Church buying up more farms

[randy]

On 6/25/2021 at 9:32 PM, Tacenda said:

I am not quite as good at coming up with them. He called today but I couldn't talk because I was golfing with my husband and a couple of friends. I asked if he could call on Monday and he said that would be fine. I started golfing at 3:24 and so I wouldn't be able to get his call today since the latest he could call was at 5:00 and I wouldn't be done. 

Do you have suggestions, I'm nervous about it. I was impressed with how nice a guy he was in the minutes I spoke with him. 

I must confess that this made me chuckle out loud!  All this back and forth about "giving and not giving" what is to much, or not enough.  My first thought when reading this was "hey, donating your Green Fees is a good place to start!"  Lets face it....the optics of being on the golf course...cell phone in hand is the epitome of "luxury living".   To be perfectly clear...I certainly do not begrudge you at all for enjoying the game of golf with family and friends!  But given all this back and forth on this thread....the picture this conjured up in my little brain was quite hilarious....at least to me! Carry on!   FOOOOORE !!!

[Amulek]

So, the slumbering economist in me has to ask: what, exactly, is the church "hoarding?"

I mean, when we talk about hoarding, we are generally talking about commodities, but that doesn't appear to be how the term is being used here.

The accusation appears to be that the church is hoarding "wealth," but I'm not sure what is actually meant by that either. 

Nor is it obvious to me why such behavior (even if it were to be defined in some sort of meaningful way) ought to be considered immoral. And that's even assuming, arguendo, that hoarding actually presents us with some sort of moral issue to begin with and not merely a question about allocation or market efficiency. 

No, most complaints about the church's so-called hoarding seem to boil down to little more than, 'the church isn't allocating resources the way I would prefer.'

But that's more of an opinion than an actual criticism. 

Sort of like how those who oppose the church teaching certain principles / doctrines which they find objectionable might decide to call us heretics. I mean, I suppose there are those who might agree with such an appellation, but again - it's really little more than a personal opinion and not an actual argument. 

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, randy said:

I must confess that this made me chuckle out loud!  All this back and forth about "giving and not giving" what is to much, or not enough.  My first thought when reading this was "hey, donating your Green Fees is a good place to start!"  Lets face it....the optics of being on the golf course...cell phone in hand is the epitome of "luxury living".   To be perfectly clear...I certainly do not begrudge you at all for enjoying the game of golf with family and friends!  But given all this back and forth on this thread....the picture this conjured up in my little brain was quite hilarious....at least to me! Carry on!   FOOOOORE !!!

You know what, I thought of that the minute I posted. But it was definitely a treat that my husband planned the golf trip, and invited a couple of friends, I rarely get to go. The one friend is in between jobs and it was a treat for he and she. But I know how it looks, most definitely!

But the cell phone is stretching it because everyone under the sun seems to have a phone, even in third world countries. 

But yeah, I totally get it. 

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Enforceable by who? 

Enforceable by the church.

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Are you wanting the government to step in and exercise control over what the church can and cannot do?   

It already does that in terms of tax status, etc... But I'm not talking about government intervention right now.

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Again, who is going to tell the church how to improve?

Itself, essentially.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't say the church is the same as the Gates Foundation. 

No, you didn't, but you seem to believe that the church must do what the Gates Foundation does. 

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You don't have to tell me anything.

You don't have to tell me anything, either, but here we both are, telling each other something. 🙂 

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I care about how the church uses its funds. I care about standards being set and methods devised to protect those standards in the future.

So do I. But I have no reason to believe that the church isn't following the standards that it has set for itself. You apparently believe that the church's standards are insufficient and you would like for the church to follow your standards instead. You have the right to believe what you want, and the right to express that belief. It doesn't make you right.

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I do think that more transparency and enforceable standards are necessary to prevent disaster because those are needed in order for large human institutions to improve and preserve the good that they do.

