cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Don't use images of the Savior to mock other posters. Edited July 13, 2012 by Ares
Avatar4321 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I hope there comes a day when organizations such as the LDS Church are required to pay property taxes. 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.I sincerely hope that never happens. Because for it to happen the First Amendment of the Constitution would have to be repealed. I don't like the idea of not having my right to exercise my faith free from government interference.
Avatar4321 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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.The Church is putting alot of moey into the "Third World". It's called the Perpetual Education fund and as far as I can tell is working perfectly.
Avatar4321 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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.Doesnt matter what others incorrectly see the Church to be. What matters is what it actually is.
selek1 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I sincerely hope that never happens. Because for it to happen the First Amendment of the Constitution would have to be repealed. I don't like the idea of not having my right to exercise my faith free from government interference.The argument was idiotic when it was first posed.It is idiotic now.The Church does pay property taxes on all of its corporate holdings.Only the explicitly religious sites (Temples, wardhouses, and the like) are exempted.
why me Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Was I wrong? Giving money to the third world or developing countries has not helped those people at all. The way to help the underdeveloped world is to change the world economic system away from profit and markets and into a more social perspective where people come before profit. That is the only way to help this sad world we live in. Edited July 13, 2012 by Ares
why me Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 The Church is putting alot of moey into the "Third World". It's called the Perpetual Education fund and as far as I can tell is working perfectly.I know. But for the critics, they would like the church to disinvest in their holdings and give all that money to the poor. What the church does do, is to give people a chance to improve themselves where it counts: education and job skills. This is the best way to help the poor and the fund helps that to happen.
selek1 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I know. But for the critics, they would like the church to disinvest in their holdings and give all that money to the poor. Nah- they'd just accuse us of trying to buy members through gifts (which is what happens everytime we make a priminent and high-profile humanitarian outreach. What they'd really like us to do is just shrivel up and go away.Calls to repentance are soooo hard on the complacent, and there's nothing a couch potato hates more than a marathon runner.
nettie Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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 didn't come here to lecture anyone, just to seek some opinion. And I didn't judge anyone, I shared my concerns. And you have just insulted both me and my dad, two people you hardly know. If you represent a typical parishioner of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then maybe my dad is right and I shouldn't associate with the likes of you.nettie
nettie Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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.Goodness, I'm not complaining! My dad sent me this article because I have been looking into joining the Church and my parents aren't too fond of this decision. I came here to see if anyone could help me because it's a very hard article to fight against, and instead I get crapped all over.Tell you what, never mind. You guys seem too mean-spirited. I didn't come here to fight and argue. I love my friend who has introduced me to the Church, but the internet and the local ward seem to be filled with people who aren't for me.nettie
rodheadlee Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 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)That's not true. Those people with jobs buy and sell products from around the world.
sjdawg Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 The argument was idiotic when it was first posed.It is idiotic now.I love you Selek
KevinG Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Goodness, I'm not complaining! My dad sent me this article because I have been looking into joining the Church and my parents aren't too fond of this decision. I came here to see if anyone could help me because it's a very hard article to fight against, and instead I get crapped all over.Tell you what, never mind. You guys seem too mean-spirited. I didn't come here to fight and argue. I love my friend who has introduced me to the Church, but the internet and the local ward seem to be filled with people who aren't for me.nettieNettie,Please do yourself a favor and talk to your LDS friends, missionaries and most of all pray about your decision. Do not debate on internet discussion boards and hope to find the truth.You did judge, you did criticize (or at least shared others criticisms) and now you want to blame others for responding. That isn't cool. Edited July 13, 2012 by KevinG 3
Deborah Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Tell you what, never mind. You guys seem too mean-spirited. I didn't come here to fight and argue. I love my friend who has introduced me to the Church, but the internet and the local ward seem to be filled with people who aren't for me.I never recommend anyone searching for a testimony come on the internet. One problem is that you can't always tell the tone of comments and so can misinterpret them. Listen to your friend and pray about it.When I was 14 I was investigating the church and the minister from my prior church came by and talked to my parents, who never set foot in church, and told them he didn't care if I joined any church but the Mormon Church. He then told them half truths and other misinformed opinions. Fortunately I didn't listen to what he said and eventually my parents didn't either.To those who criticize the "wealth" of the church, do you not understand the numerous ways this wealth is used to help the poor. City Creek Mall has provided jobs in an economy where jobs are desperately needed. It has cleaned up an area that was becoming unhealthy and unsafe and hopefully motivated others to invest in downtown. It's farms also employ people but also provide food for the storehouses which aid in humanitarian efforts throughout the world. Those who cry that the money spent on the mall should have been sent to these poor countries are very naive about the political state of those countries and that it would have been just as valuable in actually helping people as flushing the money down the toilet.One more point, the reason charitable organizations are tax exempt is because they lift much of the burden off the government in helping the poor. It is to the benefit of governments to let others share this burden, and in fact it is more beneficial when it is left to the churches and local communities. 2
danielwoods Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 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.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.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.Fair enough. I'm only attempting to point out what is plainly obvious to me. That this article is representative of how the rest of the world sees the LDS church. You disagree with that, and that's fine, I'm not going to change your opinion. As for your CFR. I can only attempt to point to countless examples of non-LDS comments that reflect their surprise when they learn what the LDS actually believe, and then see what the LDS do with their wealth (a mall, etc.) and understand the fact that they hide their finances (because hiding usually implies "they are hiding something"). These simple facts put together are all non-LDS need to make their opinion what it is. They don't need to know any more. The LDS do many great things to be sure, but that doesn't mitigate these observations. 1
Nofear Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 That this article is representative of how the rest of the world sees the LDS church.Journalists are held to a higher standard of perception in their reporting than the general populace. And if the information is unfairly skewed then the journalist is justly criticized/rebuked.
