Downtown Slc Revival And The Lds Church

[Paddy]

Oh I get it. I read you loud and clear. So loud that I cannot hear the pleas of the poor and needy over noise.

[Rain]

I think the problem is that we have a different definition of what "poor and needy" means and we are simply talking past each other. I will state this one more time and the bow out. The building of a high end mall is a business venture not a means to provide social welfare to the poor and needy. Jobs come by competition and qualification in most cases and is antithical to assisting the poor and needy.

The ability to qualify and compete for a job in a high end retail more, does not constitute in my definition, a state of being poor and needy. And is not a form of social welfare. It is a result of having provided welfare.

Paddy

I'm a little confused. I was saying that the church through business (definitely Deseret Book) helps both the job seekers AND the poor and needy. I didn't say the poor in needy are the job seekers at the mall, though depending on circumstances they could be.

My definition includes children in Africa who are starving, the people in Iraq? (brain freeze, sorry) who have recently been evicted from their homes, my homeless addict brother, the young recent widow with 4 small children and no food in the cupboards, children in hospitals whose money has been wiped out from medical bills and people who have just faced great disasters.

If our definitions are so different what is yours?

Edited September 4, 2014 by Rain

[omni]

Why?

 

And how do you know they are not?

The PEF is funded by donations specific to that cause.

[USU78]

The PEF is funded by donations specific to that cause.

 

Which are collected and administered by .  .  . whom again?

Which was established by .  .  . whom again?

Which was, is and ever shall be "marketed" by .  .  . whom again?

[omni]

Which are collected and administered by .  .  . whom again?

Which was established by .  .  . whom again?

Which was, is and ever shall be "marketed" by .  .  . whom again?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The PEF could be expanded immensely if profits from church businesses were used to fund it (and similar causes). This is a perfect example of "teaching a man to fish" and really is a win-win situation.

[USU78]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The PEF could be expanded immensely if profits from church businesses were used to fund it (and similar causes). This is a perfect example of "teaching a man to fish" and really is a win-win situation.

 

And you know they are not . . . how exactly?

[tonie]

I think there is wholesale, widespread misinterpretation of Bishop McMullin's words going on here.

Keith McMullin's words were quoted as given, no misrepresentation at all on the part of anyone here. No one has questioned a Bishop, what has been questioned is a Businessman speaking as a businessman. Edited September 5, 2014 by tonie

[Raingirl]

It sustains your lifestyle, not your life.

You are absolutely wrong.

But you never let the truth get in the way of your hatred and arrogance, do you?

[Alan]

Raingirl,

 

I must say I am deeply shocked by your statement (I'm ignoring the "hatred/arrogance" hyperbole)

 

So the US must be a third world country after all, if building a shopping mall in SLC literally saves lives.

Are you really saying that in a nation as rich and capable as the US, if someone doesn't have a job they literally starve to death? Are you really saying that? Because if you are, that is quite an admission and suggests there is something deeply wrong in American society.

 

The strength of a nation can be measured in the way it treats it's weakest citizens.

You have illustrated an aspect of American life I knew nothing about. 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar4321,

Great! Looking forward to the church revitalizing my neighbourhood.

I'd refer a park to a mall though. Can you have a word?

 

Well, you are part of the Church so get out there and do it.

 

Nothing is stopping you guys from creating a park. Beautify and uplift your area.

[Avatar4321]

I would love to see the Church follow the example of Newman's Own and donate all proceeds from its for-profit businesses to charity. Imagine the number of lives that could be improved if the profits from City Creek were used to fund and expand the PEF.

 

Or how about we revitalize more of the community instead? That way people can improve their own life and wont need to rely on charity. That's the beauty of a free market based on personal responsibility. If we take care of our needs the best we can, people wont have to depend on others as much and will be free to act according to their conscience.

[Avatar4321]

I'm surprised this is such a radical concept. Brigham Young taught us this is how we build Zion. One block at a time.

 

His proposal was more radical than just this, I see this as a good first step. From what I've seen recently the Church is revitalizing parts of Philadelphia as well. 

 

We can contribute to the process without the Church's lead. If we own property, we can turn our property into a Zion. 

 

I've actually been thinking about how if in each of our wards we worked on fixing up the properties of those in need and helping them build Zion in their home (and likewise our own), we would be significantly better off and closer to building Zion.

 

Just think of it. We pick someone who we can serve and rebuild. Help them individually. We actually provide service to the poor among us. Maybe like a couple saturdays a month a group of people volunteer to build a deck for an older woman. Or volunteer to help a hoarder among us clean their house. We can invite non-member friends to help. We can encourage people to be self sufficient and develop their skills.

 

We have alot of untapped potential. So let's wake up and do something more.

