Church To Build A 32 Story Apartment Complex In Philly

[canard78]

Thanks for taking the time to help me understand you better. I apologize if I came across as argumentative. I think your questions are legitimate; I just wanted to be sure you were giving the Church full “credit.” Sometimes folks who look at this forget to at least mentally acknowledge that the Church does not publish much (if any) data about programs like the PEF and Fast Offerings. As a recently released clerk, I have come to the conclusion that few in the Church realize how substantial these programs are—especially Fast Offerings.

The UK church publishes accounts. The total fast offering contribution is about 1:20 ratio to the tithing contributions. They didn't list humanitarian aid. Having done tithing for many years in the past the HA is often less than a 1:100 ratio to tithing.

I'm fairly sure that $1.2bn represents both cash outlay and a value of hours contributed.

Personally I would prefer the church wasn't spending $millions on subsidising the education of American Mormons in BYU and building a land and property empire.

[canard78]

How accurate is this perspective really, when your calculation fails to include an estimate for LDS-aid in all its forms--ex., fast offerings and PEF; or do you feel only the aid we provide to people outside the Church "counts"?

The church on education support:

- Creates a PEF where the poor in developing countries borrow money from the church and then pay it back.

- Subsidises (out of tithing funds) the college fees of affluent, well educated Americans in BYU (70:30 ratio of fees at BYU paid by tithing according to some estimates)

- Encourages members everywhere else (Europe etc) to get the best possible education but in regional/stake meetings have been discouraging members from heading over to the states. Tithing funds provide no support for these people.

That seems like a pretty messed up system. The cost of subsidising BYU must run into the millions ever year.

[Alan]

I'm joining this thread late.

However, I think this development by the church is absolutely appalling.

Whoever's advising the Presiding Bishopric on this needs to be run out of town!

I thoroughly object to the church getting involved in this kind of activity with sacred funds (and they are sacred). I thought they would have learned their lesson with the City Creek nonsense.

It's an utter disgrace!

[Alan]

The church on education support:

- Creates a PEF where the poor in developing countries borrow money from the church and then pay it back.

- Subsidises (out of tithing funds) the college fees of affluent, well educated Americans in BYU (70:30 ratio of fees at BYU paid by tithing according to some estimates)

- Encourages members everywhere else (Europe etc) to get the best possible education but in regional/stake meetings have been discouraging members from heading over to the states. Tithing funds provide no support for these people.

That seems like a pretty messed up system. The cost of subsidising BYU must run into the millions ever year.

 

I agree with these observations.

Widening the issue to some extent, I think the whole of the church's finance system is "pretty messed up". Frankly, the church has an embarrassment of riches and doesn't really know what to do with it all in my view.

 

Personally, I think we need to get back to basics. I include the Church (organisation) and the church (ecclessia or community of believers) in this.

We need to get back to the original meaning of tithing for a start. Tithing was never 10% of gross earnings, nor even net (meaning net of tax) earnings. It was 10% of surplus.

If we observed tithing in this way, the very rich would pay very similar sums to that which they pay now, the average member would likely pay less, but the poor would be able to pay something if they had a surplus. If they had no surplus they would be required to pay nothing. However, they would still be in good standing. There would be more tithe payers = more temple recommends etc.

I would think the overall tithing "take" would fall church-wide, and then they wouldn't have to constantly look for things like this development to spend the money on.

And if we're not sure what it should be spent on D&C 119 (the definitive revelation on tithing; described as a "standing law forever") spells it out to us. It is:

"For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundations of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my church" D&C 119:2

[Tacenda]

I agree with these observations.

Widening the issue to some extent, I think the whole of the church's finance system is "pretty messed up". Frankly, the church has an embarrassment of riches and doesn't really know what to do with it all in my view.

Personally, I think we need to get back to basics. I include the Church (organisation) and the church (ecclessia or community of believers) in this.

We need to get back to the original meaning of tithing for a start. Tithing was never 10% of gross earnings, nor even net (meaning net of tax) earnings. It was 10% of surplus.

If we observed tithing in this way, the very rich would pay very similar sums to that which they pay now, the average member would likely pay less, but the poor would be able to pay something if they had a surplus. If they had no surplus they would be required to pay nothing. However, they would still be in good standing. There would be more tithe payers = more temple recommends etc.

I would think the overall tithing "take" would fall church-wide, and then they wouldn't have to constantly look for things like this development to spend the money on.

And if we're not sure what it should be spent on D&C 119 (the definitive revelation on tithing; described as a "standing law forever") spells it out to us. It is:

"For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundations of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my church" D&C 119:2

I so agree with this, especially the poor only needing to pay on surplus. And of course the rest of the members. Somewhere down the road the wording was changed and it's somewhat a lie that people must pay 10% tithing on income vs surplus, imo. When have we ever heard from the current prophet or the presidency that it's 10% on income? It's usually the GA or someone else. The scripture in the D & C is our proof that this is wrong.

[oremites]

We need to get back to the original meaning of tithing for a start. Tithing was never 10% of gross earnings, nor even net (meaning net of tax) earnings. It was 10% of surplus.

 

In section 119, the "surplus" concerns the initial payment of tithing.  This applies to those who were members when the commandment was given and to those who would join later (verse 5).

 

"And after that, those who have thus been tithed (that is, tithed of their surplus) shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever..."

