How much do temples cost to build?

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

it doesn't matter, it was still $189,903.58 in value. 

I don't mind small contributions. Like I said, in a true democracy a political campaign is funded by small contributions, a big money contribution is not right in my opinion. I hope our church never again donates more than 1,500 dollars to a political campaign because it needs to be fair 

.................................

Nonsense, Skeptic.  

First, religious organizations are not allowed to contribute anything to individuals or PACs for individuals who are running for office.  They may only contribute to issue campaigns.

Second, many individuals have already made their small contributions to their religious, union, or other organization so that their concerns may be handled more professionally on a large scale.  You suggestion is nice, but unrealistic, like maintaining that we should only contribute individually to the homeless or needy, when the best and most effective way is to contribute to a bishop's fast offering fund, or to the Union Rescue Mission, or other professional organization for the most effective distribution.  All humanitarian aid and welfare systems are best handled in such manner.  So also, political campaigns.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're kidding, right?  I thought you were wider read than that...

• "The first coins were developed independently in Iron Age Anatolia and Archaic Greece, India and China around the 8th and 7th centuries BCE."  -- Wikipedia: Coins: History
• And, in case Wikipedia gives you the willies, "Archaeologists and numismatic scholars are coming to an agreement that the coins were invented independently at three different locations on the eurasian continent between 700-600 BCE. They are Lydia, India and China, shown in the map below. Evidence exists for Lydian coins but only circumstantial evidence exist for the Indian and Chinese coins of this period." -- A Brief History of Coin Invention
• And, "Coins were introduced as a method of payment around the 6th or 5th century BCE. The invention of coins is still shrouded in mystery: According to Herdotous (I, 94), coins were first minted by the Lydians, while Aristotle claims that the first coins were minted by Demodike of Kyrme, the wife of King Midas of Phrygia." -- Ancient History Encyclopedia: Coinage

Does that all suffice for your CFR?

It does, Stargazer, and so thank you.

I was really just checking to see whether you were claiming any such precedent for Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant, where coins were unknown in the time of Lehi and Nephi.  Because Alma 11 is an issue, as you know.

[strappinglad]

Wait a minute. I  remember a coin offered for sale on ebay that was made in 1456 BC.  That date was clearly stamped on the face. Must have been real. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It does, Stargazer, and so thank you.

I was really just checking to see whether you were claiming any such precedent for Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant, where coins were unknown in the time of Lehi and Nephi.  Because Alma 11 is an issue, as you know.

I don't consider it an issue, actually.  The old chapter heading for Alma 11 (chapter headings being of modern composition and not part of the Book of Mormon text), talked about "Nephite coinage", but that's anachronistic, obviously.  The current chapter heading refers to "The Nephite monetary system", which is more accurate.  The system is based upon weights, not denomination, and consists of easily divided weights, which is actually credible. I believe that there were similarly structured systems of weight in the Middle East, once upon a time, so the Nephite system is consistent with its geographic origin.  The critics were right to complain about the chapter heading when it mentioned coinage.  

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Wait a minute. I  remember a coin offered for sale on ebay that was made in 1456 BC.  That date was clearly stamped on the face. Must have been real. 

Oh, you're a scream!  

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense, Skeptic.  

First, religious organizations are not allowed to contribute anything to individuals or PACs for individuals who are running for office.  They may only contribute to issue campaigns.

but our church was allowed to donated to the Yes on 8 Campaign, I don't see a significant difference, $189,903.58 is big money and it is still wrong in my opinion. I am against big money to political campaigns. 

 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Second, many individuals have already made their small contributions to their religious, union, or other organization so that their concerns may be handled more professionally on a large scale.

What is the evidence that the $189,903.58 came from small contributions to the church for the "Yes on 8" campaign? 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but our church was allowed to donated to the Yes on 8 Campaign, I don't see a significant difference, $189,903.58 is big money and it is still wrong in my opinion. I am against big money to political campaigns. 

What is the evidence that the $189,903.58 came from small contributions to the church for the "Yes on 8" campaign? 

 

First of all, election laws says that religious organizations are NOT allowed to donate to individual political races or to PACS, only to "issue" campaigns.

Whereupon, you said "but our church was allowed to donate to the Yes on 8 Campaign", as if this contradicted what Robert said.  The "Yes on 8" campaign was an ISSUE campaign.  It was legal for the Church to donate towards it, which means that the Church had the RIGHT to donate to it, not merely that it was ALLOWED to do it.  Second, it wasn't a "political" campaign -- "political" as in a candidate is running for public office -- it was an "issue" campaign.  Wrong in your opinion, fine, but what makes your opinion more important than the law, which permits the Church to contribute to the campaign in this case?  And what makes your opinion more important than the collective inspired judgement of 15 men whom the Lord placed at the head of His church to make decisions like this?

