Bloomberg Does Mormonism

[selek1]

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

No- I'm saying that the University of California is a dumping ground where billions of dollars are wasted annually on students who are admitted because of the color of their skin or their political leanings rather than their academic credentials.

There already exist avenues through which the poor and less advantaged can attain "higher" education. Most of those avenues are either taken for granted or wasted outright.

BYU and the Perpetual Education fund already afford that opportunity for faithful Latter-day Saints whose academic credentials and willingness to work hard indicate that they are serious about attaining their degree.

Why then should the Church divert more of its limited resources to duplicate the efforts of others?

Why throw good money after bad?

Edited July 12, 2012 by selek1

[WalkerW]

Haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been referenced. Nate Oman had an excellent post on the City Creek Mall at Times and Seasons.

[nettie]

No- I'm saying that the University of California is a dumping ground where billions of dollars are wasted annually on students who are admitted because of the color of their skin or their political leanings rather than their academic credentials.

There already exist avenues through which the poor and less advantaged can attain "higher" education. Most of those avenues are either taken for granted or wasted outright.

BYU and the Perpetual Education fund already afford that opportunity for faithful Latter-day Saints whose academic credentials and willingness to work hard indicate that they are serious about attaining their degree.

Why then should the Church divert more of its limited resources to duplicate the efforts of others?

Why throw good money after bad?

Oh dear. After reading the article, I wouldn't agree that the Church has limited resources. But, I don't want to argue. This just strikes me as a very strange way for a church to spend money.

nettie

[KevinG]

Some people never got the Econ 101 lesson on seed corn vs. eating corn.

[nettie]

Some people never got the Econ 101 lesson on seed corn vs. eating corn.

I get it, but in the article the Church bishop said the mall was a poor financial investment, even said it would only turn a small profit.

nettie

[KevinG]

I get it, but in the article the Church bishop said the mall was a poor financial investment, even said it would only turn a small profit.

nettie

I guess you have to add community improvement corn and donating corn to the mix.

[nettie]

I guess you have to add community improvement corn and donating corn to the mix.

I think there are many other communities in poorer parts of the world where 2 billion dollars could make life-changing and life-saving differences. Salt Lake City doesn't exactly scream 'charity case'.

I'm trying really hard to not let this color my perception of the church, but it makes it hard when your dad is public policy professor and has great arguments against the church's fiscal habits.

nettie

[KevinG]

Salt Lake City doesn't scream charity case precisely because the church has stayed involved with the city center since its inception. As I've noted before Atlanta or any other major city would love to have the kind of investment in their city centers. The area where the new mall sits was suffering from infrastructure decay and needed to be updated badly.

Please see other threads where the $2 Billion is put into perspective. Of that only a portion was used for the mall which will bring in a profit over time. The rest was used to improve parking, provide housing for a college and provide additional space for housing and church administration.

The money invested produced thousands of jobs during construction and will keep thousands of new jobs in the city to run the mall and other facilities.

The money invested is bringing a good return in a time of recession for the church (win) for the citizens of Salt Lake City (win) and for those who will draw on those secure funds some day as a source of humanitarian and religious works (win).

What does your father know of the churches fiscal habits? Does he serve in the Presiding Bishopric?

Edited July 13, 2012 by KevinG

[selek1]

I think there are many other communities in poorer parts of the world where 2 billion dollars could make life-changing and life-saving differences. Salt Lake City doesn't exactly scream 'charity case'.

I'm trying really hard to not let this color my perception of the church, but it makes it hard when your dad is public policy professor and has great arguments against the church's fiscal habits.

nettie

There is only one argument for or against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: whether or not it is what it claims to be.

And you won't determine that by listening to idle gossip or the opinions of men.

Internet nannying, gossiping, and tongue-clucking by people interested in minding everyone else's business isn't helping the poor.

How much money does your daddy give to charity? How many people has he fed? How many has he clothed? How many has he employed?

Unless and until he (and you) are doing your own part, you have no business lecturing us.

Thus far, your tenure here has been long on opinion and short on knowledge.

You might want to fix that before presuming to judge us.

