Church buying up more farms

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Tithing is NOT for easing suffering and advancing human opportunities. 

Huh. That doesn't sound right. At all. 

But regardless of anyone's interpretation of LDS law, I was speaking of morality.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Meadowchik

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Huh. That doesn't sound right. At all. 

Regardless of anyone's interpretation of LDS law, I was speaking of morality.

I don't see any moral issue with the Church using tithing for its clearly defined purposes.  Please show me the moral dilemma.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see any moral issue with the Church using tithing for its clearly defined purposes.  Please show me the moral dilemma.

I think the moral issue is rather obvious and traditionally understood, and applied to many types of wealthy institutions and individuals.  Miserly penuriousness is well-understood as a form of greed, for example. And this type of criticism is especially sharp when the institution or individual sets it or themselves up as a standard of righteousness and goodness to the world.

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

One might say the 10 mil is potential of tithing. As a moral question, I would compare it to the possibly lost opportunities. Could that 1000, or even 100k after growth could have been used to ease suffering and advance human opportunities, for example? Is something neglected when the choice to continue investing is made?

I, for one, am totally down with how producing food on farms has absolutely zero ability to ease suffering.  It's like the church just doesn't understand that grocery stores already exist amiright?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think the moral issue is rather obvious and traditionally understood, and applied to many types of wealthy institutions and individuals.  Miserly penuriousness is well-understood as a form of greed, for example. And this type of criticism is especially sharp when the institution or individual sets it or themselves up as a standard of righteousness and goodness to the world.

I see zero evidence of miserly penuriousness.
I think the Church is doing exactly what they are supposed to do.  They are building the Kingdom.  That has a temporal element as well as a spiritual one.
It isn't the mission of the Church to take care of the poor in Babylon.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I, for one, am totally down with how producing food on farms has absolutely zero ability to ease suffering.  It's like the church just doesn't understand that grocery stores already exist amiright?

Can you offer a summary of he food production by the church and what amounts are used for charitable purposes? 

Helping others is a good thing, absolutely. The moral question in my opinion is not satisfied by helping some, though. And it's not answered by sarcasm, either.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I see zero evidence of miserly penuriousness.

So you agree that those would be a moral problem?

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the Church is doing exactly what they are supposed to do.  

Your opinion. But it's difficult to corroborate with only partial information.

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It isn't the mission of the Church to take care of the poor in Babylon.

Really? How would such a church recognize the Christ, then?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

So you agree that those would be a moral problem?

Your opinion. But it's difficult to corroborate with only partial information.

Really? How would such a church recognize the Christ, then?

I see no moral issue with the Church increasing the size of its holdings and building the Kingdom on earth.  The idea that they need to give more of it away is an opinion, not a moral problem.
It's not my opinion that the Church is doing what it's supposed to do - the mission of the Church is laid out in scripture.  While I don't always agree with the choices the Church makes, I see no evidence they have strayed from that role.
I'm open to being shown a scriptural command that they aren't following financially.

Not sure what you mean by the last part.  Christ doesn't require poverty.  He doesn't require the Church to take care of the poor in Babylon, only within the kingdom.
And he doesn't require the Church to prioritize charity over the Church and Temple programs.  Scriptures provide plenty of evidence to back that up.

[2BizE]

14 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

This is awesome! Between this and the Marriott hotel in hawaii they have spent nearly $360mm in tithing on real estate in just about one week. 

I believe in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible it says that Abraham paid tithes for the poor…and then it seems to mention he paid tithes to build malls, office buildings, hotels, and to purchase large sections of land…all of course for the benefit of the church.

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Can you offer a summary of he food production by the church and what amounts are used for charitable purposes? 

Helping others is a good thing, absolutely. The moral question in my opinion is not satisfied by helping some, though. And it's not answered by sarcasm, either.

So how many more would be enough for you? 
Bishop W. Christopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric said:
“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true. We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.” 
Is a billion dollars per year not enough?  How much is enough can only be a matter of opinion. Something that is useless to have a debate over.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I see no moral issue with the Church increasing the size of its holdings and building the Kingdom on earth.  The idea that they need to give more of it away is an opinion, not a moral problem.

