Bloomberg Does Mormonism

[why me]

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

Nettie, it seems that you misunderstood. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of nastiness. You made statements and people respond. I responded with respect. No one to my knowledge is fighting or arguing. But I am disagreeing with you. That is life. I don't know if you are serious about the church or if you just came here for trouble. Certainly calling us nasty for disagreeing with your premise is offensive. And I am not going to feel guilty over your take on your experience of being here. In fact, your comment was the nastiest comment I have seen on the thread.

Edited July 13, 2012 by why me

[why me]

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.

To be honest I have seen no one being mean or nasty to her. I just see people responding to her premises. The lds church is rich. It gives tangible help to people for them to be educated and find work. Not bad. It built a mall to prevent an area from economic hardship. It was a good investment for providing work for thousands of people both young and old. What is the problem with this is a mystery.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

The problem with this is misrepresentation of the facts. Just as one other poster said, the money the Church spends on welfare is not being taken into account. Not to mention the fast offerings and tithing money and where that goes.

[danielwoods]

The problem with this is misrepresentation of the facts. Just as one other poster said, the money the Church spends on welfare is not being taken into account. Not to mention the fast offerings and tithing money and where that goes.

It's taken into account, but that is what is expected of a church (things that we expect a church to do, isn't news). What isn't expected are the expenditures that are more like what a normal business would be involved with, such as a mall, burger king, etc, which people don't expect a church to be involved with.

[why me]

It's taken into account, but that is what is expected of a church (things that we expect a church to do, isn't news). What isn't expected are the expenditures that are more like what a normal business would be involved with, such as a mall, burger king, etc, which people don't expect a church to be involved with.

I think that most churches have investments if they can afford to have them. And many have their money in stocks if they can afford them. Difficult to be a growing church with just tithe donations unless one hits the airwaves as the TV evangelicals do. Do you think that the church can prosper with just tithe money when we consider the developing world and the amount of tithes that come from that part of the world?

Unfortunately, in a business centered world churches need to embrace the market.

[danielwoods]

I think that most churches have investments if they can afford to have them. And many have their money in stocks if they can afford them. Difficult to be a growing church with just tithe donations unless one hits the airwaves as the TV evangelicals do. Do you think that the church can prosper with just tithe money when we consider the developing world and the amount of tithes that come from that part of the world?

Unfortunately, in a business centered world churches need to embrace the market.

Seems a change in topic with this question. I think it does get to a core difference between the mission of the LDS church and other non-LDS churches.

Can a church prosper with just tithes? Indeed it seems to me that God didn't intend the church to be in business and "prosper", rather it seems to me, that the church is supposed to depend on the tithes and offerings alone. I think it gets to the core of the issue, who do we depend on as a church?

[why me]

Can a church prosper with just tithes? Indeed it seems to me that God didn't intend the church to be in business and "prosper", rather it seems to me, that the church is supposed to depend on the tithes and offerings alone. I think it gets to the core of the issue, who do we depend on as a church?

Unfortunately, for a world wide church this is not possible. The world is becoming poorer and so are the members. The members in the developing world give very little in tithe. And there are not that many people giving tithes. What the church does do is to use money invested to generate more money for its world wide position. It gives a lot of support far beyond its 14 million members. And for a church with such a small size, it makes miracles in its giving.

[danielwoods]

Unfortunately, for a world wide church this is not possible. The world is becoming poorer and so are the members. The members in the developing world give very little in tithe. And there are not that many people giving tithes. What the church does do is to use money invested to generate more money for its world wide position. It gives a lot of support far beyond its 14 million members. And for a church with such a small size, it makes miracles in its giving.

And this is a huge difference between the two systems. The response of the non-LDS church would say we depend on God, and not on our own ability to make more money by taking time and energy being involved in business ventures. God isn't in need of our puny abilities to make more money, rather he's already in control of all the money the church needs.

[Nofear]

Are the basic facts true?

1) LDS claim to be a church

2) LDS are involved in many business corporations (including a mall)

3) LDS hide their financial details

The perception is based on these facts alone.

You'll have to be more explicit what you mean by "perception" for me to answer.

Nonetheless it remains true that journalists are justifiably held to a higher standard than a simplistic interpretation of facts (which I doubt any professional journalist would dispute). A simplistic sound-byte interpretation can be factual and misleading/dishonest (which I also doubt any professional journalist would dispute -- common enough though the practice is).

What Bloomberg thinks Mormons do:

[ERayR]

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.