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

I get it, but in the article the Church bishop said the mall was a poor financial investment, even said it would only turn a small profit.

nettie

I would have thought you would approve of thinking investing in people is more important than investing for financial benefit.

[danielwoods]

Seems to me that many here in the SLC area are offended by this article, but I don't think this article was intended to offend anyone, rather to convey the viewpoint of those outside the LDS church, as to what the church appears to them. I've seen other "mega" churches criticized for their size and money holdings.

To them the LDS church "appears" to be a not a church at all, but a financial corporation. This is their viewpoint, maybe it's right maybe it's not. It simply is their viewpoint. They see all the financial holdings, land, etc... and make their conclusions. And they put their viewpoint in an article.

It also seems to me that more articles and things will be coming out, as more and more become aware of LDS beliefs and things, given Romney's more prominent position in the US.

[selek1]

Seems to me that many here in the SLC area are offended by this article, but I don't think this article was intended to offend anyone, rather to convey the viewpoint of those outside the LDS church, as to what the church appears to them. I've seen other "mega" churches criticized for their size and money holdings.

To them the LDS church "appears" to be a not a church at all, but a financial corporation. This is their viewpoint, maybe it's right maybe it's not. It simply is their viewpoint. They see all the financial holdings, land, etc... and make their conclusions. And they put their viewpoint in an article.

It also seems to me that more articles and things will be coming out, as more and more become aware of LDS beliefs and things, given Romney's more prominent position in the US.

In light of the above, please address the criticisms of the article offered in Post #47.

Given the role that articles such as this play in shaping public perception, does the existing perception somehow excuse the poor journalistic practices used to create the article?

Which is more suited to true journalism?

A fair, balanced, and factual analysis of the topic or agenda-journalism designed to reinforce the echo-chamber of ignorance and intolerance?

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[sjdawg]

There is only one argument for or against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: whether or not it is what it claims to be.

And you won't determine that by listening to idle gossip or the opinions of men.

Internet nannying, gossiping, and tongue-clucking by people interested in minding everyone else's business isn't helping the poor.

How much money does your daddy give to charity? How many people has he fed? How many has he clothed? How many has he employed?

Unless and until he (and you) are doing your own part, you have no business lecturing us.

Thus far, your tenure here has been long on opinion and short on knowledge.

You might want to fix that before presuming to judge us.

I'm sure he'll join the church right away now

[danielwoods]

In light of the above, please address the criticisms of the article offered in Post #47.

From Post #47:

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.

Yes, but the fact remains that it is their viewpoint, and I might add it shows how the LDS are viewed by the non-LDS world. It may not be right, and in your opinion, just wrong or a hit piece, but the non-LDS world doesn't have the interest or inclination to defend or study to find out what the proper defense of the church is. Simply put they see a church that acts like a financial company, to be suspect. To the rest of the world, the LDS church doesn't act like what they understand a church to be. Right or wrong, it seems to me that is where this article is coming from.

[selek1]

Right or wrong, it seems to me that is where this article is coming from.

So in your opinion, merely parroting the prejudices and preconceptions of "the world" is justified in what purports to be a "balanced" article? Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

From Post #47:

Yes, but the fact remains that it is their viewpoint, and I might add it shows how the LDS are viewed by the non-LDS world.

"The non-LDS world" is not a monolith and has no single view of any subject. At all.

It may not be right, and in your opinion, just wrong or a hit piece, but the non-LDS world doesn't have the interest or inclination to defend or study to find out what the proper defense of the church is. Simply put they see a church that acts like a financial company, to be suspect.

But the Church does not "act like a financial company." To represent it as doing so is intentionally misleading. It acts like a church (because that is what it is, and that is an absolutely non-controversial fact that no informed person disputes) that actually knows how to take care of its temporal resources, for a change.

To the rest of the world, the LDS church doesn't act like what they understand a church to be. Right or wrong, it seems to me that is where this article is coming from.

In which case it is coming from a position of ignorance. And not just common-garden-variety ignorance, either; but ignorance of truly heroic proportions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[danielwoods]

So in your opinion, merely parroting the prejudices and preconceptions of the world is justified in what purports to be a "balanced" article?

