Bloomberg Does Mormonism

[selek1]

Do you think that is because they mined for "defensive" quotes or because the Mormon Leaders actually were defensive?

I think the authors had complete editorial control and used the quotes (and used them in the manner) they felt would best advance their agenda.

[Tacenda]

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.

I don't think it's hearsay at all. It came from the source. But as soon as I posted I realised that it probably happens all the time as Why Me said. The church uplifted us with a wonderful Christmas Program. Even if it had to dispose of the set. Sorry I "gossiped" in your words, but it is a fact. I think you can still be a true believer and say if something isn't right as far as waste. We are not puppets or blind followers are we? Does this so called "waste" bother you?

Edited July 11, 2012 by Tacenda

[sjdawg]

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 7/1000^th 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.

It is quite a relief to know the LDS Church owns much less land than the US Federal Goverment. On a side note, how do you know if the Church's holdings are more or less than the amounts suggested by the critics? Do you have access to information that isn't available to the public or are you just making that up? I was under the impression that the Church's holding were unknown to the general membership and critics alike.

[jbarm]

I agree, it was a 'hit' piece plain and simple.

For a Bloomberg story it was very short of financial logic. The writer spent a lot of time talking about alleged high Church income and alleged low levels of external charitable expenditures, but it didn't finish the equation. Where is the balance of the money spent?

The reader is thus led to fill in the blank by thinking that someone must be getting rich off of the unexplained balance (and no, I don't consider the PCC directors salary of $296k to be extravagant given the size of that organization).

Of course most of the funds are being used for sharing the gospel through building chapels and temples and in operating funds to support existing church facilities and missionary work. Where are the private jets and mansions of church leaders that we've seen paid for by other denominations? They don't exist -- I've driven by President Monson's house and it is a modest place that is not extravagant in the slightest.

As someone who is fairly familiar with the auditing function of the Church, I can tell you that internal financial controls are very sound and corruption and fraud are not a significant issue within the organization. Not perfect, but very good.

The function of the Church is to spread the gospel of Christ, not to maximize donations to external charities. I am confident that the business efforts are very much focused on supporting the primary goal of the Church organization.

jb

[Deborah]

From Alma 1:

29 And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.

30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

31 And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy than those who did not belong to their church.

[selek1]

I don't think it's hearsay at all. It came from the source.

Not according to your narrative. Per your story, it has been filtered through at least two non-participants.

Sorry I "gossiped" in your words, but it is a fact.

No- it is an unsubstantiated allegation, at best,

I think you can still be a true believer and say if something isn't right as far as waste. We are not puppets or blind followers are we?

False dichotomy.

Nobody here has demanded blind obediance. So tell me- why did you feel the need to play that card?

[sjdawg]

For a Bloomberg story it was very short of financial logic. The writer spent a lot of time talking about alleged high Church income and alleged low levels of external charitable expenditures, but it didn't finish the equation. Where is the balance of the money spent?

I thought that was one of the key points of the story. Outside of a few well-publicized expenditures no one knows where the money is being spent.

Edited July 11, 2012 by sjdawg

[KevinG]

I thought that was one of the key points of the story. Outside of a few well-publicized expenditures no one knows where the money is being spent.

The people who have stewardship over where it is spent have a very good accounting of it.

If you cannot sustain their calling and feel you don't want to pay tithing, fast offerings or charitable donations then don't- and don't call yourself a Saint.

As for me and mine I'm very comfortable where the expenditures are going, the welfare and humanitarian benefits, the community benefit and the benefit of the sacrifice of those who give. I'll continue to tithe, offer and benefit.

[Tacenda]

Not according to your narrative. Per your story, it has been filtered through at least two non-participants.

No- it is an unsubstantiated allegation, at best,

False dichotomy.

Nobody here has demanded blind obediance. So tell me- why did you feel the need to play that card?

I'm not an attorney. Women gossip but not me, usually. He threw the (enormous and awesome) "set" away, fact. In a court of law, he is an eyewitness or actually a participant, to the crime or I mean waste in this case. Play what card? Am I on trial here? Dichotomy with the blind or puppet? My brain is barely functioning most the time but what do you mean by saying no one on here demands blind obedience? I didn't say anything like that, I merely meant that we are allowed freedom of thought and free agency in this church, and if something feels wrong than we're allowed to think it. And you didn't answer me when I asked if it bothers you if this story, hypothetically speaking, was held up in a court of law? You don't have to answer, btw!

