smac97 Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: For many that are opposed to the Church being financially transparent, when things do change and the church becomes more financially transparent in the future, I expect that these same people will be in favor of that transparency. For some, its all about allegiance to the current practices of the institution. I'm not "opposed" to anything except that I object to meddlesome busybodies with no stake in the Church's finances presuming to publicly tell the Church what to do, then publicly faulting the Church for not hopping to. Apart from the requirements of secular law (which the Church inarguably follows), the level of "transparency" the Church provides is a judgment call. I sustain the leaders of the Church in their well-exercised discretionary decisions, whatever those decisions are. So in that sense, yes, "allegiance" to the Church and its reasonable practices is more important to me than any arbitrary, ad hoc, let's-calibrate-our-demands-to-any-way-that-makes-the-LDS-Church-look-bad standards of "transparency" spouted by do-what-I-want-because-I-say-so faultfinders. I have a hard time according a presumption of good faith to people who are publicly faulting the Church on this issue, particularly given the absence of evidence that the Church is doing anything other than a stellar job of handling its finances. So it's not about "transparency," not really. It's about people trying to find fault, to make the LDS Church look bad, and so on. I also struggle to understand the difficulty in grasping the concept of "allegiance" to my community. Of course I am devoted to it. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 30, 2018 by smac97 4
rockpond Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: $32,000,000,000 would fund 800 years humanitarian spending (at current rates). 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: Or fewer if things get really bad. From Investopedia.com: "The average annual return from the S&P 500 from inception about 90 years ago until the present time is about 10% a year. That includes a combination of 7% real return and 3% from inflation." $32 billion invested in the stock market could fund the church's current humanitarian aid infinitely and could likely grow by reinvesting the surplus. And you'd never have to touch the principal.
Jeanne Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 6 hours ago, stemelbow said: 40 million a year to the poor and the needy sounds silly in light of this stuff. 1 billion spent on the mall doesn't sound like that big of deal anymore. Wouldn't it be nice if they could share with members..how to invest?? Build your own tithing fund!!
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: From Investopedia.com: "The average annual return from the S&P 500 from inception about 90 years ago until the present time is about 10% a year. That includes a combination of 7% real return and 3% from inflation." $32 billion invested in the stock market could fund the church's current humanitarian aid infinitely and could likely grow by reinvesting the surplus. And you'd never have to touch the principal. I lost 1/2 my invested retirement fund and a substantial amount of equity in my home back in the big crash and have not recouped the losses yet. If the Church is motivated by these instructions, then praise for success is appropriate rather than condemnation. Quote Behold, this is the preparation wherewith I prepare you, and the foundation, and the ensample which I give unto you, whereby you may accomplish the commandments which are given you; That through my providence, notwithstanding the tribulation which shall descend upon you, that the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world;
Jeanne Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 6 hours ago, ksfisher said: What right do you have to decide that someone or some organization other than yourself should be transparent? People and organizations have a right to privacy. The people who funded the organization has a right to know! They have a right whether Fearless or Jeanne even care!! 1
ksfisher Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Wouldn't it be nice if they could share with members..how to invest?? Build your own tithing fund!! And if the market went south, who would catch the blame? I imagine the church's investments are just as subject to the vagaries of the market as yours and mine are.
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Wouldn't it be nice if they could share with members..how to invest?? Build your own tithing fund!! Or, we could make the effort to do that on our own as we have been instructed. Quote For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
bluebell Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jeanne said: The people who funded the organization has a right to know! They have a right whether Fearless or Jeanne even care!! Then let the people who funded the organization deal with it. Those who haven't funded anything can mind their own business. 2
ksfisher Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: The people who funded the organization has a right to know! If I gave you $100, no strings attached, would I have a right to know how you spent it? A right? 3
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: And if the market went south, who would catch the blame? I imagine the church's investments are just as subject to the vagaries of the market as yours and mine are. Whether the Church succeeds or whether it fails in finances, the results are the same: the Church is bad. Edited May 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
rockpond Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I lost 1/2 my invested retirement fund and a substantial amount of equity in my home back in the big crash and have not recouped the losses yet. If the Church is motivated by these instructions, then praise for success is appropriate rather than condemnation. I do think it is working towards that goal of independence.
rockpond Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Whether the Church succeeds or whether it fails in finances, the results are the same: the Church is bad. Has anyone here claimed that "the Church is bad" for allegedly having $32B in stock?
JLHPROF Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Whether the Church succeeds or whether it fails in finances, the results are the same: the Church is bad. As long as the Church is following God's will and correct principles those complaining really don't have a leg to stand on. There have been questionable financial decisions in Church history but again most of them fell outside the stewardship of the general membership. 1
JLHPROF Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Has anyone here claimed that "the Church is bad" for allegedly having $32B in stock? No, just not Christian enough. For some claims, the implication of the poster is obvious.
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: I do think it is working towards that goal of independence. If I said I wish I could do the same, I would be revealing a weakness I have!