[omni]

I'm surprised this is such a radical concept. Brigham Young taught us this is how we build Zion. One block at a time.

His proposal was more radical than just this, I see this as a good first step. From what I've seen recently the Church is revitalizing parts of Philadelphia as well.

We can contribute to the process without the Church's lead. If we own property, we can turn our property into a Zion.

I've actually been thinking about how if in each of our wards we worked on fixing up the properties of those in need and helping them build Zion in their home (and likewise our own), we would be significantly better off and closer to building Zion.

Just think of it. We pick someone who we can serve and rebuild. Help them individually. We actually provide service to the poor among us. Maybe like a couple saturdays a month a group of people volunteer to build a deck for an older woman. Or volunteer to help a hoarder among us clean their house. We can invite non-member friends to help. We can encourage people to be self sufficient and develop their skills.

We have alot of untapped potential. So let's wake up and do something more.

In your previous post you stated people shouldn't have to rely on charity or depend on the help of others, yet in this post you are encouraging us to do exactly that.

[omni]

And you know they are not . . . how exactly?

 

 

 

In an effort to remedy this situation, we propose a plan—a plan which we believe is inspired by the Lord. The Church is establishing a fund largely from the contributions of faithful Latter-day Saints who have and will contribute for this purpose. We are deeply grateful to them. Based on similar principles to those underlying the Perpetual Emigration Fund, we shall call it the Perpetual Education Fund.

-President Gordan B. Hinckley

 

[Alan]

Well, you are part of the Church so get out there and do it.

 

Nothing is stopping you guys from creating a park. Beautify and uplift your area.

 

Excellent!

Do I just forward the bill to SLC?

[Bernard Gui]

Raingirl,

I must say I am deeply shocked by your statement (I'm ignoring the "hatred/arrogance" hyperbole)

So the US must be a third world country after all, if building a shopping mall in SLC literally saves lives.

Are you really saying that in a nation as rich and capable as the US, if someone doesn't have a job they literally starve to death? Are you really saying that? Because if you are, that is quite an admission and suggests there is something deeply wrong in American society.

The strength of a nation can be measured in the way it treats it's weakest citizens.

You have illustrated an aspect of American life I knew nothing about.

Not necessarily. Starvation is not the only way lives are lost. There are numerous ways jobs save lives.

For example, my son Prestaccio is a homeless veteran who just this week got a job as a warehouseman. It has motivated him to clean himself up, get off the street, hopefully to stay sober, and try to keep a relationship with a woman who loves him. In a very powerful way, this job may literally, if not figuratively, save his life.

Shocking that this could happen in the US, no?

Edited September 5, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I'm surprised this is such a radical concept. Brigham Young taught us this is how we build Zion. One block at a time.

His proposal was more radical than just this, I see this as a good first step. From what I've seen recently the Church is revitalizing parts of Philadelphia as well.

We can contribute to the process without the Church's lead. If we own property, we can turn our property into a Zion.

I've actually been thinking about how if in each of our wards we worked on fixing up the properties of those in need and helping them build Zion in their home (and likewise our own), we would be significantly better off and closer to building Zion.

Just think of it. We pick someone who we can serve and rebuild. Help them individually. We actually provide service to the poor among us. Maybe like a couple saturdays a month a group of people volunteer to build a deck for an older woman. Or volunteer to help a hoarder among us clean their house. We can invite non-member friends to help. We can encourage people to be self sufficient and develop their skills.

We have alot of untapped potential. So let's wake up and do something more.

The wards in our stake do just that every September with sizable 9/11 commemoration community service projects.

.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Alan]

Bernard Gui,

I understand your point and have no problem with your position.

However, statements made by others, one of which was Raingirl, were made in the context of a suggestion of spending $2billion feeding starving people in the third world.  Their position being that you starve in America if you don't have a job. That was the point I was challenging.

[Bernard Gui]

In your previous post you stated people shouldn't have to rely on charity or depend on the help of others, yet in this post you are encouraging us to do exactly that.

When I was serving as bishop of an inner-city ward, we tried to help the members who were perpetual welfare recipients (government and church) to get off the system by getting or improving their employment. For example, a brother came in off the street and wanted some food. We learned he was an experienced taxi driver who couldn't get his license because he need glasses. In the the short run, we helped him with some food, but for the long run we helped him get glasses. Since he was a non-member, I didn't follow up, but the hope is with our little bit of charitable assistance he was able to become self-sufficient.

It was shocking the number of members and non-members who only wanted food or for us to pay their bills, but wouldn't or couldn't take the steps to do what they needed to do to support themselves.

If a revitalized SLC city core provides jobs and improves quality of life, it is doing the Lord's work in the long run.

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard Gui,

I understand your point and have no problem with your position.

