Church buying up more farms

[Fether]

Am I the only one that thinks a bunch of people that make less than $200,000 a year should NOT have a say in how to be spending billions of dollars? There are things to consider in using that money that don’t even come to mind till you have learned how to acquire it and then have it

[LoudmouthMormon]

Quote

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?

23 hours 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.

Heh.   Well, you started with 'growing food doesn't help anyone', and now you're at 'The church is only helping some, not all', so I'm thinking my sarcasm is helping you move towards a more realistic and worthy criticism.  Perhaps, given enough sarcasm, you'll arrive at my opinion on the matter, which is something to the tune of 'Buying and running farms and agricultural properties is a noble, righteous, helpful, practical, and worthy thing for the church to do with it's resources'.

😉

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know, but the apparent imbalance of assets suggests to me that more should be invested humanitarian causes. I recommend you read my above post for a bit more context.

That's an opinion, of course, that you're entitled to. But when you say "invested in humanitarian causes" how do you know how much is already so invested? And what business is it of yours or mine to know?

My net worth is somewhere around $200,000, depending upon how much my house is worth at any given time. Some people will look at that figure and say "Darn! You're pretty well off, aren't you?" Other people will realize that that asset generates no income, and in fact costs me money in taxes, insurance, and interest, even before we start discussing repairs due to wear and tear. My $200K asset actually costs me money; and it won't benefit me financially until I sell it. Which won't happen, probably, until I die. I could sell it right now, but then I'd face the IRS wanting a share of the profit, not to mention other taxes and fees. And then I'd be without a place to live.

If the church sold a significant portion of its owned land, what would that mean? To start with, the land would no longer be available as a source of income to do charitable things with. Next, perhaps the church could take the cash and parcel it out amongst tithepayers, apportioned according to how much they pay in tithing each year, say 2020? And then, once it's gone, it's gone. And finally, now the land would belong to other rich organizations or people, and it would still be being hoarded.

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But what others seem to reject and/or tried to deflect from is that 1)hoarding vast wealth is a moral issue, whether the church is doing so or not, and 2)the church has a moral obligation to care for others outside its membership.

Let's start with the term hoarding. What does it mean to you? How much wealth are you hoarding? I think it might better be called owning, don't you?

1) So, you believe that owning vast wealth is a moral issue. I am curious as to why. This has been brought up multiple times in this thread, and I still haven't read why owning vast wealth is a moral issue. Care to take a stab at an objective answer?

2) You believe that the church has a moral obligation to care for others outside its membership. Fair enough. What moral obligation do you have to care for others outside your family? Please send me $500; I need it. Surely you can do the moral thing and let me have a small portion of your vast hoard?

(Just kidding, please don't send me anything).

 

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Am I the only one that thinks a bunch of people that make less than $200,000 a year should NOT have a say in how to be spending billions of dollars? There are things to consider in using that money that don’t even come to mind till you have learned how to acquire it and then have it

I suspect the majority of people on this board have never been given the opportunity to manage a multi-million dollar asset so as to produce income or increase its value. And it's a good thing they haven't been given the opportunity, because they'd probably flub it massively.

And here we have the same people offering earnest critiques over how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should manage its finances.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The annoyance is from the insinuation that the Church is using tithing to increase its commercial value.

This is gotten away with by pretending that all money coming in is essentially tithing. And if it isn't tithing, it's used to offset tithing, so that makes it tithing.

How many of these financial geniuses understand how accounting works? I think there's at least one CPA among us; can't remember who it is.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Am I the only one that thinks a bunch of people that make less than $200,000 a year should NOT have a say in how to be spending billions of dollars? There are things to consider in using that money that don’t even come to mind till you have learned how to acquire it and then have it

It's a typical position for those on a certain side of the political spectrum.
The idea that nobody should have lots if there is anyone who has little.  Everything needs to be spread around.  If anyone has a lot they aren't spreading the wealth enough.  Nobody is allowed to actually retain the wealth they have created.
At least in certain POVs.

