KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 You told me they were sold at cost, so yes I am assuming that you have some factual basis for that claim and I'm asking for the information. We both agree they sold items. I readily admit I don't know if they sold them at, above, or below cost. Your claim, the onus of proof is on youAsked and answered.
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 A hundred percent! Wow! I'm ashamed to admit, I only pay a measly ten percent. I think it's great that you're so committed and all but ... what do you live on? (Sorry; couldn't resist!)
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 No you said there were properties that should be taxed that are not already and I asked you which ones?I have already said I think the Church office building should be taxes as well as anything beyond churches, temples, and I'll give you the tabernacle. I don't know if the hunting reserves, ranches,and other entities are classified as for-profit or not-for profit so I don't have much opinion on them other than they should be paying property taxes (and likely already are). I also think the LDS Church should pay property tax on historical sites, universities, etc.I have no idea the % of church holdings that don't pay property tax. That information is not available to the publicFor the record, this is my opinion only and is not limited to the LDS Church. I think all not-for-profit organizations should pay property taxes on their real estate holdings.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Asked and answered.I saw no evidence just an anecdote about working at a cannery. It doesn't matter to me. I agreed long ago that they sell things at a very reasonable cost.
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) I'm glad you could'nt resist kenngo1969, that cracked me up. And it did sound like I was boasting! How embarrassing. But you know you need a clown act to break up the monotony once in awhile! Edited July 12, 2012 by Tacenda 1
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I'm glad you could'nt resist, that cracked me up. And it did sound like I was boasting! How embarrassing. But you know you need a clown act to break up the monotony once in awhile!lol. If you can afford 100% tithing, knock yourself out.
selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Your claim, the onus of proof is on youIf you honored that standard as much in its keeping as in its breach, we'd hear from you a lot less.Nonetheless, this took me all of five seconds on Google (both are non-LDS sources).If you don’t have any food storage yet, you can get it done at the cannery. You volunteer your time and labor (along with others), and only pay for the cost of the food itself. http://www.countrysu...-self-reliance/Something to note – it is very inexpensive at the cannery is non-profit so everything is sold at cost.http://modernsurviva...anning-a-visit/ Edited July 12, 2012 by selek1
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 If you honored that standard as much in its keeping as its breach, we'd here from you a lot less.Nonetheless, this took me all of five seconds on Google (both are non-LDS sources). http://www.countrysu...-self-reliance/http://modernsurviva...anning-a-visit/Great. Thank you Selek1 for providing Kevins reference for him. The information is much appreciatedYou are badgering. Stop if you want to stay in the thread.
guerreiro9 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 It's too bad these threads degenerate into shouting matches, I was hoping to read more discussion of the Bloomberg article. At least the shouting is somewhat related to the subject, although perhaps a new thread should be opened discussing the merits of taxing nonprofit organizations (I agree with sjdawg by the way and would be willing to discuss my reasoning in another thread).I thought the Bloomberg article was interesting, but was not very good journalism. I don't think there was a single substantiated financial fact in the entire article. The LDS church could really be much better stewards with their members money than the article seems to insinuate or they could be much worse, again I can't think of a single substantiated fact either way.The insinuation however, was pretty clear. Because the LDS church has a lot of money and assets and because we don't know what they are doing with their money, then they have to be up to no good. That was my impression of the article anyway. 1
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 It's too bad these threads degenerate into shouting matches, I was hoping to read more discussion of the Bloomberg article. At least the shouting is somewhat related to the subject, although perhaps a new thread should be opened discussing the merits of taxing nonprofit organizations (I agree with sjdawg by the way and would be willing to discuss my reasoning in another thread).I thought the Bloomberg article was interesting, but was not very good journalism. I don't think there was a single substantiated financial fact in the entire article. The LDS church could really be much better stewards with their members money than the article seems to insinuate or they could be much worse, again I can't think of a single substantiated fact either way.The insinuation however, was pretty clear. Because the LDS church has a lot of money and assets and because we don't know what they are doing with their money, then they have to be up to no good. That was my impression of the article anyway.I didn't get the impression that they were accused of being bad stewards of money so much as overly secretive with the money.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) I apologize if my thanking selek for the reference came off sarcastic. I actually did mean thank you. Edited July 12, 2012 by sjdawg
guerreiro9 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The impression I got from the article is that members of the LDS church are unhappy with the way the church is spending their money (which is ironic because very few actually know how it is being spent) and that the LDS church is overly secretive with the money. I guess this impression came from the comments they included from members of the church which if I remember correctly (I may need to read the article again) were all of a less than favorable nature.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The impression I got from the article is that members of the LDS church are unhappy with the way the church is spending their money (which is ironic because very few actually know how it is being spent) and that the LDS church is overly secretive with the money. I guess this impression came from the comments they included from members of the church which if I remember correctly (I may need to read the article again) were all of a less than favorable nature.I agree with a previous poster (selek I think) who said the quotes of leadership seemed defensive. I'm not sure if the interview put them on edge, if they were taken out of context, or if they were just really uncomfortable discussing finances. I also thought it reflected poorly when the person agreed revenue was in the 1.2 billion range and then later retracted. It was portrayed as though the church was hiding something when it may have been an honest mistake.