I get that you are concerned over this, and you are right to be concerned. But what disaster are you contemplating is going to happen, if the church doesn't hew to your standards of transparency and so on? The word "disaster" seems a bit over the top, and its use in this context puzzles me.

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If you don't see a problem here, that's on you.

And if you do see a problem that doesn't exist, that's on you.

Meadowchik, I actually appreciate your interest in this topic, and in other topics related to the church that you show an interest. You're respectful, generally, and are willing to engage in sane and reasonable discussion. Your passion for the topics you take an interest in has helped me clarify my own thinking on them, and for that I thank you.

Maybe you're expecting a "but" following that last paragraph.   Not gonna do it.

I do want to apologize if any of what I have said has rubbed you the wrong way. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, the slumbering economist in me has to ask: what, exactly, is the church "hoarding?"

Meadowchik's definition, "hoarding refers to wealth and plenty that is not being put to use," is actually a workable one, in my humble opinion. I've known hoarders, and remember in particular the woman my late wife and I once home taught, whose spare bedroom was so full of unopened boxes of commodities she had bought on the home shopping network, that she couldn't use the room for anything else. To get to the window she had to crawl over stacks of boxes. Her own bedroom was similarly packed, although she did have a path through the boxes she could use to get to her bed to sleep. These were all non-perishable commodities, non-food items mostly. She made no use of any of them, yet there they were. 

By Meadowchik's own definition, the church isn't hoarding anything. The only "hoards" that may seem to exist are the bishops storehouses in various places that are full of food and household commodities, but these commodities do not sit there. They are handed out, gratis, to those in need. Whereupon more are ordered and stored temporarily. We have no bishops storehouses in the UK, but each bishop, relief society and elders quorum president are given a debit card to be used to buy food for those in need. These debit cards are backed by the fast offering fund. And it isn't just for members. One of the wards in my stake supports a couple of non-member families who are going through some hard times, and nothing stops bishops from issuing commodity orders for the storehouses for non-members.

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

I mean, when we talk about hoarding, we are generally talking about commodities, but that doesn't appear to be how the term is being used here.

No, here the word is being used for the purpose of accusation, or name-calling.

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

The accusation appears to be that the church is hoarding "wealth," but I'm not sure what is actually meant by that either. 

How much cash do you have stuffed in your mattress? How many gold coins are you hiding in your wall safe hidden behind the photo of President Nelson? 

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

Nor is it obvious to me why such behavior (even if it were to be defined in some sort of meaningful way) ought to be considered immoral. And that's even assuming, arguendo, that hoarding actually presents us with some sort of moral issue to begin with and not merely a question about allocation or market efficiency. 

No, most complaints about the church's so-called hoarding seem to boil down to little more than, 'the church isn't allocating resources the way I would prefer.'

But that's more of an opinion than an actual criticism. 

Sort of like how those who oppose the church teaching certain principles / doctrines which they find objectionable might decide to call us heretics. I mean, I suppose there are those who might agree with such an appellation, but again - it's really little more than a personal opinion and not an actual argument. 

I'd like it if the church's critics could actually come up with an objective standard that amounted to something more than just their personal opinion. But expecting objectivity is  a forlorn hope.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You know what, I thought of that the minute I posted. But it was definitely a treat that my husband planned the golf trip, and invited a couple of friends, I rarely get to go. The one friend is in between jobs and it was a treat for he and she. But I know how it looks, most definitely!

Golf isn't just a rich person's sport, though. I caddied a bit in my youth, and there were some rich folks doing it, but also regulars. If someone tells me that they've got a tee time to get to, I don't think anything about it, other than "If you like doing that, I don't really understand it, but go and have fun!" Same with skiing.

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But the cell phone is stretching it because everyone under the sun seems to have a phone, even in third world countries. 