And it's not new where the gospel is concerned.  We hear about it every time a new temple is announced.  Even Christ had to deal with it.

• Mark 14:3 ¶ And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
  4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
  5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
  6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
  7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
  8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
  9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

They seriously sound exactly like the critics of the Church today.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

Am I the only one that thinks a bunch of people that make less than $200,000 a year should NOT have a say in how to be spending billions of dollars? There are things to consider in using that money that don’t even come to mind till you have learned how to acquire it and then have it

I wouldn’t say they should have no say in that I think middle and low income members can see the big picture of what the Church can do as well as those who have great experiences in investment and how to sustain and make effective use of wealth.  But if the goal is to keep the Church in a position of financial stability both now and in the future as well as build its ability to fulfill the mission of calling to all those in the world, to invite them to the Lord’s feast and then supporting in the faith those who answer that call as well as other projects leaders decide to take on as worthwhile contributions, then imo that side of the decision making should be in the hands of professionals overseen by those who know all the big picture and whose stewardships allow for inspiration in these matters. 
 

But then my experience is of a brilliant, prudent father who did very well managing his inheritance and his own income, providing a comfortable and healthy and protected home for his family (homes actually as he helped several of his children when minor or major disaster hit their lives) and passed on a much greater inheritance to his own children, until he attempted to get into the less basic forms of investment. Land he bought never got the promised development and was a total write off unless one liked ticks.  Same with development of buildings and projects.  He relied on friends to get the inside track, some were professionals but he didn’t take the time to learn if their advice was more about helping their own speculations get momentum or actually sound financial advice. 
 

I would trust Dad before others for financial advice in areas he had significant experience in managing and when he did his research, for example he represented his HOA in a court case against the builder and helped get the largest settlement yet to date in that state as well as a compliment from the judge…but move out of his comfort zone, his advice so needed to be doublechecked and everyone who didn’t lost by depending on him. (Thankfully nothing major that I am aware of except I got a great husband instead of a fantastic job due to me switching majors on his unfounded, out of date advice.)

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's a typical position for those on a certain side of the political spectrum.
The idea that nobody should have lots if there is anyone who has little.  Everything needs to be spread around.  If anyone has a lot they aren't spreading the wealth enough.  Nobody is allowed to actually retain the wealth they have created.
At least in certain POVs.

And it's not new where the gospel is concerned.  We hear about it every time a new temple is announced.  Even Christ had to deal with it.

• Mark 14:3 ¶ And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
  4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
  5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
  6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
  7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
  8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
  9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

They seriously sound exactly like the critics of the Church today.

 

You can even find heresy like this in church literature. Listen to this guy preaching it:

”That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;”

“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.”

I mean, who does that guy think he is?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 

You can even find heresy like this in church literature. Listen to this guy preaching it:

”That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;”

“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.”

I mean, who does that guy think he is?

Yep.  Smart guy.  Especially the underlined part.  So many people think they know a better way to handle and provide funds, and apparently want to include those not called Saints.  Guess this guy forgot to include them.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep.  Smart guy.  Especially the underlined part.  So many people think they know a better way to handle and provide funds, and apparently want to include those not called Saints.  Guess this guy forgot to include them.

This is a depraved and evil practice unless good people do it.

Sounds a lot like:

Sex is filthy, dirty, and sinful and you should save it for your spouse.

Might be good advice but the reasoning seems a little off.

[rodheadlee]

If we have 17 million members,  thats only 8800.00 and change per  member. 

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

My measure of valid criticism is whether or not the complainer does what they expect their chosen target to do. The answer is always a resounding no. 

My answer is yes.  And I am skeptical that the answer of others is "always a resounding no," because you don't seem to ask the question, just assume the answer.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's an opinion, of course, that you're entitled to. But when you say "invested in humanitarian causes" how do you know how much is already so invested? And what business is it of yours or mine to know?