Edited July 11, 2012 by Tacenda

[sjdawg]

The people who have stewardship over where it is spent have a very good accounting of it.

If you cannot sustain their calling and feel you don't want to pay tithing, fast offerings or charitable donations then don't- and don't call yourself a Saint.

As for me and mine I'm very comfortable where the expenditures are going, the welfare and humanitarian benefits, the community benefit and the benefit of the sacrifice of those who give. I'll continue to tithe, offer and benefit.

I don't sustain them; I don't pay tithing or fast offerings to the LDS Church; and I don't call myself a saint. As such, the LDS Church doesn't owe me an accounting of anything (My personal belief is that they do owe their membership an accounting).

I simply think the LDS Church should pay property taxes on the large amount of real estate they hold.

Edited July 11, 2012 by sjdawg

[Pahoran]

selek1:

What properties has the feds confiscated?

Ps; In 1994 Romney said:

[media=]

Then in 2012 Romney said:

"With regard to any foreign investments. I understand, and you understand of course, that my investments have been held by a blind trust have been managed by a trustee. I don't manage them. I don't even know where they are".

So, just in case anyone didn't know, theallthetimesocialistsometimesaint doesn't like Romney. Why is this a surprise, and how is it relevant to anything in this thread?

Regards,

Pahoran

[omni]

This article makes me wonder how other churches are able financially sustain themselves. They have paid clergy, most congregants don't donate anywhere close to ten percent of their income, and most don't have vast for profit business holdings to support their bottom line. How do they do it?

[Kenngo1969]

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 residents[.] ...

Nahhh! The Church should've just let downtown Salt Lake City degenerate into a slum, and then everybody would be happy! (By the way, you ever notice how most all of the criticism (if not all of it) comes from people who don't live in downtown Salt Lake City, or even, in many cases, in the state of Utah?)

Edited July 11, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[selek1]

On a side note, how do you know if the Church's holdings are more or less than the amounts suggested by the critics? Do you have access to information that isn't available to the public or are you just making that up? I was under the impression that the Church's holding were unknown to the general membership and critics alike.

It's called an "educated guess"- though (mea culpa) I actually low-balled my guesstimate.

I do thank you, though, for the concession vis-a-vis "miniscule".

The largest number I was able to find in the Bloomberg article (whose numbers were, in my opinion chosen for "shock and awe") was the purported (reported, but not confirmed) 1,000,000 acres owned by AgReserves. Even the article qualifies this guesstimate by saying "roughly". We have no way of knowing whether they high-balled this estimate or by how much,

According to Wiki, the Church's corporate land holdings include the following:

AgReserves Inc. - roughly 1,000,000 acres

Hawaii Reserves, Inc. - 7,000 acres

Farmland Reserve Inc. - 591,600 (farms in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Florida)

1,598,600 acres total.

City Creek Mall- the most contentious bone in the pile, comes in at less than twenty acres (and is already accounted for in the corporate holdings above).

According to the LDS website, there are 1,495 stakes in the United States. Most of these sit on less than an acre of land (though for simplicities sake, we'll assume that they encompass a full acre). That suggests a total of roughly 1500 acres of land for religious buildings.

To account for seminary buildings, bishops storehouses, and the like, we'll arbitrarily double that: 3000 acres of land to account for ward houses, stake centers, seminary buildings, and the rest. Note that many of these buildings are already accounted for under one of the corporate holdings above.

There are also 79 temples in the United States. Most of these sit on larger plots of land. Temple Square (the largest) is a ten-acre plot. Again, for simplicities sake, we'll assume that all of the Temples sit on roughly ten acres of land. We'll be generous and assume that the Conference Center and parking consume another ten acres.

That brings us to 800 acres of land for Temples, the conference center, etc.

So- accounting for LDS chapels, stakes, etc, the Temples, and the conference centers etc (which comprise the vast majority of LDS real estate), we've got the following:

Wardhouses, Stake Centers, Seminaries, etc: 1500 acres

Temples, Conference Centers, Temple Square: 800 acres

2,300 acres

The Brigham Young University campus is approximately 560 acres (BYU-Hawaii is already accounted for under the numbers for Hawaii Reserves). BYU Idaho is another (roughly) 400 acres, so we'll add another 1100 to the total.