guerreiro9 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I agree with a previous poster (selek I think) who said the quotes of leadership seemed defensive. I'm not sure if the interview put them on edge, if they were taken out of context, or if they were just really uncomfortable discussing finances. I also thought it reflected poorly when the person agreed revenue was in the 1.2 billion range and then later retracted. It was portrayed as though the church was hiding something when it may have been an honest mistake.I agree as well, the leadership was portrayed as defensive or at least evasive and it was probably from a combination of all the reasons you listed. I don't think I've seen an interview with anyone yet, where something wasn't taken at least slightly out of context. I think those writing an article should allow those being cited to proof the article before it is released, but that will never happen.It think the leadership of the LDS church is probably slightly uncomfortable discussing finances, it is not something they do very often. I'm not sure from a P.R. standpoint what would be the best approach for them. Their "danged" if they do "danged" if they don't (I'm new to the forum and am unsure of the rules on obscenities so I'll avoid them). If they release more information they will be criticized, if they keep it secret they will be criticized. In the end though I think a more open policy would serve them better.
why me Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I thought the Bloomberg article was interesting, but was not very good journalism. I don't think there was a single substantiated financial fact in the entire article. The LDS church could really be much better stewards with their members money than the article seems to insinuate or they could be much worse, again I can't think of a single substantiated fact either way.The insinuation however, was pretty clear. Because the LDS church has a lot of money and assets and because we don't know what they are doing with their money, then they have to be up to no good. That was my impression of the article anyway.I think that you got it wrong about the article. The Bloomberg site is about making money and profit and creating business. For Bloomberg the Mall is a good business deal that creates jobs for many people. Also, it shows what can be done to lessen community blight. It is actually a success story.We don't know what the Vatican does with its money either and the vatican bank is like fort knox in its secrecy. Not to mention other churches. I see no reason why the lds church needs to be different.
why me Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 In the end though I think a more open policy would serve them better.It is never a good idea to be open with finances. Too many enemies out there that can play havoc with stocks, investments etc. Think what would happen if you were open with your finances? The church is not about finance but about bringing people closer to christ. However, the ability to make good investments, and to have the income to survive economic depressions etc shows a pretty good mastery of the current economic system that motivates the world. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) 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?Because of cost and storage issues, the opera company for which I perform often rents sets from other opera companies and returns them afterthe 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 todo 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. How much of the $100,000 was for labor and design?Bernard Edited July 12, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 is it really charity if we expect them to pay it back?The payback is then recycled to more loan recipients. It is self-perpetuating.That allows everyone to be charitable.Bernard
nettie Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The billions sent to the University of California aren't enough?I'm sorry, I don't understand (I'm not a member, I'm still investigating the Church, and my parents sent me this article, which I find a bit troubling). Are you saying that the Church has donated billions of dollars to the University of California so that poor students can attend?nettie
nettie Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Perpetual Education FundI don't know what that is.nettie
why me Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I'm sorry, I don't understand (I'm not a member, I'm still investigating the Church, and my parents sent me this article, which I find a bit troubling). Are you saying that the Church has donated billions of dollars to the University of California so that poor students can attend?nettieWhat is troubling about the article? It would be interesting to know. I don't find the article to be troubling at all and neither do the bloomberg people. The lds church for only having 14 million members is very successful financially. A lot of money goes to very poor members throughout the world. We need to remember that in the underdeveloped world the members can be very poor. Also, a lot of money goes to humanitarian aid when needed. I also believe that the mormon welfare program is held in high regard throughout the world for its ability to give people their dignity back and self esteem.
why me Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I don't know what that is.nettiehttp://pef.lds.org/?locale=enghttp://pef.lds.org/pef/success?locale=eng
mapman Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I don't think the article was intended to be positive. Here's the cover: 1
guerreiro9 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think that the building of the City Creek Center is definitely a success story, and that the Church of Jesus Christ should be applauded for its efforts. I did not get the impression that the Bloomberg article agreed with me, but that is simply my impression of the article. The Bloomberg article in my opinion had a decidedly negative slant to it, and was very weak on factual evidence.For financial reasons, I would not encourage anyone to be open with their finances, and I am very guarded with mine. I personally do not have any discomfort with the Church's current level of financial openness, and I believe they have been guarded for the reasons you mentioned, it makes good financial sense. I would be interested in seeing more financial information if it were available, but that is simply a matter of personal interest.From a P.R. standpoint though, things become slightly more complicated. The more tightly you hold information, the more it appears to some that you have something to hide, even if this is not the case. I do not believe this is the case with the Church of Jesus Christ, but I think this is the perception that many have and I think that the Bloomberg article did nothing to dispel this perception.Then what should the Church do? I don't know, I think they will be criticized no matter what they decide to do. In my opinion though it is almost always better to err on the side of openness for P.R. reasons. For purely financial reasons I would recommend being as secretive and astute as possible and I hope the people that are managing my investments are being so.
guerreiro9 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I meant my previous post as a reply to two of why me's posts. This was my first attempt at a MultiQuote response and I utterly failed. My second attempt appears to have gone better.It is never a good idea to be open with finances. Too many enemies out there that can play havoc with stocks, investments etc. Think what would happen if you were open with your finances? The church is not about finance but about bringing people closer to christ. However, the ability to make good investments, and to have the income to survive economic depressions etc shows a pretty good mastery of the current economic system that motivates the world.I think that you got it wrong about the article. The Bloomberg site is about making money and profit and creating business. For Bloomberg the Mall is a good business deal that creates jobs for many people. Also, it shows what can be done to lessen community blight. It is actually a success story.We don't know what the Vatican does with its money either and the vatican bank is like fort knox in its secrecy. Not to mention other churches. I see no reason why the lds church needs to be different.
Recommended Posts