JAHS Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues. I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls. One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church. All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity. This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund. Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates. All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity. Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross. This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time. The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members. Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings. The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity. This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio. The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank. This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold. Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church. As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash. These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek. No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek. That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status. The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either. Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans. I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited. Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash. Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church. Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good. The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity. All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States. The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country. There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities. The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity. Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies. Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws. If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case. Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties. Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen.Thanks. Saved in my church files.
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues. I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls. One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church. All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity. This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund. Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates. All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity. Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross. This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time. The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members. Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings. The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity. This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio. The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank. This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold. Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church. As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash. These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek. No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek. That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status. The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either. Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans. I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited. Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash. Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church. Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good. The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity. All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States. The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country. There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities. The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity. Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies. Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws. If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case. Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties. Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen. Thanks for providing us with actual facts (although I still reserve the right to make stuff up when it suits my purpose). Be that as it may, does a separation of funds in the manner described above really keep tithing funds from being used for other purposes? As you mentioned, the Church can transfer funds from its profit arm to its non-profit arm. As a result, isn't all of the money just part of one collective whole (despite the fact that it is taxed as two separate entities)? For example, if tithing funds fall, then the profit arm can simply increase its "charitable contributions" to the non-profit side to pay for things in addition to the Brethrens' stipends. Likewise, let's suppose that the profit arm has a bad year due to, say, plummeting rental rates at a certain mall. It can't "donate" to the non-profit arm like it usually does, so instead, the Brethrens' stipends for that year come out of the excess reserves on the non-profit side. In that case, there is a good argument that the cost of the mall would be paid out of tithing funds (at least, for that year). One quick question: Is the Church really spending just about every dime it gets from tithing/charity (less a tiny reserve that doesn't seem to accumulate)? If so, isn't this a problem for the long-term? As the Church continues to grow faster outside of America and Europe, its membership will be become progressively poorer (on a per-capita income basis). In turn, this should result in a reduced rate of giving per member (in general, poor people give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than their richer counterparts). If the Church is just barely keeping its head above water now (from a tithing standpoint), what's going to happen as expenses grow faster than revenue? Perhaps, that explains why the Church would build a mall in the first place. It needs profitable investments to shore up the deficit it will start to run with regards to tithing funds. By the way, if this is the case, then the leaders should be applauded for their foresight (rather than castigated for using funds "improperly"). They are doing the prudent thing to keep the Gospel moving forward. Perhaps, this is more complicated than I first thought. Edited June 15, 2015 by mormonnewb
kimpearson Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I have never heard of the for profit arm of the Church being used to prop up the non for profit arm of the Church. My understanding is that the Church in recent times has always lived with in its means. If tithing and other offerings declines, the Church slows down construction of buildings and temples and will look to cut administrative costs related primarily to paid Church employees who work for the non profit arm (mainly in the Church administrative organization in Salt Lake and seminaries and institutes). The reserves carried by the non profit arm have been described as prudent. My guess would be maybe 6 months to a 1 year. Yes the Church would quickly be in trouble if a significant number of members stopped any and all donations. I view that as part of the miracle that is the Church finance system under guidance from above. There is a lot of faith being exercised as temples and buildings are announced. This is also why no more Church schools are being opened. The other side of the miracle is that for years members supported local building operations and construction with additional budget assessments. That all ceased in the late 80's because members became more faithful in their payment of tithes and offerings. 1
kimpearson Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Another point to make is that it is my understanding that if the assets of the for profit arm were liquidated, the funds raised would only support the non profit arm for a relatively short period of time. It is my guess that these assets are seen by the brethren as part of the reserves. The business profits from the for profit arm of the Church would not even come close to supporting the operations of the non profit arm of the Church. Some of the for profit business probably operate at break even or a loss like the Deseret news. Newspapers are a dying business. 1
mormonnewb Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Another point to make is that it is my understanding that if the assets of the for profit arm were liquidated, the funds raised would only support the non profit arm for a relatively short period of time. It is my guess that these assets are seen by the brethren as part of the reserves. The business profits from the for profit arm of the Church would not even come close to supporting the operations of the non profit arm of the Church. Some of the for profit business probably operate at break even or a loss like the Deseret news. Newspapers are a dying business.So, how is the Church expecting to survive the upcoming demographic shift (ie, more poor members, fewer rich ones)?
