sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I must admit the corporate activities of the church leave me cold. In my view it is wrong for the church to build shopping malls etc when people are homeless and starving. I just wish they would stop it. It's embarrassing and, frankly, indefenceable.I agree. That is why I now prefer to make my donations to other charities.
why me Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I must admit the corporate activities of the church leave me cold. In my view it is wrong for the church to build shopping malls etc when people are homeless and starving. I just wish they would stop it. It's embarrassing and, frankly, indefenceable.The reason why people are homeless and starving is because they have no job or home. By building a mall and providing jobs for many people and keeping the community vibrant, prevents people from going homeless and starving. Frankly, this is something to be proud of. 2
why me Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I agree. That is why I now prefer to make my donations to other charities.So, no mall and a lot of people are without work and the community falls down. Then, one of your charities steps in and provides free food for the community. Does that sounds better? Edited July 11, 2012 by why me 1
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) So, no mall and a lot of people are without work and the community falls down. Then, one of your charities steps in and provides free food for the community. Does that sounds better?If the mall is such a great investment another for-profit company will make it. A mall in SLC does little to benefit anyone outside of a a very small, localized group of people. (and yes it does sound better. I suspect the needy in SLC could be fed for far less than $2 Billion. Based on the $1.2 Billion in humanitarian aid provided by the LDS chuch over the past 25 years it looks like the $2 Billion spent on the mall could have funded LDS humanitarian efforts for the next 48 years) Edited July 11, 2012 by sjdawg
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I really hated this quote from the article. We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually. 1
KevinG Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I must admit the corporate activities of the church leave me cold. In my view it is wrong for the church to build shopping malls etc when people are homeless and starving. I just wish they would stop it. It's embarrassing and, frankly, indefenceable.Those corporate activities for the most part are profitable and at the very least support the communities the church is in. This allows us to multiply the donations and do wonderful things all over the world. http://www.lds.org/service/humanitarianStudy economics and community development sometime and you will learn a bunch about how this works. 1
KevinG Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I really hated this quote from the article. We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.Really? I'm finding my unemployment to be crushing at times and if I'm not careful a hindrance to my faith and growth. The only thing that keeps me going is knowing I'm not poor, I'm just out of money right now.After years of donating my surplus to the church they are caring for me in ways I cannot for myself right now. I am first hand evidence that we care for our own and others.
KevinG Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I just think that the mall was a great investment. America is a capitalist country where life rotates around business. For the church to purchase a mall and then revamp it and provide work for many people, and keep the area vibrant is a win-win for all--for the workers and for the residentsDowntown Atlanta has been dreaming of this kind of development for decades. They would have been overjoyed had say The Baptist or Southern Evangelicals invested their funds in the city even to make a profit.
KevinG Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 If the mall is such a great investment another for-profit company will make it. A mall in SLC does little to benefit anyone outside of a a very small, localized group of people. (and yes it does sound better. I suspect the needy in SLC could be fed for far less than $2 Billion. Based on the $1.2 Billion in humanitarian aid provided by the LDS chuch over the past 25 years it looks like the $2 Billion spent on the mall could have funded LDS humanitarian efforts for the next 48 years)Is it better to feed the needy or put them back to work?
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I really hated this quote from the article. We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their God. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.
why me Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Downtown Atlanta has been dreaming of this kind of development for decades. They would have been overjoyed had say The Baptist or Southern Evangelicals invested their funds in the city even to make a profit.I can say the same for Detroit and many other USA cities. Why the lds church gets blamed for creating needed jobs is beyond me. The best way to help the young person is to give them a chance to work. And the best way to help the seniors is to give them a job, if needed. Likewise for the mom and dad and for any other person. I don't think that the people who are now working because of the mall give a heck about how it was built. They are just grateful for the work.
why me Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I really hated this quote from the article. We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.And this is not true? How many of the poor begin to drink and take drugs. It seems that american poor are beset with such problems. It is true however, the poor can resort to prayer to ask for help. However, with the building of the mall, these people can pray for other things now. They can spiritually blossom in many directions without having to worry about finding a job.
why me Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their God. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.If the church builds a mall to provide people with work, how is this dispising the poor? I just don't get your logic. There are many people working now that may not be working. What then?
