Popular Post rockpond Posted June 1, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 1, 2018 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: How is it different? Can You define it? No. Good luck trying. It is taking care of the poor versus doing the Lord's work. That event in the life of Christ does not illustrate "taking care of the poor versus doing the Lord's work". It illustrates taking care of the poor versus the woman's desire to honor the Savior prior to his death. Note Jesus' response that we always have the poor with us but we don't always have Him with us. I don't see anyone here suggesting that we stop doing the Lord's work. The debate, rather, seems to be how much wealth ought we build up as a church versus how much should we be investing in helping the sick and afflicted? If we are going to have a productive discussion, we need to recognize where the difference in opinion actually lies rather than trying to setup false extremes. If it is in fact true that the Church has a $32B stock portfolio, it ought to be providing over $2B in investment income every year without ever touching the principle. I think it's a fair question to ask how that $2B in annual income is utilized. 5
Scott Lloyd Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, ALarson said: There's no comparison between what Kiwi's abrasive form of posting was to how Hope_For_Things posts here. From what I saw with Kiwi, he was given many chances before he was banned and the mods were extremely fair with him. Abrasive? Physician heal thyself. 2
SteveO Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: If it is in fact true that the Church has a $32B stock portfolio, it ought to be providing over $2B in investment income every year without ever touching the principle. I think it's a fair question to ask how that $2B in annual income is utilized. My wife made a good point last night—at least I thought it was interesting. We are living in the “last days”...maybe the church is saving up for something? If you go to Missouri for example, there will be quite a lot of infrastructure and construction that will no doubt need to be done. You never know what’s going to be coming
Scott Lloyd Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I didn't realize Kiwi was banned from the boards again. I wouldn't be opposed to him coming back if he could be a little less abrasive. I think his voice and perspective are needed. Thanks for that acknowledgement. I know from personal correspondence that he was banned. It resulted from a string of events stemming from his use of a word that was not in the vocabulary of the one to whom he was responding and that person incorrectly interpreting the word as an insult. The moderator did not know what the word meant either and so sustained the complaint against Kiwi. Some of us pushed back. From that point, the moderator was gunning for Kiwi, whose banning soon followed.
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: The idea of caring for the poor and needy has been with the church for a long time. Lots of references. https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=fast+offerings Yes, I know its a priority, but it wasn't one of the official missions of the church, and when President Monson announced it as one of these missions, I think that elevated it to a new status. I'm just perplexed as to why so few members know about it, and these same members could easily tell you the other 3 pillars of missions of the church.
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, rockpond said: That event in the life of Christ does not illustrate "taking care of the poor versus doing the Lord's work". It illustrates taking care of the poor versus the woman's desire to honor the Savior prior to his death. Note Jesus' response that we always have the poor with us but we don't always have Him with us. I don't see anyone here suggesting that we stop doing the Lord's work. The debate, rather, seems to be how much wealth ought we build up as a church versus how much should we be investing in helping the sick and afflicted? If we are going to have a productive discussion, we need to recognize where the difference in opinion actually lies rather than trying to setup false extremes. If it is in fact true that the Church has a $32B stock portfolio, it ought to be providing over $2B in investment income every year without ever touching the principle. I think it's a fair question to ask how that $2B in annual income is utilized. Ok, fine In YOUR infinite wisdom and precise understanding of every possible iron in the fire the church has for the present and future planning, what is the precise percentage to be allocated to each mission of the church? Is it possible others will disagree? Is the general membership up to the task of even imagining how to do this? Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
cinepro Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 15 minutes ago, SteveO said: My wife made a good point last night—at least I thought it was interesting. We are living in the “last days”...maybe the church is saving up for something? If you go to Missouri for example, there will be quite a lot of infrastructure and construction that will no doubt need to be done. You never know what’s going to be coming I think the point is that it might be appropriate for the Church to tell us what they're doing and why. As you point out, no one would begrudge the Church from building up a fund to pay for expected infrastructure and construction for the imminent last days. As has been endlessly beat to death on this forum, we all know they don't have to. But there is a risk involved if they don't. And that risk is having someone else figure out the size of part of their investments just a few months after the prophet tells destitute members in Africa to keep up on their tithing payments. Again, nothing wrong with that from a doctrinal standpoint, but from a PR standpoint, it doesn't get much worse. And of course the worst risk is that now you will have members thinking of that $32b stock portfolio when they write out their tithing checks each month. That won't stop a lot of people from still paying, but it might stop some. And it might take some of the joy out of it, even if they insist it doesn't. 3
Benjamin Seeker Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Ok, fine In YOUR infinite wisdom and precise understanding of every possible iron in the fire the church has for the present and future planning, what is the precise percentage to be allocated to each mission of the church? How about a Bishops’ storehouse in Brazil. They didn’t have them where/when I served, and according to my mission buddy they don’t have them in the more populated area where he lives. From what I understand they have the Bishops front the money and reimburse similar to how they handle the majority of auxiliary expenses here in the states. I know you asked for a percentage, but instead I gave a practical and needed suggestion.