Duncan Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) So, how is the Church expecting to survive the upcoming demographic shift (ie, more poor members, fewer rich ones)? maybe they'll cross that bridge when they get to it, and possibly that's why we are doing the rescue Edited June 16, 2015 by Duncan
Stargazer Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Or they could say, 100% of Humanitarian Aid donations go to Humanitarian Aid- How? By paying the overhead through tithing funds, thus reducing the tithing efficiency. The money has to come from somewhere? We're back to the argument about fungibility.They "could say"? Did they say? You do know what a Straw Man is, right? I'll explain as follows: propose that 100% of HA funds to to HA; then say that overhead must (of course) come out of tithing funds. And so therefore: demon fungibility is called forth. Or maybe it's not a straw man, but some other logical fallacy. I'm tired. Actually, if some of the money paid into HA is being used to cover the expenses of distributing HA, that is perfectly legitimate, and there is no need to dip into tithing funds. Actually, I don't see what is freaking wrong with using some tithing funds for Humanitarian Aid. Go for it! They said City Creek was not built using tithing funds -- unless I missed it, I did not ever hear that no tithing funds have been used for HA. The deal here is that CC is a profit-making (we hope) commercial venture, Humanitarian Aid is NOT. I suppose you were just using HA as an example of your general principle. Edited June 16, 2015 by Stargazer 1
Stargazer Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Thanks for providing us with actual facts (although I still reserve the right to make stuff up when it suits my purpose).Over the months since you have been posting here, I have in turns been highly annoyed, ticked off, and completely exasperated by you and your posts. I have almost put you on Ignore a few times, just to save my limited grasp on sanity. But with the bolded and blued parenthetical comment in the quote above, you have completely redeemed yourself in my eyes. Dang! You can actually laugh at yourself! You have a sense of humor! You made me laugh my heiny off! I repent of wanting to Ignore you. From now on, I will not cringe when I see that you have posted something that I have to read.Of course, I still reserve the right to disagree with you, but that's OK, I disagree with everyone here at one time or another. Except maybe Calmoriah and Garden Girl. 1
mormonnewb Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Over the months since you have been posting here, I have in turns been highly annoyed, ticked off, and completely exasperated by you and your posts. I have almost put you on Ignore a few times, just to save my limited grasp on sanity. But with the bolded and blued parenthetical comment in the quote above, you have completely redeemed yourself in my eyes. Dang! You can actually laugh at yourself! You have a sense of humor! You made me laugh my heiny off! I repent of wanting to Ignore you. From now on, I will not cringe when I see that you have posted something that I have to read.Of course, I still reserve the right to disagree with you, but that's OK, I disagree with everyone here at one time or another. Except maybe Calmoriah and Garden Girl. So after almost 2,000 posts, I finally wrote something that you found funny? That makes two of us laughing our heini off. You do realize that this makes me the Thomas Edison of Mormon discussion board humor. As you know, according to folk lore, Edison attempted 10,000 times to create the incandescent light bulb. When later asked about all of these failures, he is reported to have said, "I didn't fail 10,000 times. I simply discovered 10,000 ways that didn't work." I can now say something similar. I didn't fail to make stargazer laugh in 2,000 posts. I successfully discovered 2,000 ways that would tick him off. #winning #betterlatethannever 1
Alan Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Joining this thread late as usual.In my view the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable. After all, that is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.Generally, the church puts all tithing receipts on deposit for 3 years. In other words it is three years ahead of itself. The tithing being spent now was actually donated 3 years ago. The interest on the tithing funds is not considered to be tithing by LDS Inc, but it really is if you think about it. In my view the decision to build City Creek was very poor. We can't get essential repairs done to our chapel because, we are told, there is no money. Go figure. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 They "could say"? Did they say? You do know what a Straw Man is, right? I'll explain as follows: propose that 100% of HA funds to to HA; then say that overhead must (of course) come out of tithing funds. And so therefore: demon fungibility is called forth. Or maybe it's not a straw man, but some other logical fallacy. I'm tired. Actually, if some of the money paid into HA is being used to cover the expenses of distributing HA, that is perfectly legitimate, and there is no need to dip into tithing funds. Actually, I don't see what is freaking wrong with using some tithing funds for Humanitarian Aid. Go for it! They said City Creek was not built using tithing funds -- unless I missed it, I did not ever hear that no tithing funds have been used for HA. The deal here is that CC is a profit-making (we hope) commercial venture, Humanitarian Aid is NOT. I suppose you were just using HA as an example of your general principle. I don't think you understand the concept of an example. It's not a straw man. And YES, they do claim 100% efficiency in Humanitarian Aid. I also agree that tithing funds can be used to pay overhead costs, but you're missing the point. The point is that tithing funds are a charitable contribution just like a donation to Humanitarian Aid. So we can feel really good about 100% but how efficient is tithing usage? We don't know. Would it bother you if 50% of tithing funds were used for "overhead" costs? What about 60%, or 70%, or what if $.80 of every dollar went toward overhead (salaries, office space, management, overhead in delivery of services). Now I'm not saying this is the case because I don't know. That's the problem. It would be great to know how funds are really used. For example if 60% went towards salaries of church employees I would have less confidence in making charitable contributions to pay peoples salaries.
