Bloomberg Does Mormonism

[danielwoods]

The mall will provide jobs and therefore generate city, state and federal tax revenues, both directly and indirectly. It will (more importantly) beautify the area of SLC nearest to the headquarters of the Church, Temple Square and the Conference Center -- and it will be financially self-sustaining.

This is something the naysayers and finger-pointers either ignore or don't get. The money the Church invested in the mall is not gone -- it is merely invested. The money returned on that investment -- and potentially the principal amount -- is and will continue to be available for the Church to use in continuance of its mission.

Just like a business.

[Pahoran]

Just like a business.

Yes, and? Your point, if you have one?

The fact is that the Church is a church, not a business. This is a fact that all informed people know, and all honest people admit.

The fact is that it does business, but that is not what it is. My son is a high school student, but he also referees sports. If asked what his occupation is, he invariably puts down "student." Because that's what he is.

You have expended a great deal of bandwidth on an argument that seems intentionally vague. Granted that uninformed people might assume that only business entities do business, or that churches must necessarily be poor financial stewards, can you explain exactly why uninformed assumptions are just fine and dandy to use when one is ostensibly engaged in journalism, the ostensible purpose of which is to inform the public?

Regards,

Pahoran

[danielwoods]

Yes, and? Your point, if you have one?

The fact is that the Church is a church, not a business. This is a fact that all informed people know, and all honest people admit.

The fact is that it does business, but that is not what it is. My son is a high school student, but he also referees sports. If asked what his occupation is, he invariably puts down "student." Because that's what he is.

You have expended a great deal of bandwidth on an argument that seems intentionally vague. Granted that uninformed people might assume that only business entities do business, or that churches must necessarily be poor financial stewards, can you explain exactly why uninformed assumptions are just fine and dandy to use when one is ostensibly engaged in journalism, the ostensible purpose of which is to inform the public?

Regards,

Pahoran

My only point is that it's a church that acts like a business, and that's what the world sees. You made my point.

[Tacenda]

The mall will provide jobs and therefore generate city, state and federal tax revenues, both directly and indirectly. It will (more importantly) beautify the area of SLC nearest to the headquarters of the Church, Temple Square and the Conference Center -- and it will be financially self-sustaining.

This is something the naysayers and finger-pointers either ignore or don't get. The money the Church invested in the mall is not gone -- it is merely invested. The money returned on that investment -- and potentially the principal amount -- is and will continue to be available for the Church to use in continuance of its mission.

OTOH, money handed out in charitable ventures such as aged care facilities is really gone; it will never come back. And if the facilities are subsidised -- as they would probably have to be, if the patients and their families cannot afford such care from currently available outlets -- then that represents a continual financial drain.

I'm not saying that such things are bad, but I wonder if that kind of specialised health care is so close to the Church's core mission that it should commit itself to ongoing financial obligations for the indefinite future in order to provide it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

I remember hearing recently that Utah might be bidding again for the winter Olympics. I know there were hundreds of LDS volunteers and the church thought it was a great missionary opportunity when they were played here before. Does anyone think the mall may have been built with this in mind besides the reasons already mentioned?

[Tacenda]

I'm sure it would be a drain, building care centers or facilities that care for the poor & needy, much like the shelters and food pantries that non Lds churches build and then sacrifice time and money for.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[Pahoran]

My only point is that it's a church that acts like a business, and that's what the world sees. You made my point.

Really?

Your vague accusation seemed to be that it's okay for terminally uninformed people to question the Church's bona fides as a church, on the rather preposterous grounds that it manages its finances wisely. You further seemed to be trying to argue that it's fine and dandy for malicious misrepresenters to exploit that ignorance.

Only now you seem to be trying to tap-dance around that and say that there's something fundamentally wicked about a church knowing how to invest.

Is that it, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

But I hope money generated from it doesn't just propagate more investment ventures and are instead sent to the needy and maybe even find other parts of the world that could use a boost to their economy, now that would be a win, win situation.

Of course the mall is not a charity. Its purpose is to generate profits, resulting in employment, return on investment, etc. People who are now employed, and investors gaining interest can then contribute to charity.

That's how the capitalistic system works.

Edited July 16, 2012 by cdowis

[Pahoran]

I'm sure it would be a drain, building care centers or facilities that care for the poor & needy, much like the shelters and food pantries that non Lds churches build and then sacrifice time and money for.

Oh, you mean like DI and Welfare Square and welfare farms and Bishops' Storehouses and Fast Offerings and service projects?

When it comes to charitable activities, we do our share and then some. And unlike many non-LDS churches, we do it without raising funds outside the Church.