I disagree. As I said previously,

 As a moral question, I would compare it to the possibly lost opportunities. Could that 1000, or even 100k after growth could have been used to ease suffering and advance human opportunities, for example? Is something neglected when the choice to continue investing is made?

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not my opinion that the Church is doing what it's supposed to do - the mission of the Church is laid out in scripture.  While I don't always agree with the choices the Church makes, I see no evidence they have strayed from that role.
 

There is plenty of scripture that commands charity. If the church's stated mission ignores that, it has failed Christian discipleship.

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He doesn't require the Church to take care of the poor in Babylon, only within the kingdom.

Sorry but this doesn't sound right at all. Loving, including helping, others is s fundamentally Christian message.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So how many more would be enough for you? 
Bishop W. Christopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric said:
“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true. We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.” 
Is a billion dollars per year not enough?  How much is enough can only be a matter of opinion. Something that is useless to have a debate over.

Would you have a link to the quote by Bishop W. Christopher Waddell?

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Would you have a link to the quote by Bishop W. Christopher Waddell?

Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So how many more would be enough for you? 
Bishop W. Christopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric said:
“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true. We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.” 
Is a billion dollars per year not enough?  How much is enough can only be a matter of opinion. Something that is useless to have a debate over.

I don't know if the church does or doesn't give enough because the church isn't transparent about its finances. 

Perhaps an exact number is impossible, but I would say that given enough information, we might say the saved wealth vastly outpaces what is spent for charity.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know if the church does or doesn't give enough because the church isn't transparent about its finances. 

Perhaps an exact number is impossible, but I would say that given enough information, we might say the saved wealth vastly outpaces what is spent for charity.

Of course it does. It is a religion, not a charity. The cost for growing  and maintaining the church now and in the future is immense. If we don't keep the Church healthy financially, it would not be as easy for it to give to humanitarian causes as much as it does now.

[rodheadlee]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know if the church does or doesn't give enough because the church isn't transparent about its finances. 

Perhaps an exact number is impossible, but I would say that given enough information, we might say the saved wealth vastly outpaces what is spent for charity.

Of course you would only be happy if they gave every penny of it away. I'm sure you're well aware that fast. Offering is for feeding the poor. Our Bishops storehouse spent about $480,000 a year giving groceries away as an estimate. How many Bishops storehouses are there in the church?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Of course it does. It is a religion, not a charity. The cost for growing  and maintaining the church now and in the future is immense. If we don't keep the Church healthy financially, it would not be as easy for it to give to humanitarian causes as much as it does now.

Seems a rather worldly attitude but even granting it as valid, for the sake of argument, that does not mean that any gap ever-so-large is appropriate.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Of course you would only be happy if they gave every penny of it away. 

Hyperbole.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Seems a rather worldly attitude but even granting it as valid, for the sake of argument, that does not mean that any gap ever-so-large is appropriate.

There is no argument; only your opinion.

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know if the church does or doesn't give enough because the church isn't transparent about its finances. ...

Well, see, here's the thing: If leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were transparent about its finances, some people would say, "Yes, I think the Church of Jesus Christ does give enough of its resources to alleviate suffering in the world," while others would say, "The Church of Jesus Christ has that many resources, and yet it allocates only how much for alleviating suffering in the world?"   Perhaps some people would play musical chairs in that some who are satisfied or pleased now would be displeased, while some who are dissatisfied or displeased now would be pleased, but I doubt the proportion of either would change much ... 

Gee, that sounds like ... pretty much exactly what happens now!

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He doesn't require the Church to take care of the poor in Babylon, only within the kingdom.

The Church I would agree is not required (though it has chosen to do so in many ways which may be confusing).  However, its members themselves are asked to fill that role of caring for the poor where they can, I believe.
 

I think people get confused about the role of the Church, what the organization’s programs/missions are meant to achieve (creating opportunities to become disciples of Christ) and what is asked by God of members who are committed to living the faith. I see the Church as preparing members to go out and serve the world in a variety of ways including helping those in poverty while the Church’s purpose in regards to the world is to bring the Gospel to all.  