That makes me laugh a bit because I listened to a talk given at a software developer conference in which the speaker had visited Kenya and was out in the deep bush. Their Landrover had a locked-up brake on one of the wheels and they were having slow going and wondering if the wheel was going to burst into flame before they reached the next settlement to get it fixed. Then just ahead next to the track they were driving on, they saw a Masai tribesman (in full traditional dress) standing there on one foot (the typical Masai resting stance), apparently having a rather animated conversation with an invisible person! But when they got closer they saw that he was on his cell phone!! 

This photo isn't from that encounter, but it was easy enough to find on the web:

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But yeah, I totally get it. 

So do I, but we live in the most privileged civilization the world has ever known. I think being embarrassed about it is fairly pointless. 🙂 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

No, you didn't, but you seem to believe that the church must do what the Gates Foundation does. 

You don't have to tell me anything, either, but here we both are, telling each other something. 🙂 

So do I. But I have no reason to believe that the church isn't following the standards that it has set for itself. You apparently believe that the church's standards are insufficient and you would like for the church to follow your standards instead. You have the right to believe what you want, and the right to express that belief. It doesn't make you right.

I get that you are concerned over this, and you are right to be concerned. But what disaster are you contemplating is going to happen, if the church doesn't hew to your standards of transparency and so on? The word "disaster" seems a bit over the top, and its use in this context puzzles me.

And if you do see a problem that doesn't exist, that's on you.

Meadowchik, I actually appreciate your interest in this topic, and in other topics related to the church that you show an interest. You're respectful, generally, and are willing to engage in sane and reasonable discussion. Your passion for the topics you take an interest in has helped me clarify my own thinking on them, and for that I thank you.

Maybe you're expecting a "but" following that last paragraph.   Not gonna do it.

I do want to apologize if any of what I have said has rubbed you the wrong way. 

I only take issue with disrespect, generally. And with you, you seem to veer too close to mind-reading and gate-keeping. Those tend to make conversation less productive.

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'd like it if the church's critics could actually come up with an objective standard that amounted to something more than just their personal opinion. But expecting objectivity is  a forlorn hope.

Transparency is an objective standard. My definition of hoarding is, as you agree, a "workable" definition.

An institution making itself openly accountable to standards would reasonably say something like, "We have XYZ commodities, 100 billion in monetary assets, from which we earn p% annual interest; then we have such and such operating costs, such and such tithing revenue, and 2 billion annual tithing excess. We've spent an average of w-million a year for q-years on humanitarian causes, with a projected annual increase of___. Our reasoning for this is_____ which is dependent upon_____." Then some thorough spreadsheets and investment details.

That's what accountability looks like, that's what institutional safety looks like.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I only take issue with disrespect, generally. And with you, you seem to veer too close to mind-reading and gate-keeping. Those tend to make conversation less productive.

Oh, dear! Gate-keeping? That sounds like I'm trying to keep you away from information and access. Puzzles me, to be honest. I don't want you to stop inquiring, and I definitely don't want you to stop learning.

You mind-read as much as I do. The only mind-reading being done here is the kind that results from reading what people write, and inferring their thoughts therefrom. 

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Transparency is an objective standard. My definition of hoarding is, as you agree, a "workable" definition.

The church, as a private organization, is as transparent as laws require. If you want more, you can want that as much as you like.

58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

An institution making itself openly accountable to standards would reasonably say something like, "We have XYZ commodities, 100 billion in monetary assets, from which we earn p% annual interest; then we have such and such operating costs, such and such tithing revenue, and 2 billion annual tithing excess. We've spent an average of w-million a year for q-years on humanitarian causes, with a projected annual increase of___. Our reasoning for this is_____ which is dependent upon_____." Then some thorough spreadsheets and investment details.

That's what accountability looks like, that's what institutional safety looks like.

Curious why you think that would create institutional safety.

Why aren't you asking the church itself? All we can do here is squabble over opinions. Tacenda took the initiative in calling the church to ask about what the church was doing with its immorally vast wealth. She actually got a responder that seemed to be happy to talk with her about it. For as much as you are worked up about it, this seems like an obvious path for you to take. But if you're mainly interesting in chewing the fat over it, and giving some of us some entertainment by so doing, that's fine, too.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Meadowchik's definition, "hoarding refers to wealth and plenty that is not being put to use," is actually a workable one, in my humble opinion.