Tacenda, as I said (but you seem to have missed): I'm not at all saying that such things are bad things. I am simply saying that, because they are not self-supporting, they have to be costed in a different way. That is why $2G worth of investment that (1) is still owned and (2) generates a return does not cost the same as $2G worth of charitable giving. Money given away is gone; money (safely) invested is not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[danielwoods]

Really?

Your vague accusation seemed to be that it's okay for terminally uninformed people to question the Church's bona fides as a church, on the rather preposterous grounds that it manages its finances wisely. You further seemed to be trying to argue that it's fine and dandy for malicious misrepresenters to exploit that ignorance.

Only now you seem to be trying to tap-dance around that and say that there's something fundamentally wicked about a church knowing how to invest.

Is that it, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Vague? Uninformed?

I made a specific point, that the church is acting like a business, you supported that point with your statements. This is news worthy and when others did the same in the past (theme park made by Oral Roberts?), they too were criticized.

Please tell me what is uninformed about what I have said?

[selek1]

Please tell me what is uninformed about what I have said?

We can begin with your pontifical pronouncements about "what the world sees".

While your ego may be expansive enough to arrogate unto yourself the power to speak for everyone else on the planet, those of us with less God-like omniscience have trouble taking you seriously.

Edited July 16, 2012 by selek1

[danielwoods]

We can begin with your pontifical pronouncements about "what the world sees".

While your ego may be expansive enough to arrogate unto yourself the power to speak for everyone else on the planet, those of us with less God-like omniscience have trouble taking you seriously.

While I haven't claimed to speak for the whole world, I think I do have some insight as to how the non-LDS world sees the LDS, being that I'm not LDS. As I asked you before (which wasn't answered), who then does have the power or perspective to speak to how the non-LDS world sees the LDS, if you think I've utterly failed?

[selek1]

While I haven't claimed to speak for the whole world,

On the contrary, you do so everytime you presume to lecture us on how the "rest of the world" sees us.

I think I do have some insight as to how the non-LDS world sees the LDS, being that I'm not LDS.

See- there you go again. Of course telling us how the "non-LDS world" sees us sounds suspiciously like projecting your own prejudices onto the rest of the world, in the vain hope of some sort of borrowed (and thoroughly undeserved) legitimacy.

That you are "not LDS" does not grant you any particular insight into the minds of ~8 billion other people. It takes a pernicious sort of tendentious arrogance to pretend that it does.

As I asked you before (which wasn't answered), who then does have the power or perspective to speak to how the non-LDS world sees the LDS, if you think I've utterly failed?

A properly conducted scientific poll would be the most logical method and would yield the most reasonable approximation.

As we have no reason to believe that you have conducted such a poll, we have no reason to assume that your statement reflects anything other than your own assumptions and presumptions.

As has been stated, you are not qualified to lecture us about what "the rest of the world" thinks.

Edited July 16, 2012 by selek1

[blackstrap]

Which is better? I give a man $100 or I establish a business and hire that man for $ 75/day to fulfill a job that will generate $150/day for the business,some of which I keep for myself. To me,the first is a win-lose(momentarily) while the second is a win-win-win.(long term )

[Pahoran]

Vague? Uninformed?

That's right.

I made a specific point, that the church is acting like a business, you supported that point with your statements.

No, I did not.

"Acts like a business" is deliberately vague, as you of course intended. The local shopping centre waters its flowering plants. Is my elderly neighbour "acting like a business" when she waters hers?

Or is the business acting like a landowner when they water theirs?

Am I "acting like a business" when I pay my electricity bill, register my car or insure the contents of my house? Businesses do those things too, don't they?

How about when I invest for my retirement?

You have not come anywhere near spelling out just what it is that businesses do that non-business entities don't do, so that silly phrase "acting like a business" conveys no information.

None.

Incidentally, when I served my mission in Australia, I was informed that the Church of England owned a lot of real estate in downtown Adelaide. Perhaps owning commercial real estate is something churches do, too.

And as for uninformed: of course. The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is a church, first last and always, is an absolutely incontrovertible fact. If anyone assumes that investing in real estate somehow changes that, then they are grossly uninformed.

This is news worthy and when others did the same in the past (theme park made by Oral Roberts?), they too were criticized.

And so? As I'm sure you realise (and fully intend) there is a clear category difference between criticising an organisation for doing something, and slyly insinuating that it's really something other than what it is.

Please tell me what is uninformed about what I have said?

Every word of it. Including "and" and "the."

Is that clear now?

Regards,

Pahoran

[danielwoods]

On the contrary, you do so everytime you presume to lecture us on how the "rest of the world" sees us.

See- there you go again. Of course telling us how the "non-LDS world" sees us sounds suspiciously like projecting your own prejudices onto the rest of the world, in the vain hope of some sort of borrowed (and thoroughly undeserved) legitimacy.

