cwald Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I wanted to give you some time to see if you would come to your senses and rightly accept personal responsibility.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Okay. So saying that it is "none of my business" the best you can do?Is that what Pres. Monson is going to tell me if I write a letter to him, like somebody suggested to do?
sjdawg Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Okay. So saying that it is "none of my business" the best you can do?Is that what Pres. Monson is going to tell me if I write a letter to him, like somebody suggested to do?No, he will forward your letter to your Bishop so your Bishop can tell you.
cwald Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 No, he will forward your letter to your Bishop so your Bishop can tell you.And then the bishop will tell me "that it is none of my business?"
sjdawg Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 And then the bishop will tell me "that it is none of my business?"Likely, but he will say it in a nice way. 1
wenglund Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 In any case, all I'm doing is accusing the church of living within its means, saving money, and putting the savings to productive use. If you don't think the church manages tithing revenue this way, that is your prerogative.Perhaps I should be charitable and let this slight of hand pass, and let you think you might be fooling us (even though your posts are documented here for all to see), but I think there is a valuable lesson to be learned--if nothing more than you being brought to the healthy state of owning up to your evident mistakes.The conclusion to your proffered syllogism, which you continued to repeat and defend here, was that surplus from tithes in good years were invested in the Church's for-profit businesses (i.e. rainy day fund). You resisted every effort to show that your conclusion not only didn't follow from your premises, but got things exactly backwards. Your conclusion has been clearly contradicted by a person who would know--as opposed to you, who wouldn't know (in large part because the Church's finances are none of your former-member business).Your conclusion has been authoritatively proven wrong. Be a man and own up to your evident mistake--or not...the choice and attendant consequences is your's to make.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 3
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Okay. So saying that it is "none of my business" the best you can do?Is that what Pres. Monson is going to tell me if I write a letter to him, like somebody suggested to do?cwald in reading some of your past posts i find a few glaring misconceptions you have expressed. 1 - Once you give the tithing or any other donation, to anyone, it is no longer yours. you have relinquished ownership which then passes to the donee. This is true rather you give it to the church or The Humane Society. Once you have relinquished ownership you have no claim on it or how it is used or any accounting of it use. It ceases to be yours and is someone elses property. Now if you want to give with stipulations you can stipulate your requirement of an accounting you can but it can not be a unilateral stipulation. Unless it is a very large donation for a specific purpose most charities will politely refuse your donation. 2 - Most companies, not for profit or for profit will not simply hand anyone walking in off the street a financial report just for the asking. For one thing they are expensive to produce and they are reserved for those with a valid need to know. 1
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 No, he will forward your letter to your Bishop so your Bishop can tell you.His secretary will forward it to his bishop.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I'm not saying he was lying, and I'm not saying he was misquoted. What I'm saying is that what he said and what I said don't contradict each other. Perhaps you need a sophisticated view of finance to see that? In any case, all I'm doing is accusing the church of living within its means, saving money, and putting the savings to productive use. If you don't think the church manages tithing revenue this way, that is your prerogative.It seems to me you have gone beyond that and insisted all along that the Church must be plowing surplus tithing funds into its for-profit enterprises for whatever interest those funds can earn, this in direct contradiction to the publicly quoted statement of Deseret Management Corp. CEO. Is that not an accurate statement of your position? If not, then yes, I am confused. Please clarify. Edited July 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
wenglund Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Okay.I can't tell whether this is a brush-off or a genuine admission that you did, in fact, make this personal about you, and that you were mistaken in claiming that you hadn't made this personal. Please clarify.So saying that it is "none of my business" the best you can do?It is hard for me to improve on clear, concise, and correct.Is that what Pres. Monson is going to tell me if I write a letter to him, like somebody suggested to do?I am not a mind reader, nor do I make it a practice to say what Pres. Monson will or will not say or do, and this since what he may or may not do in relation to personal correspondences is none of my business. I have no way of knowing whether he is even in a position or not to personally answer your personal correspondence, and this also because it is none of my business. So, I can't rightly say.What I can say is that for practical reasons, the policy of the Church is that the general membership address these kind of trite questions to their local leadership or to their fellow members, like me. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Analytics Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 All I am saying the church does not manage their charitable donations money to have a surplus to put into for profit ventures. The church allocates charitable income to projects central to their purpose and mission. While they may "park" funds for a time as they are accumulating for a project it is not for purchasing not for profit companies.Is that distinction as clear as you make it out to be?Let's take a hypothetical example. Say the church is saving up money for a new chapel. Would they be willing to conservatively invest the money they are saving so that it grows, or is investing the money an immoral thing to do with tithing money? I think we can all agree that the church would invest the money so that it grows.So if they are willing to invest the money so that it grows, are they only willing to invest in companies that aren’t owned by the church, or are they willing to invest in companies that are owned by the church? Let’s make this more specific. Say for the sake of argument that the church wants to make a short-term investment of $10M in the money market—it doesn’t need the cash until next month, so they want to make a few dollars in interest. What if that same month DMC was going through a cash crunch and needed a short-term loan. Would the church be willing to make a short-term loan to DMC?If the church would be willing to make a short-term loan to DMC, that proves my point. If you think the church wouldn’t be willing to make that loan to DMC, my only response to your naiveté is going to entail the rolling eyes emoticon. 1
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Is that distinction as clear as you make it out to be?Let's take a hypothetical example. Say the church is saving up money for a new chapel. Would they be willing to conservatively invest the money they are saving so that it grows, or is investing the money an immoral thing to do with tithing money?I think we can all agree that the church would invest the money so that it grows.So if they are willing to invest the money so that it grows, are they only willing to invest in companies that aren’t owned by the church, or are they willing to invest in companies that are owned by the church?Let’s make this more specific. Say for the sake of argument that the church wants to make a short-term investment of $10M in the money market—it doesn’t need the cash until next month, so they want to make a few dollars in interest. What if that same month DMC was going through a cash crunch and needed a short-term loan. Would the church be willing to make a short-term loan to DMC?If the church would be willing to make a short-term loan to DMC, that proves my point. If you think the church wouldn’t be willing to make that loan to DMC, my only response to your naiveté is going to entail the rolling eyes emoticon.Accumulation of funds projects are, to my observation, not a problem. That being said "parked funds", as they are called are not parked in risky investments. Ownership and debt equities are by definition risky.Again I know that IRS and other regulatory agencies have some strict regulations on such things but I do not know if there is a scenario where the "could" do a transaction such as this. I do know that with the churches stance on such things I would have my doubts. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Is that distinction as clear as you make it out to be?Let's take a hypothetical example. Say the church is saving up money for a new chapel. Would they be willing to conservatively invest the money they are saving so that it grows, or is investing the money an immoral thing to do with tithing money?I think we can all agree that the church would invest the money so that it grows.So if they are willing to invest the money so that it grows, are they only willing to invest in companies that aren’t owned by the church, or are they willing to invest in companies that are owned by the church?Let’s make this more specific. Say for the sake of argument that the church wants to make a short-term investment of $10M in the money market—it doesn’t need the cash until next month, so they want to make a few dollars in interest. What if that same month DMC was going through a cash crunch and needed a short-term loan. Would the church be willing to make a short-term loan to DMC?If the church would be willing to make a short-term loan to DMC, that proves my point. If you think the church wouldn’t be willing to make that loan to DMC, my only response to your naiveté is going to entail the rolling eyes emoticon.Again, the quoted statement from the Bloomberg article:McMullin insists that not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors.So we must contrast your conjectural ruminations of what the Church "might" or "would be willing" to do with that definitive assurance from the Deseret Management Corp. CEO.To put it very succinctly:Analytics: speculation.Keith McMullin: reality. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Fair enough.I was pissed...and I was not treated well here three weeks ago...I was told to consider this "biology class and that all the new people should expect to get dissected"...decided to spend my time at MDB instead.Not just spend your time there, but take your grievances to a venue where such a thing would be like fresh meat thrown to a pack of wild dogs and where trashing of reputations has long been the order of the day.