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Has anyone here claimed that "the Church is bad" for allegedly having $32B in stock? Haven't some criticized the supposed discrepancy between the supposed wealth of the Church and the supposed proportionally minuscule percentage of charitable contributions? If the Church were just barely squeaking by and hardly gave anything charitably, some would say that is because Mormons are stingy. Edited May 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
rockpond Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: No, just not Christian enough. For some claims, the implication of the poster is obvious. I think putting words in others' mouths is counter productive. I haven't seen anyone here say that the church is bad for allegedly having this sizable stock portfolio. Nor have I seen anyone here claim that the church is not Christian enough for that reason. But, that would raise an interesting question: How do we define "Christian" when it comes to the church's assets?
rockpond Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Haven't some criticized the supposed discrepancy between the supposed wealth of the Church and the supposed proportionally minuscule percentage of charitable contributions? Yes. But are they criticizing the church for succeeding financially? Or are they criticizing it for not being charitable enough? 1
Gray Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, strappinglad said: Did you all just see what the Church spent on Conference ? Unbelievable.... Oh wait...my bad... I misread... http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/24/andrew-mccabe-spent-70000-table-fbi-hid-congress/ The Federalist is a propaganda outfit that hides the true source of its funding, but it's not hard to guess where they're getting their money.
Analytics Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Such reasoning as the above is simplistic because it fails to account for other factors. In the case of churches, they are allowed tax exemptions because of the axiomatic assumption that they benefit society in non-quantifiable, intangible ways. They provide for the poor and needy, thereby reducing the burden in government. They motivate people to give volunteer service. They encourage decency and morality among their memberships and generally promote good citizenship. They fill a fundamental need that many people have in their lives that government cannot or will not meet. These are factors that hostile secularists will be loathe to admit but are valid considerations nonetheless. You missed the point, Scott. If taxes are in fact a something we legitimately owe our government in order to fund the services it provides and are not a form of theft, and if a dollar equals a dollar, then tax breaks are a form of subsidization. That is my only point in what you just quoted. Whether charities, children, or churches ought to be subsidized is another issue that I didn't address. Yes, there are arguments about why churches ought to be subsidized through tax policy. Just because you think a subsidy is a good investment doesn't mean it isn't a subsidy. 3
smac97 Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No, just not Christian enough. For some claims, the implication of the poster is obvious. Well, it's not like we haven't seen this implication before: Quote 1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. (John 12) In the other narratives of this story, in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, we get even more informatin, with Judas (and apparently others) felt "indignation" within themselves and criticized the use of the ointment as "waste." So we have a thief feigning righteous indignation to second-guess and find fault with the utilization of sacred funds. A thief presuming, in bad faith, to dictate matters not within his stewardship. A thief who thinks that his access to the contents of "the bag" entitles him to override and criticize the stewardship of those who have the responsibility to administer it. I'm not sure there is wisdom in taking lessons in morality from a thief. -Smac Edited May 30, 2018 by smac97 3
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes. But are they criticizing the church for succeeding financially? Or are they criticizing it for not being charitable enough? Yes.
HappyJackWagon Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 34 minutes ago, ksfisher said: And if the market went south, who would catch the blame? I imagine the church's investments are just as subject to the vagaries of the market as yours and mine are. Does it make you wonder how much money the church lost in the 2008 stock market? Would it shock/disturb you if you found out the church lost $50 million dollars in the stock market over the course of a couple of years? Who would be to blame? No one, because you'd never know about it. I don't know how much the church lost in 2008 but I bet it was substantial. I wonder if the church has recouped all of its losses in the past decade or if that $32 billion is still down from what it once was.
Bernard Gui Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, Analytics said: You missed the point, Scott. If taxes are in fact a something we legitimately owe our government in order to fund the services it provides and are not a form of theft, and if a dollar equals a dollar, then tax breaks are a form of subsidization. That is my only point in what you just quoted. Whether charities, children, or churches ought to be subsidized is another issue that I didn't address. Yes, there are arguments about why churches ought to be subsidized through tax policy. Just because you think a subsidy is a good investment doesn't mean it isn't a subsidy. I drive on the county roads to church. My property and gas taxes (considerable in Washington) pay for those services. The Church pays all legal obligations. How elseshould the Church be taxed? If the Church were to be taxed for such services, who would be paying the tax?
JLHPROF Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: In the other narratives of this story, in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, we get even more informatin, with Judas (and apparently others) felt "indignation" within themselves and criticized the use of the ointment as "waste." So we have a thief feigning righteous indignation to second-guess and find fault with the utilization of sacred funds. A thief presuming, in bad faith, to dictate matters not within his stewardship. A thief who thinks that his access to the contents of "the bag" entitles him to override and criticize the stewardship of those who have the responsibility to administer it. I'm not sure there is wisdom in taking lessons in morality from a thief. The parallel is definitely fascinating.
Recommended Posts