Downtown Slc Revival And The Lds Church

[gtaggart]

A couple of quotes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

But, but, but, but, PROFITS!!

[omni]

A couple of quotes:

 

 

 

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.

In my last post I specifically mentioned these businesses being used as a rainy-day fund, or "nest egg".

[USU78]

In my last post I specifically mentioned these businesses being used as a rainy-day fund, or "nest egg".

 

Then I'm more and more confused, omni.  Please help me out here.

 

Is your participation on that side of the argument simply a speculation that you would allocate resources differently?

 

Or is it that you believe that would should take from the quoted material that none of the Deseret Management assets' profits ever get directed to eleemosynary programs? [i don't, myself . . . I've heard folks under the DI umbrella speak, saying that they get part of their budget from DM . . . but that's not particularly reliable, even though I believe 'em]

 

What is the point?

[omni]

Then I'm more and more confused, omni.  Please help me out here.

 

Is your participation on that side of the argument simply a speculation that you would allocate resources differently?

 

Or is it that you believe that would should take from the quoted material that none of the Deseret Management assets' profits ever get directed to eleemosynary programs? [i don't, myself . . . I've heard folks under the DI umbrella speak, saying that they get part of their budget from DM . . . but that's not particularly reliable, even though I believe 'em]

 

What is the point?

I've stated my point three or four times, that I believe the Church should be using its profits from its businesses for charitable purposes. If the time arises where the Church is unable cover it's operating expenses through tithing, then use the funds from the for-profit businesses to cover any gaps.

[ksfisher]

I've stated my point three or four times, that I believe the Church should be using its profits from its businesses for charitable purposes. If the time arises where the Church is unable cover it's operating expenses through tithing, then use the funds from the for-profit businesses to cover any gaps.

 

If the time comes when the church cannot cover it's operating expenses through tithing there may not be any profits to make up the difference.  If tithing donations were that low it would seem to indicate some serious economic disruption.

[USU78]

If the time comes when the church cannot cover it's operating expenses through tithing there may not be any profits to make up the difference.  If tithing donations were that low it would seem to indicate some serious economic disruption.

 

As occurred in '08-09, when the Church tightened its belt and let a whole lot of IT people go, and I imagine a lot of other departments were affected as well.

 

Better the temporary disruption in a few lives than the Church invade the seed corn stash.

[USU78]

I've stated my point three or four times, that I believe the Church should be using its profits from its businesses for charitable purposes. If the time arises where the Church is unable cover it's operating expenses through tithing, then use the funds from the for-profit businesses to cover any gaps.

 

You would substitute what you believe is prudent and right for the judgment of those whose calling it is to make that call?

 

Is that it?

[omni]

You would substitute what you believe is prudent and right for the judgment of those whose calling it is to make that call?

Is that it?

I have no problem voicing my opinion about ways I think the Church could improve its charitable givings. Theses are fallible men making the decisions, why should they (theoretically) be above hearing the opinions and ideas of others for ways of improvement. If we were to take that approach, the PEF may have never been created as the idea didn't originate with the top leadership. Edited September 5, 2014 by omni

[Alan]

As occurred in '08-09, when the Church tightened its belt and let a whole lot of IT people go, and I imagine a lot of other departments were affected as well.

 

Better the temporary disruption in a few lives than the Church invade the seed corn stash.

 

So what you're saying here is that the rainy day funds don't work, at least not if you work for the church.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Alan

[Storm Rider]

Everyone can have an opinion, but an opinion evolved from ignorance should have little weight.  What is of value is an informed opinion; actually knowing the facts of an issue or process before expressing an opinion.

 

People seem to think that throwing money at problems is the only cure available.  There is no discussion or thought that maybe throwing money at something does not help in achieving the desired end.  For example, the amount of money the US spends on education puts the nation at the very highest in terms of educations costs, but with rather dismal results.  Should more money be thrown at the problem of poor educational standards?  Further, government spends millions of dollars on social programs and some of them have no quantifiable results in the world.  

 

We can argue about some of these points, but the point is that throwing money at a problem does not remove the problem.  