Analytics Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 It seems to me you have gone beyond that and insisted all along that the Church must be plowing surplus tithing funds into its for-profit enterprises for whatever interest those funds can earn, this in direct contradiction to the publicly quoted statement of Deseret Management Corp. CEO. Is that not an accurate statement of your position? If not, then yes, I am confused. Please clarify. I didn't "insist that it must be plowing surplus tithing funds into its for-profit enterprises." I noted that the church said that they employ "simple but sound economic principles such as avoiding debt, living within one’s means and setting aside funds for a rainy day."If you think the church never sets aside tithing funds for a rainy day, that is your prerogative. If you think the funds they set aside aren't put to productive use, that is your prerogative as well. For my part, I think that in years of pleanty, the church "sets aside" tithing funds for a rainy day. And I think it puts those funds to productive use so that they'll grow. If you take issue with somebody saying such bold-faced lies about the church in contrast to what it's clearly said on the matter, then well, that's par for the course. 1
smac97 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Posted July 13, 2012 Wow. From the WaPo: "Mormon church lashes back at magazine over portrayal of prophet and profits"http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/mormon-church-lashes-back-at-magazine-over-portrayal-of-prophet-and-profits/2012/07/13/gJQAMmsbiW_story.htmlCheck it:The Mormon church is lashing back at a business magazine that parodied their prophet’s mission and portrayed the church as lucratively rich but miserly with charitable donations.A lengthy story in Bloomberg Businessweek that hits newsstands on Friday (July 13) details The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ vast financial holdings, from a $2 billion mall in Salt Lake City to a $1 billion ranch in Florida.Reaction to the magazine’s cover has overshadowed the article, however. The illustration satirizes the moment when Mormons believe John the Baptist bestowed the priesthood on Joseph Smith, the faith’s founding prophet.In the parody, John the Baptist tells Smith, “and thou shalt build a shopping mall, own stock in Burger King, and open a Polynesian theme park in Hawaii that shall be largely exempt from the frustrations of tax ...” Smith answers, “Hallelujah.”LDS church spokesman Michael Purdy said the magazine cover is “in such poor taste it is difficult to even find the words to comment on it.”“Sadly, the cover is a reflection of the bias and speculative nature of the article itself,” Purdy told the LDS church-owned Deseret News. “It is narrow and incomplete, omitting, for instance, a good deal of information given on how church resources are used.”The “profoundly irreverent” cover belies the serious and straightforward article that it accompanies, said Joanna Brooks, a senior correspondent for Religion Dispatches.“Trying to sell a few magazines, Businessweek destroyed an opportunity for a serious discussion,” said Brooks, who is Mormon.This is the same Joanna Brooks who, in commenting on this story, just barely accused the LDS Church of having an "institutional culture" which "fully supports Romney’s profit-oriented, value-neutral approach to financial decision-making."She's hardly in a position to lecture others about irrelevant digs against the LDS Church.Accusing the LDS Church of having a "value-neutral approach to financial decision-making" doesn't help the "opportunity for a serious discussion," either.Anyhoo, check out the WaPo's takeaway from the Bloomberg article:In all, the LDS church is worth about $40 billion, according to a study cited in the article, and takes in $8 billion each year in tithes.“What is remarkable is how varied the church’s business interests are and that so little is known about its financial interests,” writes Bloomberg Businessweek reporter Caroline Winter.Meanwhile, the LDS church donates less than one percent of its annual income to charity, according to a study cited in the article. Other churches donate nearly 30 percent.It is precisely this kind of distortion that the Church's response was supposed to correct. Way to go, WaPo! State as fact a proposition that the LDS Church is strongly disputing!Mormon leaders responded with a lengthy statement on Thursday, saying that comparing their church to a business misses the mark, and arguing that the charity study omits their vast non-monetary and welfare assistance programs.“On occasion someone will try to estimate the Church’s income and determine how much of that is used to care for the poor and needy,” the LDS church said in a statement. “Again, they rarely capture the whole picture.”...“Today, the Church’s business assets support the Church’s mission and principles by serving as a rainy day fund,” the church said.Moreover, Mormon volunteers spend thousands of hours running employment services, thrift stores, food pantries and other welfare programs, according to the church.The church also insists that tithing is not used in its for-profit business, but rather for building houses of worship, providing educational programs, supporting the church’s 50,000 missionaries, operating 140 temples worldwide.“The key to understanding church finances is to understand that they are a means to an end,” the LDS leaders said. “They allow the church to carry out its religious mission across the world.”-Smac 3