I'm skeptical about that. For example, what does it mean for wealth to be "put to use?"

Bill Gates has got a $100+ million dollar house over on Puget Sound that is filled with additional millions of dollars worth of art and other artifacts, but he lives in it so I guess that means it is being put to use and wouldn't count as hoarding. Right?

Oh, and he's got a multi-billion dollar charity that is set up to give all of its assets away eventually, but it isn't anywhere close to a zero balance right now. Is all of that unused wealth being hoarded? According to the definition above it would certainly seem so.

Does saving count as hoarding? Does investing count as hoarding?

All the time? Some of the time? Only under certain circumstances, which have yet to be identified or even remotely close to being articulated?

It's a mess. Which is why I think the appellation "hoarding" is pretty much meaningless in this context. It's just a way for people to show their disdain for how the church is managing its assets.

 

Quote

By Meadowchik's own definition, the church isn't hoarding anything.

Oh, so we're all in agreement then.

 

Quote

We have no bishops storehouses in the UK, but each bishop, relief society and elders quorum president are given a debit card to be used to buy food for those in need. These debit cards are backed by the fast offering fund. And it isn't just for members. One of the wards in my stake supports a couple of non-member families who are going through some hard times, and nothing stops bishops from issuing commodity orders for the storehouses for non-members.

Quite so. In fact, I went up to church after work just last night to process welfare assistance for a non-member family who lives within our ward boundaries. We paid all of their utility bills, and our EQ president texted to say that he was on his way to meet them at the gas station to put some fuel in their tank. We'll be driving them to the Bishop's Storehouse with a food order tomorrow.

 

Quote

No, here the word is being used for the purpose of accusation, or name-calling.

That's certainly how it seems.

 

Quote

How much cash do you have stuffed in your mattress? How many gold coins are you hiding in your wall safe hidden behind the photo of President Nelson? 

Well, if you are filling your mattress with cash, then you are using it for padding so that shouldn't count as hoarding because it is being "put to use."

I don't have any gold right now (which is actually a commodity people hoard, though maybe toilet paper will take it's place if we have a few more pandemics), but I do have a couple Bishop's Storehouse notes - good for ten cents at the SLC storehouse. They aren't cancelled, and I have never tried to redeem them, so I guess I'm a hoarder after all.

 

Quote

I'd like it if the church's critics could actually come up with an objective standard that amounted to something more than just their personal opinion. But expecting objectivity is  a forlorn hope.

And I would find it less ironic if the bulk of said critics weren't oblivious to the fact that they themselves are among the wealthiest people who have ever lived on this entire planet.

If you are living pretty much anywhere in a first world country, you have more "wealth and plenty" than billions of your fellow brothers and sisters living today. And better off than untold billions who have gone before us.

But hey, if it makes it easier to not dwell on that fact and, instead, point fingers at those who possess more wealth and complain about them not doing enough...I guess that's fine.

 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Golf isn't just a rich person's sport, though. I caddied a bit in my youth, and there were some rich folks doing it, but also regulars. If someone tells me that they've got a tee time to get to, I don't think anything about it, other than "If you like doing that, I don't really understand it, but go and have fun!" Same with skiing.

That makes me laugh a bit because I listened to a talk given at a software developer conference in which the speaker had visited Kenya and was out in the deep bush. Their Landrover had a locked-up brake on one of the wheels and they were having slow going and wondering if the wheel was going to burst into flame before they reached the next settlement to get it fixed. Then just ahead next to the track they were driving on, they saw a Masai tribesman (in full traditional dress) standing there on one foot (the typical Masai resting stance), apparently having a rather animated conversation with an invisible person! But when they got closer they saw that he was on his cell phone!! 