This article is a double prong attack. It is first and foremost a hit piece designed to sway public opinion against the church so that the anti-religion group can swoop in and start confiscating all that wealth without anyone raising a fuss and second to take a backhand swipe at Romney through his religion.

[ERayR]

And this is a huge difference between the two systems. The response of the non-LDS church would say we depend on God, and not on our own ability to make more money by taking time and energy being involved in business ventures. God isn't in need of our puny abilities to make more money, rather he's already in control of all the money the church needs.

The LDS Church says we depend on God to show us the answers. One of those answers is to invest in and accumulate properties that will maintain and improve our ability to accomplish the mission.

[BlueDreams]

And this is a huge difference between the two systems. The response of the non-LDS church would say we depend on God, and not on our own ability to make more money by taking time and energy being involved in business ventures. God isn't in need of our puny abilities to make more money, rather he's already in control of all the money the church needs.

Really? That's what non-lds churches would really say? Color me skeptical. And the LDS church does not remove God from the equation and from its business practices. Most of its businesses (from what I can see) are explicitly a means to support the church, its members, and various services to build up the quality of lives in and outside the church. There's a reason it works so well. Personally, I believe one of God's gifts to us is a sound mind. What monetary practices I know about, I'm entirely grateful for their belief in a sound mind too. Besides, the way you've painted non-lds churches seems a little too....naiive to say the least.

With luv,

BD

[selek1]

Can a church prosper with just tithes? Indeed it seems to me that God didn't intend the church to be in business and "prosper", rather it seems to me, that the church is supposed to depend on the tithes and offerings alone.

And here we get to the meat of the matter- it's not that the Church is doing anything wrong- it's that the Church doesn't meet your unreasonable expectations.

This is a common refrain among the less-informed, but apostates and ark-steadiers elevate it to an art-form:

"God would do it my way. If the Church doesn't do it my way, then the Church isn't of God."

The arrogance and presumption in that mindset are positively staggering. Who are you to tell God how he needs to get things done? He's managed just fine without you for the last eternity or so...

Ironically, you're correct- this perception is at the heart of the controversy surrounding the Church. Unfortunately, neither you nor the ark-steadiers have any Scriptural or legal leg to stand on.

Niether you nor anyone else has offered any Scriptural evidence or argument to demonstrate that the Church's affairs are contrary to the Gospel. Opinions aplenty, but not one shred of Biblical evidence.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints answers to Christ, not to every meddlesome passer-by with an opinion. It is his expectations to which we must conform, and not anyone elses'.

Seems a change in topic with this question. I think it does get to a core difference between the mission of the LDS church and other non-LDS churches.

We thank you for buying into the anti-Mormon demogoguery, but we are not sold.

Our financial practices may differ from other Christian churches, but they do not- and never will- supplant our sacred mission.

Nor can you provide any evidence that they have ever done so.

I think it gets to the core of the issue, who do we depend on as a church?

We depend upon Christ, rather than the good opinion of the pomp of Babylon.

What about you?

Edited July 13, 2012 by selek1

[danielwoods]

And here we get to the meat of the matter- it's not that the Church is doing anything wrong- it's that the Church doesn't meet your unreasonable expectations.

This is a common refrain among the less-informed, but apostates and ark-steadiers elevate it to an art-form:

"God would do it my way. If the Church doesn't do it my way, then the Church isn't of God."

The arrogance and presumption in that mindset are positively staggering. Who are you to tell God how he needs to get things done? He's managed just fine without you for the last eternity or so...

Ironically, you're correct- this perception is at the heart of the controversy surrounding the Church. Unfortunately, neither you nor the ark-steadiers have any Scriptural or legal leg to stand on.

Niether you nor anyone else has offered any Scriptural evidence or argument to demonstrate that the Church's affairs are contrary to the Gospel. Opinions aplenty, but not one shred of Biblical evidence.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints answers to Christ, not to every meddlesome passer-by with an opinion. It is his expectations to which we must conform, and not anyone elses'.

We thank you for buying into the anti-Mormon demogoguery, but we are not sold.

Our financial practices may differ from other Christian churches, but they do not- and never will- supplant our sacred mission.

Nor can you provide any evidence that they have ever done so.

We depend upon Christ, rather than the good opinion of the pomp of Babylon.

What about you?

My only point was the article in question was written from a non-LDS viewpoint, and that it reflects what the LDS look like to the rest of the world.

I'm only here to testify to the facts as I plainly see them.