bluebell Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Joining this thread late as usual.In my view the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable. After all, that is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.Generally, the church puts all tithing receipts on deposit for 3 years. In other words it is three years ahead of itself. The tithing being spent now was actually donated 3 years ago. The interest on the tithing funds is not considered to be tithing by LDS Inc, but it really is if you think about it.In my view the decision to build City Creek was very poor. We can't get essential repairs done to our chapel because, we are told, there is no money. Go figure.If you read further you'll find a post from someone who has worked as an accountant for the church. They explain how tithing wasn't used. 1
Duncan Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Joining this thread late as usual.In my view the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable. After all, that is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.Generally, the church puts all tithing receipts on deposit for 3 years. In other words it is three years ahead of itself. The tithing being spent now was actually donated 3 years ago. The interest on the tithing funds is not considered to be tithing by LDS Inc, but it really is if you think about it. In my view the decision to build City Creek was very poor. We can't get essential repairs done to our chapel because, we are told, there is no money. Go figure. what the? our Chapel just got repairs done! they re did the gym floor, fixed the concrete outside and due to winter there is a hole out front so they will fix that. Don't you have a PM group? 1
bluebell Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 what the? our Chapel just got repairs done! they re did the gym floor, fixed the concrete outside and due to winter there is a hole out front so they will fix that. Don't you have a PM group?Us too. We had new carpet put into the building and a new roof. It would be interesting to know how money for repairs is handled and if it has to come from tithing from members in the country where the chapel is. 1
Rain Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) This is an indication to me that money is being used wisely. Maybe there is no money in the budget today because the money has already been used in that budget, but perhaps ir is being put in tomorrow's budget. I know when our church building was totaled in a fire it sat for a long time. Finally the stake leaders told us they had discussed this with Salt Lake. Members living in the stake had decreased by 39% in 10 years (largely because members with very large families moved to bigger houses and nonmembers moved in). We didn't need 3 buildings like we used to. The church would receive insurance money, but when they found rebuilding would cost about the same as a small temple then (from the wording used and my understanding) the local leaders asked that the money be used for a temple instead.So I think a lot of thought and prayer go into repairs etc and the solution isn't always to just fix it either for budget reasons or other reasons. The Mesa family history center is either closed or partially closed right now. They were doing repairs and discovered a lot of black mold. There is nothing in the budget to fix the increased cost right now so it sits empty.In our ward we had some needs and started praying about it. We decided to have a family history fair. Guess what? That's when we found out about the building and that there are family history missionaries here who can't go to the building now. They are now available to come do family history fairs and other things and it makes things soooo much easier to set this up. Interesting how wards and stakes are being inspired to do things like this while the building sits for awhile waiting either to be fixed or some alternative plan comes into being. Edited June 16, 2015 by Rain 2
Stargazer Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 So after almost 2,000 posts, I finally wrote something that you found funny? That makes two of us laughing our heini off. You do realize that this makes me the Thomas Edison of Mormon discussion board humor. As you know, according to folk lore, Edison attempted 10,000 times to create the incandescent light bulb. When later asked about all of these failures, he is reported to have said, "I didn't fail 10,000 times. I simply discovered 10,000 ways that didn't work." I can now say something similar. I didn't fail to make stargazer laugh in 2,000 posts. I successfully discovered 2,000 ways that would tick him off. #winning #betterlatethannever You did it again. Cut it out. I must maintain a sober bearing and I'm running out of lemons and dill pickles. Actually, I have things going on in my life that make me truly need the occasional comedic interlude. So, thanks for that. 1
Stargazer Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I don't think you understand the concept of an example. It's not a straw man. And YES, they do claim 100% efficiency in Humanitarian Aid. I also agree that tithing funds can be used to pay overhead costs, but you're missing the point. The point is that tithing funds are a charitable contribution just like a donation to Humanitarian Aid. So we can feel really good about 100% but how efficient is tithing usage? We don't know. Would it bother you if 50% of tithing funds were used for "overhead" costs? What about 60%, or 70%, or what if $.80 of every dollar went toward overhead (salaries, office space, management, overhead in delivery of services). Now I'm not saying this is the case because I don't know. That's the problem. It would be great to know how funds are really used. For example if 60% went towards salaries of church employees I would have less confidence in making charitable contributions to pay peoples salaries. Look, I'm with mormonnewb. I think they're doing just fine with Church finances and keeping things lined up ethically, honestly and legally. You don't. Whatever, dude. Would you complain if you were hung with a new rope?