 

So the ongoing payment of tithing (after the initial tithing of the surplus) is on the "interest", not the "surplus". 

 

So what does "interest" mean for you?  Go to the Lord and find out.  That's the advice I've always heard.

[Alan]

Interest, income, increase etc do not mean salary as some think. And 19th century meanings of certain words have changed significanly. 

But in reality salary is a straight trade. You exchange something you have at your disposal, eg time, for money. So far no profit in involved. That money is then exchanged for things that you need in order to sustain time (if you didn't eat for example, you would die and your time would end). When you have used the funds at your disposal in order to sustain time, ie. what you had in the first place, you may then discover you have surplus funds over and above that which is required to sustain life. That represents your profit, increase, income, interest etc. And that is the sum upon which tithing is paid. 

However, we are still encouraged to make offerings to the poor. And we can afford to do so because we have already identified that we have a surplus.

I also feel that this is where the principle of stewardship comes in. We are expected to be wise stewards and not waste or be extravagant with our means, thus ensuring that our surplus is as large as it can be.

[canard78]

I agree with these observations.

Widening the issue to some extent, I think the whole of the church's finance system is "pretty messed up". Frankly, the church has an embarrassment of riches and doesn't really know what to do with it all in my view.

 

Personally, I think we need to get back to basics. I include the Church (organisation) and the church (ecclessia or community of believers) in this.

We need to get back to the original meaning of tithing for a start. Tithing was never 10% of gross earnings, nor even net (meaning net of tax) earnings. It was 10% of surplus.

If we observed tithing in this way, the very rich would pay very similar sums to that which they pay now, the average member would likely pay less, but the poor would be able to pay something if they had a surplus. If they had no surplus they would be required to pay nothing. However, they would still be in good standing. There would be more tithe payers = more temple recommends etc.

I would think the overall tithing "take" would fall church-wide, and then they wouldn't have to constantly look for things like this development to spend the money on.

And if we're not sure what it should be spent on D&C 119 (the definitive revelation on tithing; described as a "standing law forever") spells it out to us. It is:

"For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundations of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my church" D&C 119:2

 

I pay tithing because it's a commandments and because I want a temple recommend. I also try to view it as a part of "regarding not my stuff." I.e. being willing to not be attached to money and give away a chunk of it to cement that disconnection.

 

But... I don't like the way the church teaches the payment of tithing and I don't like the way it uses its funds. It seems like far more of a corporation and far less the earthly organisation lead by the Saviour.

[Gray]

I think scripture, specifically Luke 16:8-11, places somewhat of an obligation on the Church to get involved in business ventures for financial gain.  For example, the Church owns a lot of land.  Why not put it to good use if there is no immediate need for a stake center or a temple?

 

It's a parable. I think we can get into trouble very quickly taking parables literally, not to mention we miss the underlying point of the parable to begin with. He who has eyes to see, let him see.

[Alan]

I pay tithing because it's a commandments and because I want a temple recommend. I also try to view it as a part of "regarding not my stuff." I.e. being willing to not be attached to money and give away a chunk of it to cement that disconnection.

 

But... I don't like the way the church teaches the payment of tithing and I don't like the way it uses its funds. It seems like far more of a corporation and far less the earthly organisation lead by the Saviour.

 

Actually, although it is often presented as such, tithing is not a commandment.

The relevant scripture for us in the church in the last days is D&C 119. There, it is described as a law. I know commandments and laws share many similarities, but they are not quite the same thing.

Maybe I'm being a little picky, but for me it is an important difference.

[cinepro]

Construction in Philly involves dealing with unions and their thugs.  I'm sure that the church is finding this very costly.  Look what happened to a Quaker meeting house.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371514/philadelphias-union-thugs-indicted-jillian-kay-melchior

 

 

Just to be clear, cdowis isn't being pejorative by calling them "thugs".  According to the article, that's what the union members called themselves. 

 

The 49-page indictment details how members of Local 401, who called themselves “the Helpful Union Guys,” or “THUGS,” allegedly extorted, intimidated and bullied businesses and contractors, forcing them to hire union members, even when they were “unwanted, unnecessary and superfluous.”

[cinepro]

Regarding the inevitable carping that this new event has stirred up about the Church being involved in commercial ventures, Daniel Peterson has a blog post the other day that speaks in a general way to that attitude. (The blog post does not address the office building specifically; it was posted before the news of that broke.)

 

Honestly, it's not Dan's finest writing...

 

Here’s my sense of what’s going on, at least in many cases:  Not of few of these critics are smug elitists of leftist socio-political inclinations who are, often, ensconced in academia or similar areas where they can affect to look down upon what earlier aristocrats huffily referred to as “trade” and “tradesmen.” (Ironically, their salaries and relative economic security largely depend on the surplus generated by such lesser pursuits and inferior beings.)  These folks despise corporations on principle and hold modern business and businessmen in contempt, yet they imagine — probably out of sheer flattering self-deception — that, by contrast, they would have appreciated the proletarian authenticity of a relatively successful Galilean fisherman, a worker in the ancient building trades, an itinerant tentmaker, or a Roman tax farmer.

[Calm]

Just to be clear, cdowis isn't being pejorative by calling them "thugs".  According to the article, that's what the union members called themselves. 

Bad guys with a sense of humour...(if the alleged claims are correct, if not they are just a little twisted and not as clever as they think they are).

[cdowis]

Thanks, cinepro.  I should have made that clear in my post.