This photo isn't from that encounter, but it was easy enough to find on the web:

So do I, but we live in the most privileged civilization the world has ever known. I think being embarrassed about it is fairly pointless. 🙂 

👍

[HappyJackWagon]

On 6/25/2021 at 1:40 PM, juliann said:

Just curious, do you do this when you give someone a gift? Do you follow up and instruct them how they should be using it? Especially since it is common to give gift cards or money. Have they used it properly? Do you lecture and scold them if they didn't? Do you then "pretend" that it was a gift? 

Do I do what? What do you think I am doing? Whatever it is, it's what you are assuming or reading into my comments, NOT what I've actually said. You seem to be offended by a statement of fact. I didn't really make any judgement on what was being done, but merely stating that it IS done. What's the problem.

As a reminder, this is what I said.

Quote

  On 6/25/2021 at 1:34 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

But it's also annoying when people pretend that tithing isn't the initial source of the churches wealth, as if they would never consider using tithing for such scandalous things like investment properties. Yet they took the tithing and invested it in other investments and then used those proceeds to make other purchases.

To my understanding the church doesn't use tithing for any purpose other than to invest. They then withdraw some funds to cover expenses but it's not like it was the original tithing fund, as if they could be separated. People need to accept that the church solicits tithing funds and then uses them however it chooses. But just because some don't like the way they are used, or find it embarrassing to admit that tithing was used for investments then they need to grow up a little. The church takes tithing funds and invests them, whether in stock or real estate and then they withdraw what they need for church operations and keep the rest in other investments. This isn't complicated. But don't pretend like the church doesn't invest tithing funds.

This is a statement of fact. Why does it bother you? What do you think I am telling the church they should do with my gift?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On 6/25/2021 at 2:28 PM, ksfisher said:

Speaking for myself, I'm fine if the church invests the $100 that I donate today and ends up with $110 (or whatever) this time next year.  I'm fine if they never use the original donation but just spend $5 of earnings every year and let it continue to grow.

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel it's a privilege to be able to contribute to the Lord's work on earth.  I trust that the Lord is directing our leaders on what to spend and what to save.  I trust that if the Lord sees that course corrections are needed that He will make that  known to His leaders and they will follow His counsel.

To me the whole issue come down to trust.

I agree. It all comes down to trust.

You're good with the church investing your donation. Cool. Some may not be. In any case, it seems to be a statement of fact that the church invests donated funds. I'm kind of surprised people are surprised and offended when that fact is stated. People can make their own judgements about whether or not that is appropriate usage of consecrated funds.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 6/23/2021 at 10:49 AM, Fether said:

So if so give the church $1000 in tithing, and they turn that into $10,000,000 through investments, is that $10,000,000 tithing? Follow up question, should I be concerned or disgusted with a church who can turn $1000 into $10,000,000 through investing?

That would be amazing for tax purposes

Concerned or disgusted that the church can turn $1000 into $10,000? That's a personal judgement call but I wouldn't think so. It shows business savvy. I don't know of anyone who is upset by the church's financial savvy. IMO it would be very bad if they invested and lost the money, but the church has good track record with investing.

For most people it's really not a question of Can They. It's a question of Should They.

[Meadowchik]

On 6/29/2021 at 3:36 PM, Stargazer said:

Oh, dear! Gate-keeping? That sounds like I'm trying to keep you away from information and access. Puzzles me, to be honest. I don't want you to stop inquiring, and I definitely don't want you to stop learning.

You mind-read as much as I do. The only mind-reading being done here is the kind that results from reading what people write, and inferring their thoughts therefrom. 

Gate-keeping refers to implying who can say something about the topic. You seemed to veer close to that in your statements to me, which is really just a distraction.

Regarding mind-reading, I try to avoid telling someone what they're thinking, but I do also try to reiterate what I think someone is saying, usually by saying "It seems to me like you..."

[Meadowchik]

On 6/29/2021 at 3:51 PM, Stargazer said:

 If you want more, you can want that as much as you like.