mapman Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Goodness, I'm not complaining! My dad sent me this article because I have been looking into joining the Church and my parents aren't too fond of this decision. I came here to see if anyone could help me because it's a very hard article to fight against, and instead I get crapped all over.Tell you what, never mind. You guys seem too mean-spirited. I didn't come here to fight and argue. I love my friend who has introduced me to the Church, but the internet and the local ward seem to be filled with people who aren't for me.nettieThe Internet is a weird place. People say things they wouldn't normally say, people can't communicate as well, and the extremists often are able to yell louder than everyone else. I think you should go to an actual church meeting and see what you think.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the wonderful cover. http://businessinsider.com/businessweek-mormon-cover-2012-7
happy Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 It is fascinating that a person like nettie takes a group of people hiding behind anonymity and takes that as a marker of real life human beings. Local wards usually are more tactful and friendly.
Deborah Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 It is fascinating that a person like nettie takes a group of people hiding behind anonymity and takes that as a marker of real life human beings. Local wards usually are more tactful and friendly. Anyone is in person. I've met some of the posters her in person and they are much nicer than you would think from some of their comments.
Calm Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 nettie, I would recommend reading http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng for our doctrine. If you are concerned about humanitarian works, you might be interested in this: http://www.lds.org/service/humanitarian?lang=eng and http://www.lds.org/service/volunteer-and-contribute?lang=eng
danielwoods Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Journalists are held to a higher standard of perception in their reporting than the general populace. And if the information is unfairly skewed then the journalist is justly criticized/rebuked.Are the basic facts true? 1) LDS claim to be a church2) LDS are involved in many business corporations (including a mall)3) LDS hide their financial detailsThe perception is based on these facts alone. 1
Calm Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) An article that disputes the numbers: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/07/business-weeks-erroneous-claim-about-lds-charitable-giving/Another fact sheet also illustrates. Take a look at this second short fact sheet on the church’s humanitarian efforts. This breaks out what those efforts are: Emergency response. Clean water efforts, wheelchairs, and neonatal care in developing countries. Immunization projects. That’s what the church spends $50 million a year.The church’s extensive network of food storehouses, employment assistance, Deseret Industries thrift stores, are not included in the tally — because they are not seen as church humanitarian assistance, but rather as church welfare assistance. (And even the broader church welfare numbers do not seem to include the extensive educational subsidies the church provides to students at BYU and other church universities.)Given this crucial misunderstanding of the fact sheet, Cragun’s factual claim is incorrect and in fact very misleading on an important point, and so is Winter’s use of Cragun’s claim. Edited July 13, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 some comments with info:In addition to the examples you provided above, I think you could also include assistance with adoptions. A typical domestic adoption in the United States can be anywhere from $20,000-$50,000. Those who are able to adopt through LDS Family Services pay only 10 percent of their income up to $10,000 (10,000 is the most that is paid). That is incredibly cheap and unheard of in the adoption world. From my limited understanding, the discrepancy in cost is subsidized by the church. I don’t know that you can label adoption as a humanitarian effort and those who can benefit from this service is also limited but it does provide another small piece to this larger picture.....A couple of examples: the 2009 Utah Food Bank report, here:https://www.utahfoodbank.org/docs/AR%202009.pdfThe building that the Utah Food Bank resides in and the land underneath it were donated by the LDS Church (in the report, they’re credited as donating more than $2.5 million to the capital campaign). They’re also credited in the report as being one of the top tier “commercial food donors,” with more than 500,000 pounds of food donated (yearly).As the church points out in its commentary, Welfare Square could certainly be more automated, but self-reliance and voluntarism are more important to the mission of the church as just buying food and giving it away would be.Also, the Road Home shelter in Salt Lake, their annual report:http://centralpt.com/upload/505/FinancialsData/15373_2011AnnualReport.pdfAgain, the LDS Church is on the top tier of those giving aid. I have it on good authority as well that the church, when someone moves out of shelter into housing, supplies free furniture and three months’ worth of food. Those are all things that “care for the poor and needy,” and do it in the inimitable Mormon way of teaching a man to fish, not just supplying fish all the livelong day.
why me Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Nah- they'd just accuse us of trying to buy members through gifts (which is what happens everytime we make a priminent and high-profile humanitarian outreach.What they'd really like us to do is just shrivel up and go away.This is true. In fact, when church members were their helping hands t-shirt, the church comes under criticism for not being humble. I saw this criticism on the catholic site. Unfortunately, I could not post on that board because catholic charities also wear identification on their heads or backs. The church just can't win. On the one hand, mormons are accused of doing nothing. When mormons wear identification that identifies them as mormons to show church involvement, the critics complain about this.
Recommended Posts