Do you have any idea what "in kind" donations are?  The Church didn't write a check out to the committee in California which was promoting Prop 8.  No cash whatsoever was paid to them.  The Deseret News article on the matter says "The church's in-kind donations consisted of video production from its studios, church employee time, airfare and lodging for church leaders, etc."  

I get it, though.  Your opinion is that the Church must be muzzled when it comes to issues involving morality.  If there were a ballot proposition in California or any other state that for example, changed the state constitution to prohibit the state government from operating a lottery (the Church has a moral compunction against gambling, imagine that), you would think it wrong for the Church to make in-kind donations in support of the measure, even though the Church had a concern dealing with morality on the issue?  Oh, no, apparently it would be OK with you if the Church contributed "little" money.  What's "little" money in your elevated opinion?  $100K? $50K? $10K?  $1K?  $5 bucks?

What is the evidence that the $189K came from small donations?  What sense does that make?  The Church was not laundering donations from Church members that were earmarked for the Yes on 8 campaign.  The Church used its facilities in support of the measure, and paid for a few things.  Let's say that you were in favor of a local referendum in your town, and you were so much in favor of it that you quit your job and spent 80 hours a week for three months doorbelling and doing other work in support of the measure.  And let's further assume that you normally made $40 per hour in your usual occupation.  Well, then, at $40 per hour for 80 hours per week for three months amounts to an in-kind donation to the issue you support of $38,400 even if not one red cent left your bank account in support of it.  Except that maybe you used your car, your gasoline, and some other incidental things of yours were expended.  If you had to report these things as campaign contributions then, you, too, would be contributing Big Money to a campaign.  And wouldn't you then be ashamed of yourself?

No, you should have just shut the heck up and let those who opposed your measure outspend you because you don't like Big Money in campaigns.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

First of all, election laws says that religious organizations are NOT allowed to donate to individual political races or to PACS, only to "issue" campaigns.

Whereupon, you said "but our church was allowed to donate to the Yes on 8 Campaign", as if this contradicted what Robert said.  The "Yes on 8" campaign was an ISSUE campaign.  It was legal for the Church to donate towards it, which means that the Church had the RIGHT to donate to it, not merely that it was ALLOWED to do it.hat sense does that make?  

I know it is legal, I am not arguing against that, I am simply saying that it is not right in my opinion. Just because something is legal does not mean that is has to be right. 

I know it was an issue campaign, but it was a political issue.   

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Do you have any idea what "in kind" donations are?  The Church didn't write a check out to the committee in California which was promoting Prop 8.  No cash whatsoever was paid to them. 

I know, but it is still $189,903.58 in value. 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

et those who opposed your measure outspend you because you don't like Big Money in campaigns.

Most people cannot afford to donate 100k. In a true democracy political campaigns should be funded by  small donor contributions , perhaps 1k limit. 

Many don´t like Big Money to political campaigns, and it has to end.

Edited December 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but our church was allowed to donated to the Yes on 8 Campaign, I don't see a significant difference, $189,903.58 is big money and it is still wrong in my opinion. I am against big money to political campaigns. 

You probably need to make a rational case against money in large sums being donated to issue campaigns, but that makes no sense in light of the fact that the big money you are talking about comes from numerous small donations already (tithing).  It is irrational to use a rifle to defend against a tank.  Little people can only defend themselves against huge special interests by banding together and pooling their resources.  You may be a purest, but you will be an unsuccessful one in politics.

...........................................................................

What is the evidence that the $189,903.58 came from small contributions to the church for the "Yes on 8" campaign? 

I made no such suggestion, and indeed emphasized that this was the value of in-kind contributions by the LDS Church, not money.  You seem confused on this point, Skeptic.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You probably need to make a rational case against money in large sums being donated to issue campaigns, but that makes no sense in light of the fact that the big money you are talking about comes from numerous small donations already (tithing).

so that $189,903.58 comes from tithing money? Did all tithe payers support the Yes on 8 campaign?

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I made no such suggestion, and indeed emphasized that this was the value of in-kind contributions by the LDS Church, not money. You seem confused on this point, Skeptic

It is the same thing. The in-kind donations were worth $189,903.58, I am not confused. I think you guys don't understand what I am trying to say. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

so that $189,903.58 comes from tithing money? Did all tithe payers support the Yes on 8 campaign?

It is the same thing. The in-kind donations were worth $189,903.58, I am not confused. I think you guys don't understand what I am trying to say. 