Deborah Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 It seems that most people who complain about how the church uses its funds have no concept of stewardship. To begin with we believe all things belong to God and so when we are able to earn money we gladly return 10% to his church for its on-going mission. Once the money leaves our hands it is no longer our stewardship. It belongs to those who are responsible for its disbursement. Those at the head of the church are responsible to God for their stewardship and accountable only to him. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes if the funds were misused.In all my years in the church I know of one case where the Bishop was embezzling funds. It wasn't malicious but he was desperate and was only "borrowing." However such a thing cannot go unnoticed and immediate action is taken to relieve the person of their position and to remedy the situation. I think those who think this goes on a lot are very misinformed and don't understand the checks and balances that are involved.I find it fascinating that most faithful members who actually contribute to the tithing and fast offering funds are usually not concerned with how they are used, probably because they understand the principle of stewardship. The rest need to get a life and get their own houses in order rather than trying to fix what doesn't need to be fixed. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I didn't "insist that it must be plowing surplus tithing funds into its for-profit enterprises." I noted that the church said that they employ "simple but sound economic principles such as avoiding debt, living within one’s means and setting aside funds for a rainy day."If you think the church never sets aside tithing funds for a rainy day, that is your prerogative. If you think the funds they set aside aren't put to productive use, that is your prerogative as well.For my part, I think that in years of pleanty, the church "sets aside" tithing funds for a rainy day. And I think it puts those funds to productive use so that they'll grow. If you take issue with somebody saying such bold-faced lies about the church in contrast to what it's clearly said on the matter, then well, that's par for the course.You didn't just say it sets the funds aside or that it puts them to productive use. You insisted it puts the funds into its own commercial enterprises. This conflicts directly with what the Deseret Management CEO reportedly told Bloomberg. And you said it by way of accusing the Church of not being truthful in the past when it has said that tithing funds are not mingled with the operating expenses of for-profit enterprises.In post #5 of this thread, you wrongly asserted regarding the Church's statement:This vindicates the critics who have claimed that the for-profit businesses were in fact capitalized with tithing money. Edited July 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Wow. From the WaPo: "Mormon church lashes back at magazine over portrayal of prophet and profits"http://www.washingto...sbiW_story.htmlCheck it:This is the same Joanna Brooks who, in commenting on this story, just barely accused the LDS Church of having an "institutional culture" which "fully supports Romney’s profit-oriented, value-neutral approach to financial decision-making."She's hardly in a position to lecture others about irrelevant digs against the LDS Church.Accusing the LDS Church of having a "value-neutral approach to financial decision-making" doesn't help the "opportunity for a serious discussion," either.Anyhoo, check out the WaPo's takeaway from the Bloomberg article:It is precisely this kind of distortion that the Church's response was supposed to correct. Way to go, WaPo! State as fact a proposition that the LDS Church is strongly disputing!-SmacI have already posts in other posts that I think this is an attack on the church in the same vein as the attack on the Catholics. I will go further and state it is but the first in an effort for the government to get their hands on those funds.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Here's the cover of that issue:BURGER KING...their stock just went up with me.
ShawFanX Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Double post. Edited July 13, 2012 by ShawFanX
ERayR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 BURGER KING...their stock just went up with me.I always did like Burger King better. I just didn't know why.
ShawFanX Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Whatever though...this is the mormon discussion and dialogue board. You faithful folks do represent the church as far as apologetics are concerned. You will either help people stay involved in the church...or you will confirm their skepticism and help drive them out. OR...they will go to other boards to find their answers, boards like NOM, MDB ect.Yes, that is the reigning narrative that has developed in the anti-Mormon and quasi-Mormon NOM world as of the present moment.
CASteinman Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Frankly, as long as the LDS Church is solvent and wealthy, I do not care one way or the other about this.I would be far more concerned and interested if we were teetering somehow.
Analytics Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) You didn't just say it sets the funds aside or that it puts them to productive use. You insisted it puts the funds into its own commercial enterprises. This conflicts directly with what the Deseret Management CEO reportedly told Bloomberg....Are you sure you aren't reading too much into the claim "not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors?"After all, McMullin said the following:In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.”If "not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors" is meant to be taken as literally as how you read it, then money would never "flow in the opposite direction" and there would never "be some monies available."It's funny that you are arguing with me about this. I'll repeat my position: I think that in years of plenty, the church "sets aside" tithing funds for a rainy day. And I think it puts those funds to productive use so that they'll grow.I'll add to that my belief that you are reading way more into to the phrase "not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors" than McMullin intended. Edited July 13, 2012 by Analytics
cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Frankly, as long as the LDS Church is solvent and wealthy, I do not care one way or the other about this.I would be far more concerned and interested if we were teetering somehow.I think the Church understands that, so we can rest assured that as long as they aren't publishing the numbers, we're doing okay.
Recommended Posts