As I have already said, I don't know exactly how much is already invested in humanitarian causes. 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My net worth is somewhere around $200,000, depending upon how much my house is worth at any given time. Some people will look at that figure and say "Darn! You're pretty well off, aren't you?" Other people will realize that that asset generates no income, and in fact costs me money in taxes, insurance, and interest, even before we start discussing repairs due to wear and tear. My $200K asset actually costs me money; and it won't benefit me financially until I sell it. Which won't happen, probably, until I die. I could sell it right now, but then I'd face the IRS wanting a share of the profit, not to mention other taxes and fees. And then I'd be without a place to live.

One's primary residence, especially one that is not extremely excessive, is really not comparable to the level of wealth of the church. 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If the church sold a significant portion of its owned land, what would that mean? To start with, the land would no longer be available as a source of income to do charitable things with. Next, perhaps the church could take the cash and parcel it out amongst tithepayers, apportioned according to how much they pay in tithing each year, say 2020? And then, once it's gone, it's gone. And finally, now the land would belong to other rich organizations or people, and it would still be being hoarded.

I would consider land put to good use including helping the poor and needy as one type of philanthropic infrastructure I was talking about. 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Let's start with the term hoarding. What does it mean to you? How much wealth are you hoarding? I think it might better be called owning, don't you?

1) So, you believe that owning vast wealth is a moral issue. I am curious as to why. This has been brought up multiple times in this thread, and I still haven't read why owning vast wealth is a moral issue. Care to take a stab at an objective answer?

2) You believe that the church has a moral obligation to care for others outside its membership. Fair enough. What moral obligation do you have to care for others outside your family? Please send me $500; I need it. Surely you can do the moral thing and let me have a small portion of your vast hoard?

In this context, hoarding refers to wealth and plenty that is not being put to use, more than just a prudent savings for expected periods of scarcity.

Personally, I don't intentionally hoard. I try to avoid holding onto things that I have little chance of needing especially when they can serve the immediate need of another. My husband agrees. We have many children and have known little to no monetary excess in our lives. We have sometimes had opportunities to share what we have in a big way, like letting people live in the attached apartment intended for my mother-in-law, before she moved in with us. 

1) I am a bit struck by the need for an explanation of how hoarding can be a moral issue. But it is because there are human beings experiencing life-threatening and damaging scarcity in this world.

A couple days ago I was walking home from the grocery store in our city. On the pavement, there was a man who had been hurt somehow and was bleeding. There were several people with him, apparently strangers to him. One was supporting his head. As I approached, an emergency vehicle stopped and people got out to help. 

If I had come upon this man a few minutes earlier, and he had been alone and without help, I would consider it immoral if I had just walked by. Passersby who see the need and are able to do something or even just call for aid have a moral obligation to use their opportunity to help that person.

And so I think of that scenario, and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and I apply it to larger scales. Hoarding at the level of billions in wealth is indicative of the opportunity to know of urgent needs and the opportunity to help, but not using that opportunity. That is the crux of it as a moral issue.

2) It's about more than what I believe the church should do. The LDS Church already acknowledges the moral obligation to be like the Good Samaritan. Frankly I have found it weird to see posters here who seem to be arguing otherwise.

This week we took in an LGBT youth who had been kicked out of her house. (After three days her father finally said she could return.) Next week we'll be welcoming a family into the extra apartment again because the house they rent has become uninhabitable and it will take several months to repair it. We already have heavy obligations weighing on us, but we also have some ways we can help others and we try to help when and if we can.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh.   Well, you started with 'growing food doesn't help anyone', and now you're at 'The church is only helping some, not all', so I'm thinking my sarcasm is helping you move towards a more realistic and worthy criticism.  Perhaps, given enough sarcasm, you'll arrive at my opinion on the matter, which is something to the tune of 'Buying and running farms and agricultural properties is a noble, righteous, helpful, practical, and worthy thing for the church to do with it's resources'.

