Corporation of the Lds Church.

[Fair Dinkum]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe you. And I would never criticize you for failing to adopt a more spartan lifestyle so you could give even more. Just as I would never criticize the Church for the priorities it sets in disbursement of the tithes and offerings. 

Is asking questions or expressing opinions criticizing?

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well according to Scott Lloyd, the members pay for the poor and needy through fast offerings and the humanitarian aid, so therefore we members shouldn't expect the church to pay for anything through their for-profit companies/investments. So when they pay pennies on the dollar, we should be ever so grateful. I guess the church doesn't have to make a sacrifice like the members do when it comes to over and above, such as the members do when they pay fast offerings on top of tithing.

So you don't have an answer to my question?  It's ok if you don't.   It's a hard question.  You just keep saying "more" and I would like to know what "more" means to you.

[Fair Dinkum]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well according to Scott Lloyd, the members pay for the poor and needy through fast offerings and the humanitarian aid, so therefore we members shouldn't expect the church to pay for anything through their for-profit companies/investments. So when they pay pennies on the dollar, we should be ever so grateful. I guess the church doesn't have to make a sacrifice like the members do when it comes to over and above, such as the members do when they pay fast offerings on top of tithing.

Well at least we don't pay ward budget any more

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Well at least we don't pay ward budget any more

Oh I remember those days!

[MustardSeed]

Yes it’s a business.  Of course. Whether or not the governing rule it with that as the primary purpose or not would be my concern. 

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The new temple is being built on property that is currently in an undeveloped part of the Tooele Valley. 

So what?

How is what the church is doing any different from an independent developer who swoops in and buys up a similar plot of land and turns it into an planned community?

The only difference I see is that the church appears to be making an effort cater to different income levels in a way that a private developer would simply ignore. Oh, and the church's planned community will obviously have fewer homes due to the temple lot, but neither of those are necessarily bad things.

 

Quote

There will be great expense to bring water, sewer and power to this area. 

Well sure, that's always the case when you are expanding new construction into previously undeveloped areas.

But again, I don't see how what the church is doing is any different than what any private developer would do. 

 

Quote

Turning the surrounding area into a for profit enterprise will pay for this cost.

Turning the surrounding area into new home construction will benefit both the city and the community.

The houses which end up being built in these kinds of planned communities will generate a solid stream of tax income to the city for years and years to come - that's why cities approve projects like these all the time, regardless of whether or not the church is involved.  

 

Quote

Business smart yes.

Yes! Only, I'm confused - I assume you meant this as a criticism?

What do you think the church ought to be doing instead? 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Amulek

[Fair Dinkum]

28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So what?

How is what the church is doing any different from an independent developer who swoops in and buys up a similar plot of land and turns it into an planned community?

The only difference I see is that the church appears to be making an effort cater to different income levels in a way that a private developer would simply ignore. Oh, and the church's planned community will obviously have fewer homes due to the temple lot, but neither of those are necessarily bad things.

I have no doubt that the church will make this a very beautiful and profitable enterprise.

Quote

 

Well sure, that's always the case when you are expanding new construction into previously undeveloped areas.

But again, I don't see how what the church is doing is any different than what any private developer would do. 

Ding, Ding, Ding we have a winner

Quote

 

Turning the surrounding area into new home construction will benefit both the city and the community.

and financially benefit the for profit side of the church.

Quote

The houses which end up being built in these kinds of planned communities will generate a solid stream of tax income to the city for years and years to come - that's why cities approve projects like these all the time, regardless of whether or not the church is involved.  

The temple will remain tax free, as it should.  The for profit real estate business venture will provide a new income stream to the city and county in which it is developed.

Quote

 

Yes! Only, I'm confused - I assume you meant this as a criticism?

Not criticism, jsut asking questions

Quote

What do you think the church ought to be doing instead? 

 

It's only my opinion, but whenever a church gets into the business of making money and competes with the private sector, I feel they have crossed a line and muddied the waters of what a church should do. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.  I ahve no issues with the churches charitable endeavors but I do take issue with their for profit non church related business enterprises.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

but I do take issue with their for profit non church related business enterprises.

In the end it is all church related if the for profit endeavors ultimately lead to income growth that the church can use in future coming hard times. Quite often these activities also provide jobs for people in the short term and long run. 

[Fair Dinkum]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In the end it is all church related if the for profit endeavors ultimately lead to income growth that the church can use in future coming hard times. Quite often these activities also provide jobs for people in the short term and long run. 