However, statements made by others, one of which was Raingirl, were made in the context of a suggestion of spending $2billion feeding starving people in the third world.  Their position being that you starve in America if you don't have a job. That was the point I was challenging.

I'm confused now. It was my statement that jobs save lives that set you off.

[USU78]

The Church is establishing a fund largely from the contributions of faithful Latter-day Saints who have and will contribute for this purpose.

 

Yes . . . funded largely from specific donations and administered by the Church itself.

 

The donations come from The Church as well as individual members of The Church.  All of the administrative knowhow and derringdo come from The Church. 

 

Your point had been the Church doesn't really get involved, I suppose.

 

Yet the program is the Church's, the administration is the Church's and the members who also donate are members of the Church.

 

My point had been you were shaving awfully close to the dermis in order to prove, I guess, the Church's lack of bona fides in dealing with the poor.

 

Or was there another point.

 

I'm confused.

[omni]

When I was serving as bishop of an inner-city ward, we tried to help the members who were perpetual welfare recipients (government and church) to get off the system by getting or improving their employment. For example, a brother came in off the street and wanted some food. We learned he was an experienced taxi driver who couldn't get his license because he need glasses. In the the short run, we helped him with some food, but for the long run we helped him get glasses. Since he was a non-member, I didn't follow up, but the hope is with our little bit of charitable assistance he was able to become self-sufficient.

It was shocking the number of members and non-members who only wanted food or for us to pay their bills, but wouldn't or couldn't take the steps to do what they needed to do to support themselves.

If a revitalized SLC city core provides jobs and improves quality of life, it is doing the Lord's work in the long run.

 

I think your example as a bishop is exactly what we should be doing.  Some situations require immediate assistance, but the ultimate goal is to eliminate long term dependency.  I'm not opposed to the Church owning for-profit businesses, in fact I'm supportive of it.  I just feel the profits from these businesses should be used towards traditional charitable purposes.  This would create a win-win-win situation - jobs are created through the businesses, lives are improved through the charitable donations/programs, and the Church has a healthy nest egg during difficult times.

 

The PEF, Bishop's Storehouse, and Employment Centers are all excellent programs, imagine what they could accomplish if most or all of the excess profits were used to fund them and other noble charities.

[omni]

 

 

Your point had been the Church doesn't really get involved, I suppose.

 

Yet the program is the Church's, the administration is the Church's and the members who also donate are members of the Church.

 

 

No, I'm not sure where you got that idea from.  Of course the Church is involved, it's involved in every aspect of the program.  My point was that I would hope the Church would fund the expansion of this program (and others) by donating all profits (whenever possible) from its businesses.

[tonie]

Here as some example why I do not believe that temporal impoverishment inhibits or prevents blossoming spiritually. The Young Prince who was told to sell all he had. The Zoramites who were compelled to be humble because they temporally poor.

[USU78]

A couple of quotes:

 

Today, the Church’s business assets support the Church’s mission and principles by serving as a rainy day fund. Agricultural holdings now operated as for-profit enterprises can be converted into welfare farms in the event of a global food crisis. Companies such as KSL Television and the Deseret News provide strategically valuable communication tools.

 

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. Again, they rarely capture the whole picture. The bedrock principles underlying the Church’s welfare and humanitarian efforts are Christlike service and self-reliance.

Nearly 30,000 bishops who oversee their respective congregations have direct access to Church funds to care for those in need, as they help members achieve self-sufficiency.

 

At Welfare Square in Salt Lake City, where the Church cans goods for its distribution warehouses, some procedures would be more efficient if automated. Instead, the Church has opted for more labor-intensive production lines that provide opportunities for people to give service and for welfare recipients to work for what they get. This is not the pattern of a commercial business, but it is the pattern for helping people to help themselves. The Church’s aim is to help individuals to overcome temporal barriers as they pursue spiritual values.

 

Published numbers related to our humanitarian efforts include only dollars spent directly on humanitarian service. The Church absorbs the administrative costs. Furthermore, these numbers do not reflect the Church’s extensive welfare and employment services that serve many thousands worldwide. They also do not represent Deseret Industries thrift stores that provide vouchers to other charities for their use, donations to food pantries, or humanitarian- or welfare-focused missionary service or support given to aid other relief organizations in their missions. Hundreds of thousands of hours of donated service underpin Church programs such as these.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-financial-independence

 

Given the above, which I must assume the critics in this here thread are familiar with, I reach these tentative conclusions:

 

The Church is not entitled to a rainy-day fund, but must completely divest itself of all for-profit holdings and donate the proceeds, probably to a 3rd-party charity.

 

The Church, in the event of catastrophe, must simply shut down or sell off its cash-consuming assets such as church buildings and temples, and live off the proceeds, since it is not entitled to a rainy-day fund.