So here's what we've got so far:

1,598,600 acres of corporate real estate

1,100 acres of campus at BYU

2,300 acres of Temples, ward and stake buildings.

1,602,000 acres of land

And the Church pays taxes on 99.9% of it. Only the religious building (0.1%) are exempt.

Ironically, given the estimated nature of the numbers available, these guesstimates are high.

Here are some numbers for comparison:

Federal government: 600,000,000 acres

Plum Creek Timber: 47,000,000 acres

John Malone 2,200,000 acres

Ted Turner 2,000,000 acres

Archie Emerson 1,900,000 acres

Brad Kelley 1,700,000 acres

J.D. Irving, Incorporated 1,250,000 acres

Singleton Ranches 1,100,000 acres

King Ranch heirs 900,000 acres

Weyerhouser Paper 900,000 acres

Pingree heirs 800,000 acres

Reed Family 770,000 acres

Ford Family 740,000 acres

Interestingly enough- though their list is a mix of private and corporate owners, Forbes neglected to include any of the LDS holding companies in there list......hmmmmm......

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Right. It's not like any of those "corporate activities" or "shopping malls" provide jobs for anybody, which jobs then provide income for anybody, which income keeps people from becoming "homeless and starving." Oh, wait. Yeah, they do! Sorry! My bad! (And I mean absolutely no offense, so please pardon my frankness here), but there are plenty of slums in the world to which you can move if you desire to live there. With all due respect, you have no right to ask anyone else to live in a slum (from which you, of course, are far away) simply to assuage your conscience.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[selek1]

He threw the (enormous and awesome) "set" away, fact.

Assertion not in evidence. Did you see him throw the set away?

No.

You know only what you heard him say, ergo "hear-say".

In a court of law, he is an eyewitness or actually a participant, to the crime or I mean waste in this case.

HE was an eye witness. You are not.

You know only what you were told and have no means to judge the veracity of his statement.

Play what card? Am I on trial here? Dichotomy with the blind or puppet? My brain is barely functioning most the time but what do you mean by saying no one on here demands blind obedience? I didn't say anything like that, I merely meant that we are allowed freedom of thought and free agency in this church, and if something feels wrong than we're allowed to think it.

No one here suggested that we were not allowed free thought.

You played that card when it was pointed out that you were repeating gossip as fact. The "free thought" argument was a non sequitor and a cop-out when you appealed to it.

It has not improved with age.

And you didn't answer me when I asked if it bothers you if this story, hypothetically speaking, was held up in a court of law? You don't have to answer, btw!

In other words, you are asking me if I am troubled by a story I have no reason to believe?

[selek1]

I simply think the LDS Church should pay property taxes on the large amount of real estate they hold.

News flash- THEY DO.

Less than one-tenth of one percent of the Church's holdings are exempted from property taxes. The Church pays the appropriate taxes on all the rest.

The Church's for-profit arms all pay their local state, and Federal taxes as required by law.

The Church pays the appropriate taxes on the profits from it's for-profit enterprises.

Edited July 12, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

So, just in case anyone didn't know, theallthetimesocialistsometimesaint doesn't like Romney. Why is this a surprise, and how is it relevant to anything in this thread?

Regards,

Pahoran

Especially when Caesar Obama's ventures are controlled by exactly the same sort of blind trust as are Romney's.

In point of fact, that arrangement is required by Federal law.

The double standard is simply staggering.

When "the beautiful people" do something it's either :business as usual" or "just the way things are done".

When Mormons do the same thing, it's "sinister", "nefarious", and "shady".

Edited July 12, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Assertion not in evidence. Did you see him throw the set away?

No.

You know only what you heard him say, ergo "hear-say".

HE was an eye witness. You are not.

You know only what you were told and have no means to judge the veracity of his statement.

No one here suggested that we were not allowed free thought.

You played that card when it was pointed out that you were repeating gossip as fact. The "free thought" argument was a non sequitor and a cop-out when you appealed to it.

It has not improved with age.

In other words, you are asking me if I am troubled by a story I have no reason to believe?

I will do some checking and get back with you on that. Maybe someone from the church office building can give us an answer. Even though I know the integrity of this person. Will that suffice?

[Calm]

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.