Stargazer Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Joining this thread late as usual.In my view the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable. After all, that is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.Generally, the church puts all tithing receipts on deposit for 3 years. In other words it is three years ahead of itself. The tithing being spent now was actually donated 3 years ago. The interest on the tithing funds is not considered to be tithing by LDS Inc, but it really is if you think about it. In my view the decision to build City Creek was very poor. We can't get essential repairs done to our chapel because, we are told, there is no money. Go figure.Your lateness might have caused you to miss this post in this very thread: Look Here. My ward had to meet in a different building for about 2 months early this year because our chapel was getting a major upgrade. They replaced the entire stand, adding a sloped ramp so people in wheelchairs could get to the pulpit to give talks, pulled out all the pews and replaced the carpet (necessary because of construction), and they also did a major upgrade of our landscaping, including replacing the old light standards in the parking lot, and putting LED floodlights on them. Apparently someone got mixed up and sent your repairs to us. Or maybe it is because US tithing pays for US repairs, and UK tithing pays for UK repairs. And City Creek was paid for by non-tithing funds, and wouldn't have helped you in any case. You don't have to answer this, but where do you live in the UK? I spent 2.5 years there once, living in Cheltenham, GLOS. It's now a ward, but it was a branch when I was there.
Alan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) If there is any carpet left will you send it over here!I have been pleading for new carpet for ages but get nowhere. The one we have now is disgusting and stinks.We only have one smart TV in the building and we can't get another one. So when YW, YM, RS and EQ want to use the teaching resources the church has made available it can get a bit fractious. I would buy one from the ward budget funds but they won't let me! It took me months to get a second vacuum cleaner and when it arrived it was someone else's cast off. Stargazer, I am in God's own country, otherwise known as Yorkshire. Edited June 17, 2015 by Alan 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Look, I'm with mormonnewb. I think they're doing just fine with Church finances and keeping things lined up ethically, honestly and legally. You don't. Whatever, dude.Would you complain if you were hung with a new rope?Start paying attention before you mischaracterize what I said. Even in my post you quote has nothing similar to what you are claiming I said. I've never said they are unethical, dishonest or illegal in their operations. What I say is we are left to assume they are doing everything above board because for whatever reasons they don't disclose any information. This is very unusual for a charitable organization and church. We don't know facts because they won't tell us. That leave us in ignorance to guess. Apparently some people prefer ignorance. What do you mean by referring to me being hung by a new rope? Seems like an over the top, poor choice of...whatever you're trying to say.