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 And this is not true? How many of the poor begin to drink and take drugs. It seems that american poor are beset with such problems. It is true however, the poor can resort to prayer to ask for help. However, with the building of the mall, these people can pray for other things now. They can spiritually blossom in many directions without having to worry about finding a job.I would suggest that some of the most spiritual people in the world have been of very meager financial means. Of course I'm sure we can all agree that wealthy people don't drink or do drugs
mapman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I'm pretty sure that what he was alluding to this statement by President McKay:"From that moment I had a deeper realization that the Church of Christ should be and is interested in the temporal salvation of man. I walked away from the door feeling that that [woman], with … bitterness in [her heart] toward man and God, [was] in no position to receive the message of the gospel. [she was] in need of temporal help, and there was no organization, so far as I could learn, in Stirling that could give it to [her]."http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/the-sanctifying-work-of-welfare?lang=engPerhaps, a better way for him to phrase it would have been something like: Both being impoverished and wealthy can be distractions from our spiritual lives.
thesometimesaint Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 cinepro:Should property taxes be based on what the piece of property last sold for?
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 cinepro:Should property taxes be based on what the piece of property last sold for?Are there not people who are specifically trained to appraise land and building values?
thesometimesaint Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 sjdawg:Yes. The question still remains on what value do we place any church building?
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 sjdawg:Yes. The question still remains on what value do we place any church building?My answer would be to let the expert appraisers come up with the value.
selek1 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I don't see why one of the largest property owners in the world should not pay taxes on the properties. There is a huge cost associated with providing services to the properties.Indeed. And how much do you think the Federal government should pay in taxes on the land it owns?Heaven only knows it can't claim "good stewardship" of the properties it has confiscated- not with a six billion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance work and wildfires destroying the property in near-Biblical proportions.At least the comparatively miniscule amount of property held by the Church is well-maintained, and provides a return to the community.
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) At least the comparatively miniscule amount of property held by the Church is well-maintained, and provides a return to the community.Miniscule amount of property? Did PBS have any of these details correct?The church's more than 150 farms and ranches, including America's largest cattle ranch, make it one of the largest landowners in the nation. The farms and ranches encompass somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million acres, roughly equal to the size of the state of Delaware."http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/structure.html Edited July 11, 2012 by sjdawg
selek1 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 His friend is the one that helped discard the amazing back drop for the Christmas program (memory kicked in) with Jane Seymour. His friend is a very active member of the church, why would he lie? They didn't have the storage, is all. So I understand that it would be hard to keep it somewhere. But it just rubs some people wrong. Even my husband who is active LDS.So- you have a rumor told to you by your husband, who was told by a friend.When someone tried to use that standard of evidence in a court of law, it's called "hear-say", and is admissible..A less charitable term for it is "gossip", which is something we are counseled against.More generally, the Bloomberg editorial (calling it "journalism" is too generous, an "article" is simply misleading) is a hit piece. It is full of scare quotes misleading innuendo, and rampant conflation. The piece obscures, rather than clarifies, and is intended to convey a single idea: that Mormons (and by extension, the Republican candidate) are some how sinister, edgy, and not-to-be-trusted.This is evident in the fact that they don't cite a single pro-Mormon source. The only quotes from Mormon leaders are defensive, the only quotes from Mormon members are "critical" or "suspicious of the Church", and critics such as Quinn are unchallenged in their assertions.
thesometimesaint Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 selek1:politicking and Sometimessaint removed. 1
sjdawg Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 The only quotes from Mormon leaders are defensive, Do you think that is because they mined for "defensive" quotes or because the Mormon Leaders actually were defensive?
selek1 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Miniscule amount of property?Read for context, sj.Reading comprehension is something most of us learned before the third grade.Comparatively miniscule.The Federal government has direct ownership of more than 650 million acres of land (more than 30% of total United States territory)- and to hear the media tell it- most that is on fire.By comparison. even the wildest guesses place the Church at owning less than half a million acres of land.So 500,000 divided by 650,000,000 equals .00076923 or 7/1000th the land area owned by the Federal government.That seems to qualify as "comparatively miniscule" by any rationale measure.Again, by contrast, Weyerhause, Inc- the paper manufacturer- owns nearly 900,000 acres of softwood timberland- more than twice even the wildest guesses offered as belonging to the Church.And Weyerhauser is by no means the largest corporate land holder.King Ranch in Texas privately owns 825,000 acres.The Anna Creek Station (ranch) in Australia privately owns more than 6 million acres.According to the 2011 Land Report, the number on private landowner in the country owns 2.2 million acres. Notable non-LDS mogul Ted Turner comes in second. The heirs to the King Ranch come in a paltry seventh.Even assuming the wildly exaggerate 500,000 acre guesstimate, the Church's holdings are no where near as excessive as critics are wont to pretend. Edited July 11, 2012 by selek1
Recommended Posts