But you are clearly confused about the nature of in-kind donations, which are not the vegetables, fruits, chickens, etc., of old fashioned pioneer in-kind donations which were once normal.  Tithing money is cash.  In-kind donations are not.  When members of the LDS faith (and other faiths as well) donate cash tithing, they are depending on the judgment of the leaders of that faith to make the best decisions for the good of the entire flock.  For Mormons, this is part and parcel of the Law of Consecration and of the sustaining of leaders.  For a union organization, the decisions of elected union leaders are accepted for the good of the whole union.  Of course, not all of the members support every decision taken by the leadership, but that is a given in such actions where the group must prevail.

I do not know the nature of those LDS in-kind donations, but they may be referring to the time and energy spent by local California Saints (unpaid man hours) in working to pass Prop 8.  If that is the case, then your comments have nothing to do with tithing at all, which are cash donations to the central HQ of the LDS Church and are not to be confused with in-kind donations.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you are clearly confused about the nature of in-kind donations, which are not the vegetables, fruits, chickens, etc., of old fashioned pioneer in-kind donations which were once normal.  Tithing money is cash.  In-kind donations are not.  When members of the LDS faith (and other faiths as well) donate cash tithing, they are depending on the judgment of the leaders of that faith to make the best decisions for the good of the entire flock.  For Mormons, this is part and parcel of the Law of Consecration and of the sustaining of leaders.  For a union organization, the decisions of elected union leaders are accepted for the good of the whole union.  Of course, not all of the members support every decision taken by the leadership, but that is a given in such actions where the group must prevail.

I do not know the nature of those LDS in-kind donations, but they may be referring to the time and energy spent by local California Saints (unpaid man hours) in working to pass Prop 8.  If that is the case, then your comments have nothing to do with tithing at all, which are cash donations to the central HQ of the LDS Church and are not to be confused with in-kind donations.

I guess I expect too much when I spend a lot of time composing a post, and expect people who care about the issue at hand to read my deathless prose.    Sometimes I think I am actually composting a post instead.  In my post above, I quoted from the Deseret News on what the Church had donated "in kind":

"The church's in-kind donations consisted of video production from its studios, church employee time, airfare and lodging for church leaders, etc."

That's what the Church donated.  And what Skeptic is so exercised about.

And I really TRIED to show him how it was possible via in-kind donations to make it look like a major personal effort was "big money" and that what he is thinking is "big money" isn't really big, but it was a complete waste of effort.  Most people couldn't afford to donate something like $40,000 to a political issue campaign, and $40,000 is certainly "big money" to me and anyone I know, even including a millionaire I know personally, but most people could afford to donate that kind of money if it were their own labor.  Even $100K as "in kind" is just not "big money".

In other words, he'd rather the Church be muzzled when it comes to political issues that strong impinge on moral concerns.  Because the No on 8 people were certainly not squeamish about big money.  Even for a gun-control advocate, bringing a knife to a gun fight is still very unwise.  Principle be damned, how about winning a battle that must be won?  Unless one doesn't care about the cause.  Which seems to me the REAL issue here.  

General H. Norman Schwartzkopf was my brigade commander once.  We troops loved him, by and large, because he cared about us.  But he was tough on his subordinate officers, and I remember my company commander, upon being informed in a field exercise that Colonel Schwartzkopf would soon be at the company command post for a visit, suddenly found it necessary to jump on his jeep and visit his platoon leaders in their their command posts.  He was scared of him!  Well, much later, when the Bear was a full General, he spent an inordinate amount of "in kind" donations to the Republican Guard (in the form of munitions peronally delivered to them by dedicated professional pilots), all so his troops wouldn't have to spend their lives unnecessarily attacking prepared positions.  Was it unfair to the Iraqi troops?  I'm sure they thought so!  But it was definitely NOT unfair to our troops, and even less so to the cause of defeating Saddam Hussein and freeing Kuwait.  Whether one considers the First Gulf War to have been a political mistake or not, spending munitions profligately to keep OUR casualties down was definitely not a mistake.  The Church's $100K was the equivalent of a couple boxes of ammunition.  Well spent on a cause that mattered.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Stargazer

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you are clearly confused about the nature of in-kind donations, which are not the vegetables, fruits, chickens, etc., of old fashioned pioneer in-kind donations which were once normal.  Tithing money is cash.  In-kind donations are not.  When members of the LDS faith (and other faiths as well) donate cash tithing, they are depending on the judgment of the leaders of that faith to make the best decisions for the good of the entire flock.  For Mormons, this is part and parcel of the Law of Consecration and of the sustaining of leaders.  For a union organization, the decisions of elected union leaders are accepted for the good of the whole union.  Of course, not all of the members support every decision taken by the leadership, but that is a given in such actions where the group must prevail.