Duncan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 If there is any carpet left will you send it over here!I have been pleading for new carpet for ages but get nowhere. The one we have now is disgusting and stinks.We only have one smart TV in the building and we can't get another one. So when YW, YW, RS and EQ want to use the teaching resources the church has made available it can get a bit fractious. I would buy one from the ward budget funds but they won't let me! It took me months to get a second vacuum cleaner and when it arrived it was someone else's cast off. Stargazer, I am in God's own country, otherwise known as Yorkshire. we had a Geordie and a Scouser serve missions here but they were both shocked that we have pulpits that go up and down and our tithing envelopes have the Bishops name and address on it. I told them well, take heart of the world thank you for giving us Keira Knieghtly and Elizabeth Hurley
Stargazer Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Start paying attention before you mischaracterize what I said. Even in my post you quote has nothing similar to what you are claiming I said. I've never said they are unethical, dishonest or illegal in their operations. What I say is we are left to assume they are doing everything above board because for whatever reasons they don't disclose any information. This is very unusual for a charitable organization and church. We don't know facts because they won't tell us. That leave us in ignorance to guess. Apparently some people prefer ignorance. What do you mean by referring to me being hung by a new rope? Seems like an over the top, poor choice of...whatever you're trying to say. Maybe I got over-exercised with mischaracterization. Maybe it's how you come off to me when I read what you wrote. Maybe I was particularly grumpy last night. You and rockpond have been hitting my buttons really hard, and maybe I should just stay away for awhile, and write a book. The reference to being hung with a new rope, I am sorry to say, was a reference I thought you would get, but apparently it's one of those things that I am familiar with that the younger generation is not. The reference pertains to those who complain at the slightest opportunity, as in someone who is about to be executed by hanging. Back in the bad old days ropes were made with natural plant fibers. Ropes which had seen some use tended to be smooth from that use, whereas new ropes still had prickly fibers poking out of them. If you were hung with a new rope it would be somewhat more uncomfortable than if the rope were used. But only those who tended to complain about the most nitpicky details would complain about the condition of the rope. The others were more worried about the sudden stop at the end. Thus, of inveterate complainers it was sometimes said "He would complain if he were hung with a new rope." You seem to complain a lot about the Church. So, it seemed vaguely appropriate. I'm sorry, HappyJackWagon, if I gave offense. I think I am going to take a few days vacation from this place. It is I who am turning into the complainer, I think.
Stargazer Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 If there is any carpet left will you send it over here!I have been pleading for new carpet for ages but get nowhere. The one we have now is disgusting and stinks.We only have one smart TV in the building and we can't get another one. So when YW, YM, RS and EQ want to use the teaching resources the church has made available it can get a bit fractious. I would buy one from the ward budget funds but they won't let me! It took me months to get a second vacuum cleaner and when it arrived it was someone else's cast off. Stargazer, I am in God's own country, otherwise known as Yorkshire. Darn, but I never made it to Yorkshire. I fell in love with the Cotswolds, though, in Gloucestershire. I think that's also God's country. He seems to own a lot of real estate, I've noticed. Hmmm.
ksfisher Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 We only have one smart TV in the building and we can't get another one. So when YW, YM, RS and EQ want to use the teaching resources the church has made available it can get a bit fractious. I would buy one from the ward budget funds but they won't let me! It took me months to get a second vacuum cleaner and when it arrived it was someone else's cast off. We have one smart TV in our entire stake, but, thankfully, several vacuum cleaners per building.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Maybe I got over-exercised with mischaracterization. Maybe it's how you come off to me when I read what you wrote. Maybe I was particularly grumpy last night. You and rockpond have been hitting my buttons really hard, and maybe I should just stay away for awhile, and write a book. The reference to being hung with a new rope, I am sorry to say, was a reference I thought you would get, but apparently it's one of those things that I am familiar with that the younger generation is not. The reference pertains to those who complain at the slightest opportunity, as in someone who is about to be executed by hanging. Back in the bad old days ropes were made with natural plant fibers. Ropes which had seen some use tended to be smooth from that use, whereas new ropes still had prickly fibers poking out of them. If you were hung with a new rope it would be somewhat more uncomfortable than if the rope were used. But only those who tended to complain about the most nitpicky details would complain about the condition of the rope. The others were more worried about the sudden stop at the end. Thus, of inveterate complainers it was sometimes said "He would complain if he were hung with a new rope." You seem to complain a lot about the Church. So, it seemed vaguely appropriate. I'm sorry, HappyJackWagon, if I gave offense. I think I am going to take a few days vacation from this place. It is I who am turning into the complainer, I think.Me and Rockpond? At least I'm in good company. Thank you for referring to me as "the younger generation". It's been a while. Apology accepted. Thank you for the context of your quote. I didn't get that from your original post at all. I think I understand where you're coming from though I don't consider myself a complainer.
Recommended Posts