This goes along with Maslow's needs hierarchy. Someone who is concerned with survival isn't going to be someone who is looking to selfimprove, but instead will be putting their efforts into trying to find the next meal and having a place to sleep safely at night. Only those who have these things can devote themselves to filling desires and needs for more abstract/aethetic/spiritual aspects of life. This does not mean someone who is poor cannot be spiritual, just that they cannot devote their time and energy to building on that spirituality in all the ways that they desire.

In many ways the poor may be more spiritual as is demonstrated in the scriptures. But they will not be able to fulfill their potential. The rich or those materially well off have another burden where obsession with material possessions become their roadblock to fulfilling spiritual potential. Overconcern with material needs, either from the too little to too much, can get in the way of spiritual progress.

Edited July 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

This article makes me wonder how other churches are able financially sustain themselves. They have paid clergy, most congregants don't donate anywhere close to ten percent of their income, and most don't have vast for profit business holdings to support their bottom line. How do they do it?

For the most part, the smaller Churches survive by cutting their outlays and living on a shoestring.

Whiled doing my research today, I ran across a quote that suggested that something on the order of 98% of all Church congregations in the United States have less than 100 members. They live (literally) Sunday to Sunday and save for major expenditures such as renovations and repairs.

This same line of "huge corporate empire" attack is used against the Catholic Church.

One website alleged that the Pope was one of the wealthiest men on Earth since he owned both Vatican City and every Catholic Church across the planet.

The argument (like the argument against the LDS Church) is actually based in malice and ignorance- most of the real property "owned" by the Church is actually owned by the local diocese or parish rather than the Church itself (or as a whole).

Setting aside the Church's art collection, the actual holdings are much more meager than one would expect looking in from the outside.

Moreover, the property does not belong to the Pope personally, but rather is in a trust, for which he is the executor (identical to how the Prophet is the "owner" of the Corporation of the President.

[Pahoran]

I will do some checking and get back with you on that. Maybe someone from the church office building can give us an answer. Even though I know the integrity of this person. Will that suffice?

Not really, because we don't know you, so we don't know how good your judgement is.

Look Tacenda, this really is a rather minor point. I have done amateur productions, and so I've seen where theatrical sets that aren't going to be used again are often discarded. The only point I can see at issue is that you seem to expect us to accept a hearsay account from an anonymous participant as though it were an established fact.

Facts don't get to be established on anonymous hearsay evidence. They don't even get to be established on anonymous first-hand evidence. That's just the way things work. The price of posting anonymously (and a pseudonym is anonymous) is that we can't expect anyone to take our word for anything. Therefore, we don't get offended when they don't.

As you may have noticed, I post anonymously. Consequently, I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything -- especially if I start reporting what I heard via an (unnamed) friend of my (unnamed) spouse.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I don't think it's hearsay at all. It came from the source. But as soon as I posted I realised that it probably happens all the time as Why Me said. The church uplifted us with a wonderful Christmas Program. Even if it had to dispose of the set. Sorry I "gossiped" in your words, but it is a fact. I think you can still be a true believer and say if something isn't right as far as waste. We are not puppets or blind followers are we? Does this so called "waste" bother you?

What would you have suggested be done with the set since it was likely tailormade for the location and the production and as you stated, there was no place to store it?

[cdowis]

My husband knows someone that works behind the scenes for the church conference center. Last year the church put on a wonderful Christmas program with a few celebrities. The set cost over 100,000.00 but was thrown away only after a couple of nights of use, that to me is wasteful.

OK, they probably quickly tore down the set when they were finished. You got a bunch of "stuff" lying on the ground, ready to be thrown in the trash.

Please tell us what you would have done. Tell us how other TV and film orgainzations "save" the sets which were designed for a one-time use. Should we ship them somewhere, put them into storage?

I am sure that they saved what few objects would be useful and threw the rest away.

But give us your expert opinion.

Edited July 12, 2012 by cdowis

[Calm]

Not really, because we don't know you, so we don't know how good your judgement is.

Look Tacenda, this really is a rather minor point. I have done amateur productions, and so I've seen where theatrical sets that aren't going to be used again are often discarded. The only point I can see at issue is that you seem to expect us to accept a hearsay account from an anonymous participant as though it were an established fact.

There is also the matter of whether or not the individual saw what happened to the set after he discarded it (assuming he did this). Did he observe it being picked up by a garbage truck and carried to a land fill? Or is it possible that someone(s) had been given permission to go among the discarded material and pick up anything they though they could make use of, such as people from the local DI?