I'm sure we can all come up with excuses to justify why a charitable organization should be engaged in for profit enterprises. But given that our charitable organization has chosen to build a substantial Rainy Day fund rather than using those for profit funds to provide even greater charity  work, at least to me it appears that they are more interested in building their reserves and make money then to fund charity.  I guess this is what gets stuck in my craw.  I don't expect anyone here to agree with me.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm sure we can all come up with excuses to justify why a charitable organization should be engaged in for profit enterprises. But given that our charitable organization has chosen to build a substantial Rainy Day fund rather than using those for profit funds to provide even greater charity  work, at least to me it appears that they are more interested in building their reserves and make money then to fund charity.  I guess this is what gets stuck in my craw.  I don't expect anyone here to agree with me.

Although the Church does provide charity work and supplies across the world, it is not a charity, it is a religion, that is trying to maintain a healthy balance between building and maintaining the church and providing charity work and funds.  Of course many outside will not agree on the church's definition of such a balance.

Edited to add: There is a difference between a charity and a charitable organization. A charity are things like United Way, Salvation Army, etc where their soul purpose is charity.
Religions are charitable organizations whose main purpose is to teach religious principles and grow in strength and numbers and in addition to that provide charitable relief to good causes. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by JAHS

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You mean that the money changers did not look at the published exchange rates for the day, and calculate it all very carefully??

Oh my!!

The other scheme worked pretty well too: The scribes and Pharisees devoured the widows' houses until all they could afford were the doves.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think you're being a tad nit-picky.  While the church doesn't need the 10 cents, when you multiply that by the amount of clothing that is rented every day at (fully functioning ) temples, it does add up to a significant cost. 

With the easy available of inexpensive to rent clothing at the Salt Lake temple I've chosen never to buy my own.  I don't have to worry about washing or getting them folded correctly and I never grow out of a pant size.  I don't see it as a real problem to pay a minimal cost for something that makes my life easier.

Rental fees started long ago as far as I know (or so my mother gave me the impression), back when the Church wasn’t so wealthy. So it would have made even bigger difference then.  It may be more traditional now, just one of many ways the Church controls cost not only to build wealth for present and future needs, but to establish good habits imo. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Is asking questions or expressing opinions criticizing?

It can be. Very much so. 

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I have no doubt that the church will make this a very beautiful and profitable enterprise.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? 

 

Quote

The temple will remain tax free, as it should.   The for profit real estate business venture will provide a new income stream to the city and county in which it is developed.

Which totally sounds like a win-win to me. Do you see it differently? 

 

Quote

It's only my opinion, but whenever a church gets into the business of making money and competes with the private sector, I feel they have crossed a line and muddied the waters of what a church should do. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. 

 

Acting isn't the same as competing. Who in the private sector was the church competing with here? Are you suggesting there was some other real estate developer who was eyeing that plot of land (or one similar) and are now being squeezed out by the church's actions somehow? 

 

Quote

I ahve no issues with the churches charitable endeavors but I do take issue with their for profit non church related business enterprises.

If the church were to put its excess funds into a savings account, or a money market account, or into an index fund; would any of those options be tolerable in your view? Or must the church hide all of it's excess dollars in a Postum jar under the bed until they have need of the money for some specific purpose?

 

[rodheadlee]

On 5/11/2020 at 4:06 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm sure we can all come up with excuses to justify why a charitable organization should be engaged in for profit enterprises. But given that our charitable organization has chosen to build a substantial Rainy Day fund rather than using those for profit funds to provide even greater charity  work, at least to me it appears that they are more interested in building their reserves and make money then to fund charity.  I guess this is what gets stuck in my craw.  I don't expect anyone here to agree with me.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Cardston Temple Vision and compare it with what is going on in the world today.

http://www.reliefmine.com/articles/dreams-a-visions/59-dreams-a-visions/93-the-cardston-temple-vision-world-war-iii

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/11/2020 at 3:20 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

Is asking questions or expressing opinions criticizing?

Depends on how loaded the questions are and how agenda-driven the opinions are.

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/12/2020 at 10:14 AM, Amulek said:

[With respect to construction of the Tooele Valley Temple and expected surrounding real estate development] ... Acting isn't the same as competing. Who in the private sector was the church competing with here? Are you suggesting there was some other real estate developer who was eyeing that plot of land (or one similar) and are now being squeezed out by the church's actions somehow?