 

I think it is acceptable to think that we as individuals or as the church can always do more or better.  If we really believed that our own actions would demonstrate our beliefs.  We can increase the amount of money we donate to the church welfare programs and other social programs or charities.  We would reduce the amount of personal consumption in order to donate more money.  We would sacrifice in order to donate more.  If however we are not doing these things and just complaining about why "others" don't donate more then we are just being a pain in the backside and a hypocrite.  

[USU78]

So what you're saying here is that the rainy day funds don't work, at least not if you work for the church.

no.. What I am saying is things are probably going to get off whole lot worse

[Judd]

People without jobs in the US or Europe don't starve.

And why do you presume that is?

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Right.  Quoted as given.  And you have your eyes tightly shut.  "Rock-throwing?  Who's throwing rocks?  I don't see anyone throwing rocks"

 

How about quoting (and/or responding to) the rest of my post?  Or is that too "inconvenient" for you?

Edited October 1, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Mystery Meat]

businessweek.com July 18, 2012 How The Mormons Make Money

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attends to the total needs of its members,” says Keith B. McMullin, who for 37 years served within the Mormon leadership and now heads a church-owned holding company, Deseret Management Corp. (DMC), an umbrella organization for many of the church’s for-profit businesses. “We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”

McMullin does not speak for the Church. I do not believe the Church believes or teaches as McMullin has suggested.

 

I do as I have heard similar sentiments spoken before. From my own life, I can attest that at times of my greatest temporal struggles it was hard to even have the time to deal and focus on the spiritual. Whereas those whose temporal needs are met (this doesn't mean wealthy) have time to serve, pray, and ponder.

[Mystery Meat]

After reading through this thread, I strongly believe the day will come when the wisdom of the Church in having huge for profit businesses and assets will be seen as a blessing and prudent.

 

Why is profit seen as such an evil these days? It's not just a european thing. Even here in the states profit is becoming more and more vile as a concept. I don't think poor people are evil, but I also don't think that rich people with large bank accounts are necessarily bad. But in our culture even businesses are being targeted for having "obscene" profits. Can someone please tell me what an obscene profit is in relation to the Church ran enterprises. When are margins too high? 15%? 10%? 5% 1%?

[Alan]

lvjd66,

The point is that Zion and Babylon cannot co-exist. We as a church are supposed to be attempting to establish Zion, but that cannot be done by using Babylonian methods. To my mind the church has built a temple to mammon right across the street from the temple it built to the Lord. And which one gets the most use?

The issue of profit should not enter into it. This is a matter of principle. How does building a shopping mall contribute to the 3 (or 4) fold mission of the church?

$2billion on a shopping mall! The very thought of it makes me feel sick.

 

This has significantly affected me in my financial relationship with the church. I no longer contribute anything other than tithing to the church. I pay my fast offering elsewhere, and won't contribute to any other fund listed on the tithing slip because I just do not trust the corporate church to use it wisely.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Alan

[USU78]

lvjd66,

The point is that Zion and Babylon cannot co-exist. We as a church are supposed to be attempting to establish Zion, but that cannot be done by using Babylonian methods. To my mind the church has built a temple to mammon right across the street from the temple it built to the Lord. And which one gets the most use?

The issue of profit should not enter into it. This is a matter of principle. How does building a shopping mall contribute to the 3 (or 4) fold mission of the church?

$2billion on a shopping mall! The very thought of it makes me feel sick.

 

This has significantly affected me in my financial relationship with the church. I no longer contribute anything other than tithing to the church. I pay my fast offering elsewhere, and won't contribute to any other fund listed on the tithing slip because I just do not trust the corporate church to use it wisely.

 

It makes you sick because, good Socialist that you are, profits from any source used for any purpose by any person are evil in your worldview.

 

It is your politics, and not your faith, that drives this view.

 

Why should your Socialism drive you from your faith?  Because that's what it's doing.  The kneejerk demonization of profit-seeking per se is an evil, as it ignores the good that profit-takers do in the world.