How "balanced" another's view point is, always subject to opinion, because in reality no one is unbiased. This articles view point is obviously from that of a non-LDS person, who has no vested interest or personal stake in defending the church's position.

[selek1]

How "balanced" another's view point is, always subject to opinion, because in reality no one is unbiased. This articles view point is obviously from that of a non-LDS person, who has no vested interest or personal stake in defending the church's position.

Utter rot.

The quotes and sources used were carefully selected. Key data- notably the biases and prejudices of certain critics of the Church- were omitted and potentially fatal arguments were omitted. The only view points presented were those either overtly critical or suspicious of the Church. Key points of data were conflated or obscured in order to drive a very specific conclusion- and suit a very specific agenda.

No objective- or reasonably unbiased- observer can read this piece and conclude that it in any way represents professional journalistic standards of balance or objectivity.

Nor did the authors even try.

This article was clearly written by those with a vested interest- namely in casting suspicion on the Church and (through it) upon the Mormon candidate for President.

To pretend that this agenda stems from some sort of neutrality towards the Church -or that only those biased towards the Church might object- is disingenuous, at best.

The clear disinformation and journalistic malpractice inherent in the article is offensive and irresponsible- no matter who the target is.

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[danielwoods]

"The non-LDS world" is not a monolith and has no single view of any subject. At all.

But the Church does not "act like a financial company." To represent it as doing so is intentionally misleading. It acts like a church (because that is what it is, and that is an absolutely non-controversial fact that no informed person disputes) that actually knows how to take care of its temporal resources, for a change.

In which case it is coming from a position of ignorance. And not just common-garden-variety ignorance, either; but ignorance of truly heroic proportions.

Regards,

Pahoran

I agree with you, anytime a generalization is made, there are always exceptions. Just as one LDS person can't speak for all LDS, one non-LDS person can't speak for all. And by doing so leaves me open for that criticism.

However, as with any article, it has a viewpoint that is shared by many others. So, I agree, not every single person will agree with every single point, however, I think it's safe to say that many or most (again a generalization) non-LDS view these actions by the LDS church, as being more similar to a financial company, than to a church. Hence the article in question. And I think more will be coming, simply because it strikes many non-LDS as "odd" that a church would be so involved with so many business ventures.

[danielwoods]

Utter rot.

The quotes and sources used were carefully selected. Key data- notably the biases and prejudices of certain critics of the Church- were omitted and potentially fatal arguments were omitted. The only view points presented were those either overtly critical or suspicious of the Church. Key points of data were conflated or obscured in order to drive a very specific conclusion- and suit a very specific agenda.

No objective- or reasonably unbiased- observer can read this piece and conclude that it in any way represents professional journalistic standards of balance or objectivity.

Nor did the authors even try.

This article was clearly written by those with a vested interest- namely in casting suspicion on the Church and (through it) upon the Mormon candidate for President.

To pretend that this agenda stems from some sort of neutrality towards the Church -or that only those biased towards the Church might object- is disingenuous, at best.

The clear disinformation and journalistic malpractice inherent in the article is offensive and irresponsible- no matter who the target is.

It isn't the first and won't be the last. I see it as a representation of how the rest of the world sees the LDS.

I agree with you that those who oppose Romney will use it to attack him, however, I think that sort of attack will backfire.

[danielwoods]

The church's response:

"Those who attempt to define the Church as an institution devoted to amassing monetary wealth miss the entire point: the Church’s purpose is to bring people to Christ and to follow His example by lifting the burdens of those who are struggling. The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation, but as millions of faithful members in thousands of congregations across the world following Christ and caring for each other and their neighbors."

Notice, that the church here is thinking that someone is attempting to "define" the church as devoted to amassing monetary wealth. Yet, that is exactly what people see. Their perception is what drives articles like this one.

Then, "The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation..." Telling non-LDS people to look at us, "Not as a worldwide corporation...." is like telling Dorothy, "don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain..." it comes across as deception to non-believing people, especially when coupled with the fact that the church doesn't disclose it's financial statements.