Do you disagree with the basic facts as stated in post #197?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The LDS Church says we depend on God to show us the answers. One of those answers is to invest in and accumulate properties that will maintain and improve our ability to accomplish the mission.

None of this jives with Jesus telling the apostles take no thought for the morrow and to go perform without purse or script. Is God too weak to help? I thought one couldn't serve two masters.... Here we see now a change admitting that it definitely seeks God AND mammon. Now what? What happened to be in the world but not of the world? I truly am curious how this even has anything to do with building up Zion, which we are told is supposed to be in Missouri, not Salt Lake City.....

Edited July 14, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[selek1]

what the LDS look like to the rest of the world.

And my point has been- consistently and unequivocably- that you are not qualified to make such a generalization.

[danielwoods]

And my point has been- consistently and unequivocably- that you are not qualified to make such a generalization.

And who is?

[Storm Rider]

It's taken into account, but that is what is expected of a church (things that we expect a church to do, isn't news). What isn't expected are the expenditures that are more like what a normal business would be involved with, such as a mall, burger king, etc, which people don't expect a church to be involved with.

I would not want the area where temple square is located to turn into urban plight or rundown in a way that would not be inviting to Mormons and non-Mormons alike. I suspect this is the biggest reason the Church built this mall. I support the decision. I have seen cities that allowed their downtown areas to become run down; it is very difficult to turn it around. I did not see or hear of numbers of developers who wanted to do this, not one.

This seems so logical that I am surprised that people are, from my childhood, having a cow over it. Take off those rose colored glasses, look at it logically and it was a good decision.

[why me]

None of this jives with Jesus telling the apostles take no thought for the morrow and to go perform without purse or script. Is God too weak to help? I thought one couldn't serve two masters.... Here we see now a change admitting that it definitely seeks God AND mammon. Now what? What happened to be in the world but not of the world? I truly am curious how this even has anything to do with building up Zion, which we are told is supposed to be in Missouri, not Salt Lake City.....

Jesus lived in a different time, preaching among a small population group and yet he fed the hungry and provided food to those who came to listen to him. But he also needed money to survive as did the apostles.

Of course, the church and its members can take a vow of poverty and own no possessions at all. But then we would all need to live in communal communities, based on sharing of assets. The Missionaries of Charity do this. But the Mother organization in India depends on donations from many rich and successful people so that their sisters can live in properties to help the needy and pay the bills. Should they reject such donations since the money was made in the world?

How to be in the world based on money, profit, and investments? One way is to own real estate as security, collect rents, provide work for many etc. Do you think that God is disappointed in the lds church building a mall and providing jobs for many local people? I think that this is a part of his plan: to create the means for people to live and I am sure that he is pleasantly pleased with the people who are working in the mall. And I am sure that the people working there are grateful to heavenly father for providing them with work.

Edited July 14, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I would not want the area where temple square is located to turn into urban plight or rundown in a way that would not be inviting to Mormons and non-Mormons alike. I suspect this is the biggest reason the Church built this mall. I support the decision. I have seen cities that allowed their downtown areas to become run down; it is very difficult to turn it around. I did not see or hear of numbers of developers who wanted to do this, not one.

But you see storm rider if salt lake was like this, blighted and run down, critics would be harping on the fact that the church should invest in salt lake, providing jobs for the community and using their money wisely to help the community. The church cannot win on this one.

Edited July 14, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

None of this jives with Jesus telling the apostles take no thought for the morrow and to go perform without purse or script. Is God too weak to help? I thought one couldn't serve two masters.... Here we see now a change admitting that it definitely seeks God AND mammon.

One of the first lessons that God apparently wanted Adam to learn was that bringing forth fruit through labour was a good thing, that taking care for the morrow by working the ground was a necessary and appropriate endeavour, storing up by our labour today any excess for investment in tomorrow. Joseph was inspired to protect his people by planning 14 years in advance....seven of those years being of plenty were for investment, seven of those years being of famine were for prudence and frugality so that all would have enough to survive. A woman gets to carry a child below her heart for nine months....even the beginning of life requires foresight and planning and much thought for the morrow or the result will be death.

Christ helped Peter and his workers fill their nets with fish, not so they could eat them all themselves, but so they could go sell it and provide for themselves and others. The scriptures are full of stories of God helping provide not only survival, but comfort and even luxuries through money or other financial benefit, blessing people with wonderful posterity, etc.