In-kind donations may be material goods, which cost money, and probably cost tithing money. Bytheway, tithing doesn't have to be with cash. 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

"The church's in-kind donations consisted of video production from its studios, church employee time, airfare and lodging for church leaders, etc."

That's what the Church donated.  And what Skeptic is so exercised about.

the videos for what? for TV ads? What do they mean by employee time? Campaign staff?Airfare for what? to campaign? The church should clarify more in it's official website. Let's remember that the in-kind donations did not include the volunteer work of many LDS members in California. 

The church had to report the donations to the California Secretary of State. 

 

Quote

When members of the LDS faith (and other faiths as well) donate cash tithing, they are depending on the judgment of the leaders of that faith to make the best decisions for the good of the entire flock.

so that has nothing to do with small donations to a political campaign. 

Edited December 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

5 Billion Dollars where put into this infrastructure and revitalization project alone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Creek_Center

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[VideoGameJunkie]

This is the account of someone who had a Near death experience and talked to Jesus. This is what was said when the topic of a shrine came up:

“When he [Jesus] told me that I had to come back to the world and I was trying to convince him not to send me back…, I asked him what would I do if I came back… Before he had a chance to answer, I said you know I am an artist and I would like to build a shrine for you… I would make this shrine so big and beautiful and bizarre that people would come from all over the world out of curiosity to see what it was about. And what they would find was it would be about you. And that would make them think about you. That’s what I would like to do if I came back.

“He said, I would rather you didn’t do that.

“And I said, WHAT?!! People have been building shrines to you forever. There are lots of shrines. Why can’t I build a shrine? I would like to build a shrine.

“He said you spent so much of your life hiding out in the studio, avoiding people, I would prefer it if you didn’t avoid people by building this big shrine… I don’t really care about shrines. People like to build shrines. I understand that. It makes them feel good. It does absolutely nothing for me or for God. We don’t have any use for them whatsoever. If that’s what amuses you, it's ok to do. But don’t do it for me. Don’t deceive yourself into thinking it’s something I want or need, because I don’t." — Excerpted from Part 3 (03:00 – 10:25) of near-death experiencer Howard Storm’s interview Matt Cline: “The Redemption of Howard Storm”. To listen to all four parts, go here.

Edited December 24, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie

[Calm]

Don't forget attribution for the quote, VGJ

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Don't forget attribution for the quote, VGJ

I edited my post to include attribution for the quote.

[Calm]

Thank you

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but our church was allowed to donated to the Yes on 8 Campaign, I don't see a significant difference, $189,903.58 is big money and it is still wrong in my opinion. I am against big money to political campaigns.

You need to read more about politics if you imagine that less then $200k is "big money".

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You need to read more about politics if you imagine that less then $200k is "big money".

Yes, I'd like to know what amount is considered acceptable in this case.

[TheSkepticChristian]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You need to read more about politics if you imagine that less then $200k is "big money".

200k is big money because most people cannot donate that amount to a political campaign.

[Johnnie Cake]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Church just released its financial data so that tithe payers could see where their money is being spent...then we wouldn't have to ask how much Temples cost...we'd know

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Wouldn't it be nice if the Church just released its financial data so that tithe payers could see where their money is being spent...then we wouldn't have to ask how much Temples cost...we'd know

I prefer people whining about not knowing as opposed to ignorantly whining about line items on a budget sheet. Just a personal preference.

[Calm]

I like not knowing.  It helps to mentally set aside my curiosity about mundane issues and focus on the beauty and physical depiction of our faith, obedience and willingness to sacrifice what God has given.  When I watch decorating shows and they go on about how much somerhing costs, I shift from thinking about the enjoyment of the setting to looking on it as more a status statement or whether or not the owners are getting their money's worth or half a dozen other subjects that detract from a positive engagement with the actual surroundings.

When I hear "money is no object" or something similar and then get told the price tag, it gives me a taste that it actually is all about money.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Wouldn't it be nice if the Church just released its financial data so that tithe payers could see where their money is being spent...then we wouldn't have to ask how much Temples cost...we'd know

I'm going to echo The Nehor here.  If the Church released its financial data there would be a quantum increase in complaints, nitpicking, and TheSkepticChristian would probably go ballistic at how much was being spent on A, B or C.  The way things are, there is only one complaint: that the Church won't release its financial data.  It makes things much less complicated, and this is to be preferred.