That you are "not LDS" does not grant you any particular insight into the minds of ~8 billion other people. It takes a pernicious sort of tendentious arrogance to pretend that it does.

A properly conducted scientific poll would be the most logical method and would yield the most reasonable approximation.

As we have no reason to believe that you have conducted such a poll, we have no reason to assume that your statement reflects anything other than your own assumptions and presumptions.

As has been stated, you are not qualified to lecture us about what "the rest of the world" thinks.

I guess you're right, and there isn't any evidence what so ever to support my observations. Case closed. I'm truly sorry I gave my opinion.

[danielwoods]

That's right.

No, I did not.

"Acts like a business" is deliberately vague, as you of course intended. The local shopping centre waters its flowering plants. Is my elderly neighbour "acting like a business" when she waters hers?

Or is the business acting like a landowner when they water theirs?

Am I "acting like a business" when I pay my electricity bill, register my car or insure the contents of my house? Businesses do those things too, don't they?

How about when I invest for my retirement?

You have not come anywhere near spelling out just what it is that businesses do that non-business entities don't do, so that silly phrase "acting like a business" conveys no information.

None.

Incidentally, when I served my mission in Australia, I was informed that the Church of England owned a lot of real estate in downtown Adelaide. Perhaps owning commercial real estate is something churches do, too.

And as for uninformed: of course. The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is a church, first last and always, is an absolutely incontrovertible fact. If anyone assumes that investing in real estate somehow changes that, then they are grossly uninformed.

And so? As I'm sure you realise (and fully intend) there is a clear category difference between criticising an organisation for doing something, and slyly insinuating that it's really something other than what it is.

Every word of it. Including "and" and "the."

Is that clear now?

Regards,

Pahoran

If one refuses to understand or acknowledge that a church is acting like a business when it opens a mall, there is nothing I can say that will change their mind.

[blackstrap]

As if there is something inherently "evil" about a business !Let us imagine( a la John L) that all businesses were to disappear. Would evil go with them?

[Calm]

I made a specific point, that the church is acting like a business

Right, because business tend to hold Sunday services including classes to teach family members how to live better lives, send out missionaries to teach morality and the gospel, do ordinances for not only the living, but the dead..... Edited July 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[yootaw]

Right, because business tend to hold Sunday services including classes to teach family members how to live better lives, send out missionaries to teach morality and the gospel, do ordinances for not only the living, but the dead.....

And churches typically build malls?

[Calm]

Does it have to be an all or nothing issue? As soon as an entity steps out of the "typical" mold, does it suddenly change fundamentally even if it continues to do all the same activities that identified it as a business, church, school, family, etc?

Are churches that have for profit investments any less than churches that do not even if they did identical "churchy type work"? Are businesses that do charitable work any less businesses than businesses that don't?

[yootaw]

Does it have to be an all or nothing issue? As soon as an entity steps out of the "typical" mold, does it suddenly change fundamentally even if it continues to do all the same activities that identified it as a business, church, school, family, etc?

Are churches that have for profit investments any less than churches that do not even if they did identical "churchy type work"? Are businesses that do charitable work any less businesses than businesses that don't?

I agree that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I would be curious to hear how others would answer this question. Maybe better as a separate topic, I guess.

[Avatar4321]

Jesus was a Carpenter. I would imagine that running a carpentry business didn't at all hurt His ability to be our Savior.

Why on earth would His Church owning or promoting a business make it any less a Church?

It's important to take care of the temporal matters so spiritual matters can be addressed.

[selek1]

I guess you're right, and there isn't any evidence what so ever to support my observations. Case closed. I'm truly sorry I gave my opinion.

Save the crocodile tears for the gullible.

It was never your opinion to which we objected- it was the tendency to project your prejudices as objective fact.

Your mea culpa would have been far more convincing if you'd stopped the first time you were called on it, instead of the third or fourth.

[Zakuska]

Because of cost and storage issues, the opera company for which

I perform often rents sets from other opera companies and returns them after

the production closes. This practice helps all parties save money.

However, sometimes a set is not available, so one must be built on site.

It would be nice if we could store and rent them to others, but we do not have facilities to

do that. Some sets are so specialized (size of stage, the opera being produced, etc.)

that the only alternative is to demolish it.

The cost of the set is built into the production budget. The highest costs, such as staff, techs, singers, chorus, and orchestra salaries, are obviously not recoverable. I don't consider the destruction of the set wasteful. It goes with the game. Some things may be salvageable, reusable, or recyclable, but a lot of things are not. Performing arts are expensive.

<snip>

And if we did "have facilities to store them" the critics would be whining about how wasteful it was, how much tithing money was spent on said facilities and how much money could have been spent on feeding the homeless.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Zakuska