Obviously.

On 6/29/2021 at 3:51 PM, Stargazer said:

Curious why you think that would create institutional safety.

Generally, when everyone can see what's going on with the financials it helps prevent poor decisions. It can also help members be aware of where of how the institutional values align with their own.

 

On 6/29/2021 at 3:51 PM, Stargazer said:

Why aren't you asking the church itself? All we can do here is squabble over opinions. Tacenda took the initiative in calling the church to ask about what the church was doing with its immorally vast wealth. She actually got a responder that seemed to be happy to talk with her about it. For as much as you are worked up about it, this seems like an obvious path for you to take. But if you're mainly interesting in chewing the fat over it, and giving some of us some entertainment by so doing, that's fine, too.

This is an example of veering to gate-keeping. You're taking issue that I am even talking about this here. 

Of course any one of us can send our thoughts about the church to the church offices. Doesn't that go without saying? If you don't want to talk about it, you can stop. But please stop implying that I shouldn't do so here.

[Meadowchik]

On 6/29/2021 at 4:57 PM, Amulek said:

And I would find it less ironic if the bulk of said critics weren't oblivious to the fact that they themselves are among the wealthiest people who have ever lived on this entire planet.

 

Sounds like a strawman. Who specifically is oblivious to that?

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Gate-keeping refers to implying who can say something about the topic. You seemed to veer close to that in your statements to me, which is really just a distraction.

Not sure that's what I am doing. It's not what I'm trying to do. I will pay closer attention to that.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding mind-reading, I try to avoid telling someone what they're thinking, but I do also try to reiterate what I think someone is saying, usually by saying "It seems to me like you..."

Seems to me that that is how I've been expressing it, but perhaps I should pay closer attention to that as well.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Obviously.

Generally, when everyone can see what's going on with the financials it helps prevent poor decisions. It can also help members be aware of where of how the institutional values align with their own.

I'm not sure that it is true that with full public knowledge it would help prevent poor decisions. It's the decision makers who need full access to the financials -- the rest of us are not making those decisions, and the vast majority of us are happy to let those closer to the problem make the decisions. That second sentence assumes too much. How many people are competent to read a balance sheet to gain a full understanding of what is going on, especially when it isn't just the internal numbers, but also what is happening out in the wild world. Things that will certainly be affecting correct courses of action. 

You seem to be suggesting that the church's charitable activities aren't being publicized so that members can be aware of how the values align. How many members even care? This doesn't militate against the idea of putting it all out there, I hurry to say.

If I could know where every dollar of church money was coming from and going to, would I care to actually learn it all? I don't know, truthfully. I don't think so, actually. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of people out there who would love to know where every cent was going, just so they could criticize it, and demand that instead of A, it must be B. 

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is an example of veering to gate-keeping. You're taking issue that I am even talking about this here. 

The best we can do here (or so it seems) is to talk past each other because none of us has full information. Which would hark back to your point above.

But I'm not taking issue with your talking about this here. I was simply suggesting in the post you were responding to that some of your questions might find better answers if you went to the source -- because it hadn't occurred to me before Tacenda's post that one might ask a church official for information on this. Her calling and talking with someone who is actually close to the information quite tickled my fancy, and I was just commending that for your consideration. As a supplement for your current stock of knowledge.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course any one of us can send our thoughts about the church to the church offices. Doesn't that go without saying? If you don't want to talk about it, you can stop. But please stop implying that I shouldn't do so here.

Haven't I expressed some gratitude for the opportunity to engage with you on the topic? Because, for one thing, it has given me a reason to think about the issues you've raised.

I'm not ungrateful for your thoughtful comments -- I just disagree with you about much of what you've raised as issues.

But I can see where my raising the question of why you, a person no longer believing (even if still on the books), is so concerned over the church's finances could be seen as gate-keeping. I'll try to stay out of that side of the discussion from now on.