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) How about transparency from the hackers who lie in wait to deceive? And my student protester days I was excellent at moving crowds one direction or another. All it takes is one strident voice with the color of authority. That is precisely what I see here. Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ok, fine In YOUR infinite wisdom and precise understanding of every possible iron in the fire the church has for the present and future planning, what is the precise percentage to be allocated to each mission of the church? I think this is more evidence for why we need financial transparency. So we can properly evaluate the way the church is utilizing its vast resources. Did you see that quote I posted from Joseph F. Smith envisioning a day where the church has enough tithing saved up that it doesn't need to ask for more tithing? A really interesting idea. Until we have financial transparency, its very difficult to accurately evaluate how the church could better utilize its resources. Certainly there must be some opportunities for improvement? It seems like a lot of people are so sensitive to any criticisms, that they are unwilling to consider that the church's financial management would benefit from becoming transparent and consequentially open to feedback from members and society. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, I know its a priority, but it wasn't one of the official missions of the church, and when President Monson announced it as one of these missions, I think that elevated it to a new status. I'm just perplexed as to why so few members know about it, and these same members could easily tell you the other 3 pillars of missions of the church. The term “missions of the Church” has not been used since the end of the Hinckley presidency. Under President Monson, there were four “divinely appointed responsibilities” identified, of which care for the poor and needy was one.
ALarson Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Abrasive? Yes, for many (most?) of his posts that I read....IMO. There are other words that could be used, but I think abrasive is most accurate when describing his style of posting. If not true, why do you believe he was banned (and not just once, IIRC)? From what I've seen here, most posters really try to remain civil and respectful even when disagreeing. This is also what I try to do when posting, but I'm certainly not perfect and never have claimed to be. Edited June 1, 2018 by ALarson 2
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: How about a Bishops’ storehouse in Brazil. They didn’t have them where/when I served, and according to my mission buddy they don’t have them in the more populated area where he lives. From what I understand they have the Bishops front the money and reimburse similar to how they handle the majority of auxiliary expenses here in the states. I know you asked for a percentage, but instead I gave a practical and needed suggestion. Oh yeah. Front rent money for half the ward. Great idea. Create temptation for Bishops. Excellent. Have you ever been a bishop do you have any clue how demanding that would be on the Bishops budget? A slush fund would be even worse. Now you have accounting problems.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think this is more evidence for why we need financial transparency. So we can properly evaluate the way the church is utilizing its vast resources. Did you see that quote I posted from Joseph F. Smith envisioning a day where the church has enough tithing saved up that it doesn't need to ask for more tithing? A really interesting idea. Until we have financial transparency, its very difficult to accurately evaluate how the church could better utilize its resources. Certainly there must be some opportunities for improvement? It seems like a lot of people are so sensitive to any criticisms, that they are unwilling to consider that the church's financial management would benefit from becoming transparent and consequentially open to feedback from members and society. The concept of divinely appointed responsibilities I take to be an instructional tool for members of the Church to assess their own efforts, not as a faultfinding tool for critics to use in haranguing the Church leadership. I take it you are still a professing member of the Church. One therefore might ask, if you are so concerned about it, how are you allocating your personal time and resources in fulfilling the divinely appointed responsibilities, not just in care for the poor and needy but related to proclaiming the gospel, enabling the salvation of the dead and living the gospel? Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think this is more evidence for why we need financial transparency. So we can properly evaluate the way the church is utilizing its vast resources. Did you see that quote I posted from Joseph F. Smith envisioning a day where the church has enough tithing saved up that it doesn't need to ask for more tithing? A really interesting idea. Until we have financial transparency, its very difficult to accurately evaluate how the church could better utilize its resources. Certainly there must be some opportunities for improvement? It seems like a lot of people are so sensitive to any criticisms, that they are unwilling to consider that the church's financial management would benefit from becoming transparent and consequentially open to feedback from members and society. I understand your concern and I think it's valid. The problem is I see it is that we have absolutely no understanding of what the plans are for the church and transparency cannot be the answer for that. I am not a great fan of Trump but the fact is that why do you let the enemy know what your plans are it weakens your position. Just in real estate acquisition if you let someone know your plans of a huge development the price will go up. We have no clue what plans the church has and ought not to know. How can the church be transparent about funds when we have no idea what the plans are? We might as well have the Pentagon be transparent. Good luck with that. And yet the government exist to serve us. The church does not exist to serve us it exist to serve God's will, scoff at that as some may. At some point you have to trust the leaders. If you don't then you don't belong. Why would anyone be in an organization when do not trust the leaders to use the money wisely? If you don't trust the leaders stop paying tithing. It's simple. Don't keep paying and then crab about where the money goes. If you stop paying taxes the government will put you in jail. The church doesn't do that.
