

And, just as a reminder, tithing is only a preparatory law to prepare us to live the full Law of Consecration sometime in the future.

[juliann]

OH and I forgot to mention that they are also placing ads on 12,000 NYC Cabs.... http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/play_the_hook_of_mormons_JtGMGbKuiJo3lnYH6XmhpO

Awesome!

[Avatar4321]

I can never understand why people seem to think they are entitled to see how others spend their finances. It makes no sense really.

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

Brigham Young had nothing to do with the Church?

The actual history of Church owned properties and Brigham Young is a bit more complicated. It required decades after his death to sort it all out. ZCMI is currently held by The May Company.

[thesometimesaint]

Sky:

You can be a full tithe payer and not pay any tithe. So it is disingenuous to claim that you must pay money to go to the Temple.

Ps. I seriously doubt that the Church is dependent for its existance on my tithe.

[KevinG]

DaddyG...really? You really believe that the church doesn't invest its tithing earnings?

No. But then again that is not what I wrote.

Non-issue.

Look up the history of the Saints for profit ventures (ZCMI, property holdings, etc.) of course they invest tithing funds. They also build chapels, but tractors for welfare farms, run BYU and a plethora of other activities.

You sure like to use that naive word a lot.

[KevinG]

We're going in circles...saddly all the evidence that you would accept...is not available because the church has decided not to disclosed its financial records...

Oh and I'm not a church critic...but I do ask alot of questions ... and I never said the church is lying...

OH and I forgot to mention that they are also placing ads on 12,000 NYC Cabs.... http://www.nypost.co...uiJo3lnYH6XmhpO

I don't suppose you think the church paying money to further its missionary work and improve its home community is a surprise to the LDS?

The Mormons sure aren't doing a good job of keeping that secret with all the news bulletins and billboards and such.

This is a huge nontroversy.

[KevinG]

I can never understand why people seem to think they are entitled to see how others spend their finances. It makes no sense really.

Since he is interested in teaching me about my own beliefs I'm sure Craig is open to sharing his family budget with me. Just so I can trust him fully before taking his word for stuff. Not that I'm a critic or anything. I'm just asking questions.

[Calm]

I think Walden’s point is that one of the requirements to enter the temple is to be a full tithe payer, which is completely true. Not being employed, and therefore earning no income, and therefore paying no tithing, would seem to me like an exception.

Only if you consider stay at home moms an exception. Considering how this is taught as the ideal at least for part of a family's life cycle, I would hope that such are not so rare.

[KevinG]

Entrance to the temple is all about being able to keep our covenants only one of which is tithing (and has been since Enoch).

The whole "pay to play slam" is petty, offensive and juvenile. Not really worth much effort explaining to someone who knows better but is using it to troll.

[Sky]

Sky:

You can be a full tithe payer and not pay any tithe.

I know. If you reread my post, I gave an example of a situation where a person would be considered a full-tithe payer without actually paying tithing. But I think those situations tend to be more the exception than the rule.

So it is disingenuous to claim that you must pay money to go to the Temple.

Paying tithing (or money) is only one of many requirements to enter to temple. If you don't pay a full tithe to the Church, you don't go to the temple. That's the rule (I'm not talking about exceptions here).

I like the way DaddyG put it - it's all about keeping our covenants, of which tithing is only one.

Ps. I seriously doubt that the Church is dependent for its existance on my tithe.

And the Church is certainly not dependent on my tithing for its existance, either.

I was talking collectively – not individually. In other words, the Church does not need any one person’s tithing to survive, but it needs all the tithing added up as a whole.

The Church certainly needs money to be able to do the things it does - and I am proud to contribute to that (however small my contribution may be). I feel good about doing it.

[Stargazer]

Actually, I believe the books should be made public (as they were until the mid 20th century) because if the leaders are inspired in their stewardship of tithing funds, then the books would actually be a form of revelation. And I think it would be great for that revelation, which effects all Church members to some degree, to be made public.

I have no idea of course why the Church is quiet about it, but can you imagine the uproar if the Church revealed all its property and cash valuations to public view. It would come to quite a tidy sum I am sure, but regardless of the sum there would be an uproar among the Church's enemies about how "rich" the Church is, and it would simply shift the avenue of attack from the secretiveness of Church finances to the "obscene wealth" of the Church. There would be no improvement. It might even get worse.

Consider also what has been said by church leaders, about the "value" of the church's properties. The vast majority of the Church's "wealth" consists of buildings that are in constant use and that end up costing the Church lots and lots of money. if the Church owns, say, 50 billion dollars worth of real estate, you can be sure that virtually none of it is liquid, and virtually all of it is in steady use and really cannot be liquidated to cash.

[Nathair/|\]

That's not true at all.

In 1847, when Brother Brigham and the Pioneer Company (all 147 of them) came to the valleys of the mountains, they claimed "lots" of the land for themselves and the Church, You will recall that one of the first things Brother Brigham did was site the Temple lot: "Here we will build a Temple to our God." that was not the only piece established for the Church. Later, some of this land, now far more valuable, was sold and that was the genesis of some of the wealth the Church used to build enterprises needed for the employment of the poor immigrating Saints.

You cannot pay monetary debts with non-monetary assets. You will also recall that in the late XIX, the Church was in considerable debt because the Saints were not paying their tithing. It took more than a while for the lesson to get learned, but the Church had funds from other donations (just not nearly enough). This makes it obvious that tithing was not the source of funding for the Church in the early days (although it has always been a law: some Saints were more observing and observant than others). So, while the Church was cash poor, she was land (and other resources) rich. Over time, some of those resources have been converted to cash, so projects like the mall could be undertaken without ever touching tithing funds.

Further, and completely off topic, so what? Even if the worst accusations of the nit-picking critics were true, so what?

Temple Square is the biggest tourist attraction in Utah. It outdraws the ski slopes, Zion's Canyon National Park, and the rest. Creating a more pleasant place for people of all stripes to visit when they visit Utah makes it easier for the Church to accomplish its mission of "proclaiming the Gospel". That mission is just as important (more in my view) than "taking care of the poor and the needy", for the poor ye have with you always. There is no end to the needs of the poor, and the needy are like unto them. The Mall makes downtown Salt Lake City less inner-city-like, and contributes to a direct charge given to us by God: to spread His Gospel.

Lehi

If I may be so bold, in response to your last paragraph, I submit that creating jobs and wealth is an important method of "taking care of the poor and the needy."

[Nathair/|\]

I know. If you reread my post, I gave an example of a situation where a person would be considered a full-tithe payer without actually paying tithing. But I think those situations tend to be more the exception than the rule.

Paying tithing (or money) is only one of many requirements to enter to temple. If you don't pay a full tithe to the Church, you don't go to the temple. That's the rule (I'm not talking about exceptions here).

I like the way DaddyG put it - it's all about keeping our covenants, of which tithing is only one.

And the Church is certainly not dependent on my tithing for its existance, either.

I was talking collectively – not individually. In other words, the Church does not need any one person’s tithing to survive, but it needs all the tithing added up as a whole.

The Church certainly needs money to be able to do the things it does - and I am proud to contribute to that (however small my contribution may be). I feel good about doing it.

I submit that if the Lord wanted to, He could fund His church through some other means, eg. telling the Prophet where to find gold or diamonds.