There are many lessons we are here to learn, not just one. At times we must rely on the Lord for everything as a child relies on his parent, at others time the Lord chooses to rely on us to help care for his children, including ourselves. This is no longer paradise where we could reach out and have whatever fruit we wanted without much effort beyond deciding what we wanted as long as we were wiling to forego the fruit of knowledge.

If we only had to learn one way of doing things then there would be no need to continually return to the Spirit, to continually seek God. We would have our lesson book and could just keep repeating the same thing over and over until we finally got it right, but life isn't like that at all. Each day is different and while some lessons are carried over from the previous day, each day presents even the old lessons in a new form and therefore we must learn a new way to solve the problem we are presented with.

Where did the apostles get the support they needed in order to carry out their mission? Did he cause manna to fall from the heaven each day to feed them or did they received support from other disciples of the Lord, from those who had worked and invested and therefore possessed goods and money which they were inspired by the Lord to give toward the building of the Kingdom. Where did the woman get the money to buy the costly spikenard to anoint Christ with? Was it simply given to her through begging or is it more likely she had earned it through her own labour or wise investment or that of someone who loved her enough to give it to her to use as she wished. Was she serving two masters when she used money in order to better worship her lord and actual master or just the one, the other being merely a tool, one of many the world has that can either be corrupted and used to lead men away from or disciplined and controlled to be use for improving not only our own walk toward God, but benefitting others.

If one does place one's decisions for making money ahead of importance of God then one's master is mammon and one has lost sight of what God has desired us to become. As long as we keep in mind we are only stewards of the Lord and not the masters of all this property, we need not fear money or any other possession. Part of the lessons of mortality would seem to be not to divorce oneself from the world, but to learn to care and control it, to help it to flourish and fulfill its creation as well as our own. I do not see why the discipline of money management would be excluded from all the other disciplines the Lord has given us to explore and learn from.

It is the love of money that is the root of evil, not money itself. Money, otoh, can help us express our love towards God, whether by creating things of beauty to create an atmosphere of reverence and awe or by providing for our physical, mental and emotional needs so we can focus on fulfilling our spiritual desires that draw us to the Lord or better yet being able to do all of these things with and for others so that they too can reach out toward God without hinderance.

Edited July 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

I am going to quote again from Alma 1 for those who thinks the church should live in poverty:

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.

[Tacenda]

But you see storm rider if salt lake was like this, blighted and run down, critics would be harping on the fact that the church should invest in salt lake, providing jobs for the community and using their money wisely to help th http://forum.neworde...ewforum.php?f=2 e community. The church cannot win on this one.

In the words of my father "if only the church would build facilities like care centers for the elderly", when my mom was in the last stages of ahlzheimers and it was difficult to find decent ones. Wouldn't places like this provide employment with higher pay than the mall, for those that state it helps the economy by building the mall? Also, look what happened to the Crossroads/Zcmi malls. When I mentioned the mall to my mother in law, who her whole life lived very frugal and never buys herself anything, encourages food storage by giving her children money, including married grandkids to get their food storage. She said she won't be going there to shop. She is the epitome of faithful and gives of her time (weekly temple attendance) supports monetarily, missionaries in the family and some that aren't, when they can't afford it. So maybe something less in your face, to spend, spend, spend. Edited July 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited July 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

In the words of my father "if only the church would build facilities like care centers for the elderly", when my mom was in the last stages of ahlzheimers and it was difficult to find decent ones. Wouldn't places like this provide employment with higher pay than the mall, for those that state it helps the economy by building the mall? Also, look what happened to the Crossroads/Zcmi malls. When I mentioned the mall to my mother in law, who her whole life lived very frugal and never buys herself anything, encourages food storage by giving her children money, including married grandkids to get their food storage. She said she won't be going there to shop. She is the epitome of faithful and gives of her time (weekly temple attendance) supports monetarily, missionaries in the family and some that aren't, when they can't afford it. So maybe something less in your face to spend, spend, spend.

Bloomberg's insidious innuendo is doing its work.

To answer your question the church could have put any number of things in that downtown area but they chose to put something that would fit the area. The commercial businesses fit the area. How many thousands of visitors come to temple square each year? Like or not such visitors need services close at hand and not to be crass they spend a lot of money on those goods and services. Money that, after expenses, a portion will find its way back into the church to support other projects and yes even humanitarian projects. The church could simply redistribute the wealth by giving handouts to needy people but what happens once the money is all gone? This way they provide jobs which helps the needy an does not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.