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The term “missions of the Church” has not been used since the end of the Hinckley presidency. Under President Monson, there were four “divinely appointed responsibilities” identified, of which care for the poor and needy was one. Excellent, thank you! I couldn't find it with any of the searches I was doing. Here is a link I found now with this new terminology. https://www.lds.org/callings/missionary/church-service-missionary/our-work?lang=eng
rockpond Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ok, fine In YOUR infinite wisdom and precise understanding of every possible iron in the fire the church has for the present and future planning, what is the precise percentage to be allocated to each mission of the church? Is it possible others will disagree? Is the general membership up to the task of even imagining how to do this? Okay... so we're still going to talk in extremes. Obviously, I don't have the answer to your first question. There is one who knows and it's not my stewardship to get that answer from Him. Yes, people will disagree. People always disagree. That hasn't even been questioned. And, no, the general membership is not up to the task of knowing how to administer billions of dollars.
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 So put a greater percentage into the humanitarian Aid fund and count it as if it were tithing. That's between you and the Lord.
rockpond Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I understand your concern and I think it's valid. The problem is I see it is that we have absolutely no understanding of what the plans are for the church and transparency cannot be the answer for that. I am not a great fan of Trump but the fact is that why do you let the enemy know what your plans are it weakens your position. Just in real estate acquisition if you let someone know your plans of a huge development the price will go up. We have no clue what plans the church has and ought not to know. How can the church be transparent about funds when we have no idea what the plans are? We might as well have the Pentagon be transparent. Good luck with that. And yet the government exist to serve us. The church does not exist to serve us it exist to serve God's will, scoff at that as some may. At some point you have to trust the leaders. If you don't then you don't belong. Why would anyone be in an organization when do not trust the leaders to use the money wisely? If you don't trust the leaders stop paying tithing. It's simple. Don't keep paying and then crab about where the money goes. If you stop paying taxes the government will put you in jail. The church doesn't do that. This is a faulty premise. There are plenty of massive corporations with assets that exceed that of the Church and yet they still manage to be financially transparent and share their plans with shareholders and the public. To conclude that it is just not possible or reasonable for the Church to share its plans or disclose its finances has no logical basis.
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The concept of divinely appointed responsibilities I take to be an instructional tool for members of the Church to assess their own efforts, not as a faultfinding tool for critics to use in haranguing the Church leadership. I take it you are still a professing member of the Church. One therefore might ask, if you are so concerned about it, how are you allocating your personal time and resources in fulfilling the divinely appointed responsibilities, not just in care for the poor and needy but related to proclaiming the gospel, redemption of the dead and personal righteousness? I think organizations and society benefit from greater transparency as a general principle. Fault finding is also important if there is fault to be found. There are many legitimate questions to be asked, and I think members of the church and society in general has a stake in understanding how large institutions with vast resources are managing assets. This strikes me as responsible and in harmony with the direction that society is moving. From an individual personal perspective, I support the concepts for all of these responsibilities, but I don't prioritize them all equally in my mind, as I'm sure every person has things they believe are higher priority and they spend their limited time and attention on those things they are most passionate about as well.
kllindley Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 55 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't see anyone here suggesting that we stop doing the Lord's work. The debate, rather, seems to be how much wealth ought we build up as a church versus how much should we be investing in helping the sick and afflicted? If we are going to have a productive discussion, we need to recognize where the difference in opinion actually lies rather than trying to setup false extremes. I also don't see anyone here suggesting that we stop doing the work of Humanitarian aid. Instead the debate seems to be who should be making the decisions as to how finances are allocated toward those efforts. I agree that we have to recognize where the difference of opinion actually lies. I don't think anyone here (I am open to being corrected) would object if the Council for the Disposition of Tithes decided to change how they spend money, or how transparent to be. My understanding of the point of concern is whether those decisions are within the stewardship of members, ex-members, or solely the individuals called to serve on the Council for the Disposition of Tithes. 56 minutes ago, rockpond said: If it is in fact true that the Church has a $32B stock portfolio, it ought to be providing over $2B in investment income every year without ever touching the principle. I think it's a fair question to ask how that $2B in annual income is utilized. Is that really accurate? Wouldn't that have to be a dividend yield of 5-10%. Doesn't the stock only produce income when sold?