[why me]

I think there are many other communities in poorer parts of the world where 2 billion dollars could make life-changing and life-saving differences. Salt Lake City doesn't exactly scream 'charity case'.

I'm trying really hard to not let this color my perception of the church, but it makes it hard when your dad is public policy professor and has great arguments against the church's fiscal habits.

nettie

The European Union has put quite a lot of money into the third world. I see no tangible results. The church is just that a church. Let me put it this way, if the lds church gave the third world 2 billion dollars, depleted their accounts, we would see a very poor church, and not impact at all on world poverty. Most would go into private hands as it has done in afghanistan. In that case, the church has limited funds since they would need to sell a lot of holdings to create two billion. And never get those holdings back, nor the money since it is invested money.

[why me]

Salt Lake City doesn't scream charity case precisely because the church has stayed involved with the city center since its inception. As I've noted before Atlanta or any other major city would love to have the kind of investment in their city centers. The area where the new mall sits was suffering from infrastructure decay and needed to be updated badly.

I don't think that Nettie wants to acknowledge this at all. Like many people who wish to use a mall as an excuse to be critical of the church the poster refuses to see the benefits that this mall is bringing to the people working there. Certainly, if one has a son or daughter working there right now, to support his or her college education or just to get work experience while working their way through school, the complaints would be less. I don't think that Nettie would be complaining so much if their child was working at the mall right now. She would b grateful, I believe.

Edited July 13, 2012 by why me

[why me]

The church's response:

"Those who attempt to define the Church as an institution devoted to amassing monetary wealth miss the entire point: the Church’s purpose is to bring people to Christ and to follow His example by lifting the burdens of those who are struggling. The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation, but as millions of faithful members in thousands of congregations across the world following Christ and caring for each other and their neighbors."

Notice, that the church here is thinking that someone is attempting to "define" the church as devoted to amassing monetary wealth. Yet, that is exactly what people see. Their perception is what drives articles like this one.

Then, "The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation..." Telling non-LDS people to look at us, "Not as a worldwide corporation...." is like telling Dorothy, "don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain..." it comes across as deception to non-believing people, especially when coupled with the fact that the church doesn't disclose it's financial statements.

People need to put on their critical thinking skills. A church of 14 million members, with perhaps 6 million active tithe payers or more has such wealth. How is that possible? Who is behind the financial decisions? Now money is money and it is here one day and gone the next. But so far, the church has survived economic crises rather well.

Now of course, we can go back to the good ol' days and have on church in a log cabin but the lds church is a success story to be copied. It is an example of good stewardship. One thing that one can say about the mormons is that they take good care of their own and they take good care of others when there is an emergency. I see no one complaining about mormon greed because there is no greed. And of course there will be jealousy over the wealth the lds church.

And we have no idea about the future. Someday these funds may be needed for the big bang that may happen in the future. The world economic situation is quite bad and it seems that the system will fall eventually. Preparation for the last days would not be a bad investment.

[selek1]

Notice, that the church here is thinking that someone is attempting to "define" the church as devoted to amassing monetary wealth.

And they are correct. The article is intended to create that impression in people's minds.

As has been stated repeatedly, the article is carefully crafted specifically towards that end.

Yet, that is exactly what people see. Their perception is what drives articles like this one.

Call For References, please. Please demonstrate that said "perception" of the Church is at all widespread.

Creating that perception is what drives articles like this.

Then, "The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation..." Telling non-LDS people to look at us, "Not as a worldwide corporation...." is like telling Dorothy, "don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain..." it comes across as deception to non-believing people, especially when coupled with the fact that the church doesn't disclose it's financial statements.

You are begging the question (again), and engaged in a lot of unfounded mind-reading.

As Pahoran has pointed out, "non-believing people" are not a single monolithic mass. Simply repeating a discredited meme does not make it more true.

As poll after poll in this country shows, most people are almost totally ignorant of the LDS Church, its practices, and its beliefs.

The article is an attempt to exploit that ignorance and fashion an image in people's minds.

The Church's response was not written to counter an existing impression held by "non-believing people" but to counter an attempt to create a specific (false) narrative in people's minds.