That's a great question!  Does Fair Dinkum have an answer, or is he not required to provide "Fair Dinkum" for his assertions while he is at liberty to demand it of others, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its proponents?

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Cardston Temple Vision and compare it with what is going on in the world today.

http://www.reliefmine.com/articles/dreams-a-visions/59-dreams-a-visions/93-the-cardston-temple-vision-world-war-iii

Brother Rod,

Thanks for posting this.  It's very interesting.

-Ken

[2BizE]

I completely share the ache in the pit of the stomach.  I think this is a poor precedent to set and an unwise use of our sacred tithing funds.  Sure, people are going to say the funds are from a for-profit entity, but they all start out as tithing and they are all part of the corporation funds.  

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I completely share the ache in the pit of the stomach.

Have you tried Pepto Bismol, or Tums maybe?

[rodheadlee]

On 5/15/2020 at 3:31 PM, 2BizE said:

I completely share the ache in the pit of the stomach.  I think this is a poor precedent to set and an unwise use of our sacred tithing funds.  Sure, people are going to say the funds are from a for-profit entity, but they all start out as tithing and they are all part of the corporation funds.  

It has the opposite effect on me. I am so happy to know that our Church can back me up when I need it no matter what state the world is in.

[SouthernMo]

On 5/11/2020 at 10:05 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It can be. Very much so. 

Jordan Peterson once said that "In order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive."

[Storm Rider]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:31 PM, 2BizE said:

I completely share the ache in the pit of the stomach.  I think this is a poor precedent to set and an unwise use of our sacred tithing funds.  Sure, people are going to say the funds are from a for-profit entity, but they all start out as tithing and they are all part of the corporation funds.  

I don't think that is accurate. Some funds actually start out as donations to specific groups that have nothing to do with tithing. 

My business partner and I donated funds to achieve a specific purpose for a Church affiliated entity and those funds had nothing to do with tithing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/15/2020 at 4:31 PM, 2BizE said:

I completely share the ache in the pit of the stomach.  I think this is a poor precedent to set and an unwise use of our sacred tithing funds.  Sure, people are going to say the funds are from a for-profit entity, but they all start out as tithing and they are all part of the corporation funds.  

 

On 5/21/2020 at 8:57 AM, Storm Rider said:

I don't think that is accurate. Some funds actually start out as donations to specific groups that have nothing to do with tithing. 

My business partner and I donated funds to achieve a specific purpose for a Church affiliated entity and those funds had nothing to do with tithing. 

I know that it has become a common talking point among adversarial critics of the Church that the for-profit entities the Church owns today were all begun with the use of tithing funds, but I don’t know whether any of them can prove that assumption. Take ZCMI, for example, the department store chain that the Church sold a couple of decades ago. It began in pioneer times as a cooperative, with residents in Utah Territory pooling their production and distribution capability for the mutual benefit of all in the cooperative. My understanding is that it was self sustaining from the beginning. I don’t believe it is self-evident that tithing was used to set it up. 
 

The Church’s mass media companies — broadcasting stations, Bonneville International Corp., Deseret Book Co., digital media, etc. — can be traced back to business enterprises that began as spin-offs from the Deseret News, a self-sustaining newspaper that has been published In Salt Lake City since 1850. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I know that it has become a common talking point among adversarial critics of the Church that the for-profit entities the Church owns today were all begun with the use of tithing funds, but I don’t know whether any of them can prove that assumption. Take ZCMI, for example, the department store chain that the Church sold a couple of decades ago. It began in pioneer times as a cooperative, with residents in Utah Territory pooling their production and distribution capability for the mutual benefit of all in the cooperative. My understanding is that it was self sustaining from the beginning. I don’t believe it is self-evident that tithing was used to set it up. 
 

The Church’s mass media companies — broadcasting stations, Bonneville Communications, Deseret Book Co., digital media, etc. — can be traced back to business enterprises that began as spin-offs from the Deseret News, a self-sustaining newspaper that has been published In Salt Lake City since 1850. 

I know it is demonstrably false in several situations; ergo, I just don't believe the premise. 

In my situation with my business partner, there was a large group of individuals from around the world that made donations for specific causes and none of them ever went through tithing channels.  On the one hand it perplexes me to see the allegation and on the other hand, I get it. It fits a narrative and it hard to let go for some individuals. However, it is time to let it go unless an individual knows ohter wise.