The Mean Farmer Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: This is a faulty premise. There are plenty of massive corporations with assets that exceed that of the Church and yet they still manage to be financially transparent and share their plans with shareholders and the public. To conclude that it is just not possible or reasonable for the Church to share its plans or disclose its finances has no logical basis. I think it is quite possible to share more with the public about the Church finances. I don't know what difference it would however. However, comparing it to corporations isn't valid either. The corporations are FORCED to disclose their financial positions to the government. They also want to share some of their grandiose vision with the public so they will continue to buy into the company in terms of stock price. The church isn't forced or compelled to do either, and corporations wouldn't do it either if they weren't legally forced into it.
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, kllindley said: I also don't see anyone here suggesting that we stop doing the work of Humanitarian aid. Instead the debate seems to be who should be making the decisions as to how finances are allocated toward those efforts. I agree that we have to recognize where the difference of opinion actually lies. I don't think anyone here (I am open to being corrected) would object if the Council for the Disposition of Tithes decided to change how they spend money, or how transparent to be. My understanding of the point of concern is whether those decisions are within the stewardship of members, ex-members, or solely the individuals called to serve on the Council for the Disposition of Tithes. Is that really accurate? Wouldn't that have to be a dividend yield of 5-10%. Doesn't the stock only produce income when sold? I don’t see it that way. Fundamentally the debate is around how much members should know about Church finances and the decisions the decision makers are making about donated funds and the proceeds of donated funds. The Church could fill the vacuum within which this debate is taking place simply by being open and transparent. I cannot think of a valid reason for not disclosing the full picture. Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I understand your concern and I think it's valid. The problem is I see it is that we have absolutely no understanding of what the plans are for the church and transparency cannot be the answer for that. I am not a great fan of Trump but the fact is that why do you let the enemy know what your plans are it weakens your position. Just in real estate acquisition if you let someone know your plans of a huge development the price will go up. We have no clue what plans the church has and ought not to know. How can the church be transparent about funds when we have no idea what the plans are? We might as well have the Pentagon be transparent. Good luck with that. And yet the government exist to serve us. The church does not exist to serve us it exist to serve God's will, scoff at that as some may. At some point you have to trust the leaders. If you don't then you don't belong. Why would anyone be in an organization when do not trust the leaders to use the money wisely? If you don't trust the leaders stop paying tithing. It's simple. Don't keep paying and then crab about where the money goes. If you stop paying taxes the government will put you in jail. The church doesn't do that. Well, lets go with this comparison, even though I think there are some key differences. How transparent is the federal government with respect to its finances, compared to the church? Much more transparent, they have freedom of information laws and public disclosures of revenues and assets and the public has access to a lot of information on government finances and policies. What about corporations in the real estate business? If these are public companies, then they are required by law to file quarterly reports in a much more transparent way than the church. And they are still able to have competitive advantages and keep trade secrets and intellectual property protected. Also, since I think Trump is an idiot, I couldn't just let this comparison stand.
rockpond Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: I also don't see anyone here suggesting that we stop doing the work of Humanitarian aid. Instead the debate seems to be who should be making the decisions as to how finances are allocated toward those efforts. I agree that we have to recognize where the difference of opinion actually lies. I don't think anyone here (I am open to being corrected) would object if the Council for the Disposition of Tithes decided to change how they spend money, or how transparent to be. My understanding of the point of concern is whether those decisions are within the stewardship of members, ex-members, or solely the individuals called to serve on the Council for the Disposition of Tithes. I think all here would probably agree that the stewardship lies with the Brethren. But that part of that stewardship ought to be transparency so that we, as members, know how church funds are being used. I don't think it is a matter of questioning the stewardship but questioning why things must be done in secret. I believe that accountability is an important part of stewardship. 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: Is that really accurate? Wouldn't that have to be a dividend yield of 5-10%. Doesn't the stock only produce income when sold? Over the past several decades the average stock market return has been about 7%. Some of that would be dividends. Most of it would be growth in the value of the stock. To free up that 7% growth, one would just need to sell a proportionate share of the portfolio.
Recommended Posts