That it has been able to expand its mission to act as the hands of members helping others due to the generosity and commitment of its members and wisdom of those who oversee the contributions of the faithful is wonderful.  The Church has made it very easy for members to serve others as God would have us do…but to feed and care for nonmembers in temporal ways is not the Church’s burden, but its members…and anyone else who seeks to live a Christ directed life imo. 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Of course you would only be happy if they gave every penny of it away. I'm sure you're well aware that fast. Offering is for feeding the poor. Our Bishops storehouse spent about $480,000 a year giving groceries away as an estimate. How many Bishops storehouses are there in the church?

And it gives away cheap groceries!  Imagine how large that figure would be if it gave away name brand stuff!

[Traela]

The bishop’s storehouse has to get its food from somewhere.  It is far more cost-effective for the the Church to produce it rather than buy it.

 

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Church I would agree is not required (though it has chosen to do so in many ways which may be confusing).  However, its members themselves are asked to fill that role of caring for the poor where they can, I believe.

I think people get confused about the role of the Church, what the organization’s programs/missions are meant to achieve (creating opportunities to become disciples of Christ) and what is asked by God of members who are committed to living the faith. I see the Church as preparing members to go out and serve the world in a variety of ways including helping those in poverty while the Church’s purpose in regards to the world is to bring the Gospel to all.  

That it has been able to expand its mission to act as the hands of members helping others due to the generosity and commitment of its members and wisdom of those who oversee the contributions of the faithful is wonderful.  The Church has made it very easy for members to serve others as God would have us do…but to feed and care for nonmembers in temporal ways is not the Church’s burden, but its members…and anyone else who seeks to live a Christ directed life imo. 

This.  Exactly.
Tithes are paid to the Bishop's storehouse.  According to scripture that storehouse is for those within the Bishop's stewardship, ie members and tithing also is to be used for building of the Lord's house and kingdom and payment of Church debts.

As Christians members of the Church should be charitable and loving to their fellow men and help the poor and needy.  But exactly as you said, feeding and caring for non-members in temporal ways is NOT the Church's burden nor the purpose of tithing money.
Some people seem unable to reconcile the two bolded statements or perhaps as you say, get confused.

[Calm]

The Church, imo, is currently acting in the role of Christ for the world in terms of preaching the Gospel, the servant going out to the world as directed by the lord to gather those who will come for the wedding feast.  Christ provided fish and bread to feed the hungry only a few times that we are aware of, feasts that satisfied for a few hours after teaching of the celebration that would lead to eternal satisfaction.  He was insistent that filling the belly wasn’t his role though, he was bringing a more eternal source of living water, bread of life.  And since he is not now present in the world, he gave us the Church to act in his stead for that part of his work (the invitation and instruction that prepares men to receive certain blessings that allows us to attend his feast).
 

It is possible the Church leaders have made poor choices in how to best reach the world, to lead people to open their hearts and minds to the Spirit as well as then support them in their journey as disciples, but I think the assumption that one of the evidences that the Church is Christ’s is that it is first and foremost out there feeding and otherwise physically supporting the poor is a confused interpretation of what the scriptures teach us.  Christ fed those who came to listen to him teach, but he also recognized that by doing so others would come wanting to benefit from his miracles in temporal ways while neglecting his spiritual teachings.  They wanted to marvel, not learn. 
 

He chose not to make miraculous feedings or other miracles the center of his ministry even though it appears he very well could have.  It seems clear to me from how he placed many miraculous experiences in context that miracles can become a distraction for those learning the Gospel in that an expectation for external signs is created rather than accepting God’s expectation of us to turn to seek out God within and let the miracle of eternal life happen in our souls, not our bellies. 
 

The most visible and easily recognizable symbols of the Church are our missionary force and our temples for good reason. 
 

But it is also very understandable to me why many are confused about what the Church is meant to do, people seemed to be more often confused by Christ’s choices in how to reach out than understanding.  Why should it be different for a massive organization filled with fallible humans attempting to do their best to follow the Spirit as they are capable of understanding it?  As Christ used multiple methods to open people’s hearts to his message, so does the Church. The error creeps in when a particular method is assumed to be the primary message/mission itself rather than just one of many vehicles.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Calm