[tonie]

Right.  Quoted as given.  And you have your eyes tightly shut.  "Rock-throwing?  Who's throwing rocks?  I don't see anyone throwing rocks"

 

How about quoting (and/or responding to) the rest of my post?  Or is that too "inconvenient" for you?

 

Please demonstrate that I have misquoted McMullin.

 

As for the rest of your post, it seems a very personal situation; and out of common decency and respect, it does not appear to that commenting on very personal experience of yours is something I or anyone should do. I have the same pain and frustration before.

 

I would like someone to point out where the Church teaches "that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually."  If we as Church believe that, then there is some teaching from the Church to support it.

[JLHPROF]

This has significantly affected me in my financial relationship with the church. I no longer contribute anything other than tithing to the church. I pay my fast offering elsewhere, and won't contribute to any other fund listed on the tithing slip because I just do not trust the corporate church to use it wisely.

 

Ok, THIS is the correct approach to what we are debating on the "who get's paid" thread.

[Mystery Meat]

lvjd66,

The point is that Zion and Babylon cannot co-exist. We as a church are supposed to be attempting to establish Zion, but that cannot be done by using Babylonian methods. To my mind the church has built a temple to mammon right across the street from the temple it built to the Lord. And which one gets the most use?

The issue of profit should not enter into it. This is a matter of principle. How does building a shopping mall contribute to the 3 (or 4) fold mission of the church?

$2billion on a shopping mall! The very thought of it makes me feel sick.

 

This has significantly affected me in my financial relationship with the church. I no longer contribute anything other than tithing to the church. I pay my fast offering elsewhere, and won't contribute to any other fund listed on the tithing slip because I just do not trust the corporate church to use it wisely.

 

I REJECT your premise out right that the building of a mall or having other for profit businesses means the Church is trying to co-exist with Babylon and cannot therefore establish Zion. I think that is a ridiculous notion and I cannot find the equation of profit to Babylon anywhere in the scriptures. In fact, I think others have done a masterful job using the scriptures to show there is wisdom in increasing the size of the pot with for profit enterprise (parable of the talents). 

 

I apologize, but to me the whole notion that the Church cannot turn a profit (even a massive one) without being corrupted by Babylon is itself a Babylonian philosophy and one that has no solid foundation in the Gospel. It seems to me that this is nothing more than the influence of a culture which seems to disparage anyone and anything who has or spends a lot of money to *gasp* turn a profit.

Edited October 1, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It seems to me that this is nothing more than the influence of a cultural who seems to disparage anyone and anything who has or spends a lot of money to *gasp* turn a profit.

When some one spends a lot of money some one else makes a lot of money.

[Paddy]

I REJECT your premise out right that the building of a mall or having other for profit businesses means the Church is trying to co-exist with Babylon and cannot therefore establish Zion. I think that is a ridiculous notion and I cannot find the equation of profit to Babylon anywhere in the scriptures. In fact, I think others have done a masterful job using the scriptures to show there is wisdom in increasing the size of the pot with for profit enterprise (parable of the talents.

I don't think most of the contrary arguments in this thread argue against the church making a profit. It certainly is interpreted that way by yourself and others. The contention seems to be about the way in which profits are made.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't think most of the contrary arguments in this thread argue against the church making a profit. It certainly is interpreted that way by yourself and others. The contention seems to be about the way in which profits are made.

 

Perhaps then you can help me understand how the Church, in building the City Creek Mall, has become entangled with Babylon. I know those are not your words, but I fail to see how anyone can make such a claim without assuming that turning a profit is a Babylonian endeavor.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think most of the contrary arguments in this thread argue against the church making a profit. It certainly is interpreted that way by yourself and others. The contention seems to be about the way in which profits are made.

So (forgive me, I lost interest in this thread weeks ago) the contrarians here think there's something indecent or immoral or unethical about owning a retail shopping mall?

 

That strikes me as a bizarre notion, but it seems to be implied in your remark here.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Paddy]

So (forgive me, I lost interest in this thread weeks ago) the contrarians here think there's something indecent or immoral or unethical about owning a retail shopping mall?

Yep. That's how I read most of the comments.

If you lost interest, why continue to comment