😉

When did I say "growing food doesn't help anyone?"

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

Depends, what should we be saving for? A hurricane? An earth Quake? A famine? A war? The last days?

How many people are we saving saving for? 1? 15? 70? 144,000? 18,000,000? 7,000,000,000?

this is God’s church, his kingdom on earth. We are all his children and we believe there will be a last days and things will become extremely difficult for the entire world. I would assume God’s kingdom would have enough savings once it is in a position to be a support for the entire world when it comes crumbling down

 

I don't think savings will be worth much when the entire world "comes crumbling down." 

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

At the very moment the owners of those savings decide it is enough. Sort of like what happens when you decide that what you have today is enough forever more and you give away any further money or assets that come to you. See how that works?

The Good Samaritan helped. Imagine if he had 48 hours to make his 2-hour journey but said to himself, "I cannot stop for this person. What if I get delayed by a swollen river or a riot in the next town? I better keep my 46-hour cushion just in case. I don't want to be late."

[Fether]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think savings will be worth much when the entire world "comes crumbling down." 

Which is why the church is buying bankrupt farms and other assets that will be valuable. 

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

Which is why the church is buying bankrupt farms and other assets that will be valuable. 

What are you imagining about the crumble-down of the entire world? Is it some kind of apocalyptic hellscape where people escape suffering by retreating to non-monetary commodities? 

As I said in a reply to someone else, I think that assets like farms can be good toward the stated mission of the church including helping the poor and needy. But even in a spiritual sense, I think there must be a balance between preparing for disaster and caring for people now. 

[Fether]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What are you imagining about the crumble-down of the entire world? Is it some kind of apocalyptic hellscape where people escape suffering by retreating to non-monetary commodities? 

As I said in a reply to someone else, I think that assets like farms can be good toward the stated mission of the church including helping the poor and needy. But even in a spiritual sense, I think there must be a balance between preparing for disaster and caring for people now. 

We don’t know what the end looks like, which is why big money and assets are important.

I do know this. If the church is to be prepared for the end, There needs to be a lot of wealth and assets to care for the world.

Additionally, If, for example, the church has $10bil and they get a 5% annual return on their investments, that is a rolling $500mil every year. If they invest $250mil of that and use the rest to grow the church, donate to charities or use it to fund local church needs, the amount they can donate every year increases and also leaves the church on a position where they can continue to grow and prepare for the future.

And, as mentioned before, the church is not a charity, we should stop seeing it as such. The issue people have is they feel for a church to be Christlike, they need to give away all they have. The more we give now, the less of a force for good we can be in the future.

So now I pose you the question. If the church had $10bil, what do you think they should do with it? Include: preparation, church growth and maintenance, investing, and charity donations.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Fether

[teddyaware]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What are you imagining about the crumble-down of the entire world? Is it some kind of apocalyptic hellscape where people escape suffering by retreating to non-monetary commodities? 

As I said in a reply to someone else, I think that assets like farms can be good toward the stated mission of the church including helping the poor and needy. But even in a spiritual sense, I think there must be a balance between preparing for disaster and caring for people now. 

In 2020, President Nelson testified that the earth shattering events prophesied in 1 Nephi 14 are going to be literally fulfilled and witnessed by people presently alive in this current generation. Is it any wonder, then, that the leaders of the Church are wisely preparing for the imminent day when God is going to pour out this judgements upon this wicked world without measure?

As I’ve previously said, the faithful, testimony bearing members of the Church actually believe what President Nelson so solemnly testified to in General Conference, so you are therefore setting yourself up for endless anger and frustration because, like it or not, the believing members of the Church fervently believe the prophesied judgements are soon going to be poured out without measure and they know they’d be blind fools to ignore or make light of such gravely serious prophetic warnings. Truly Paul prophesied well when he warned that the purposes and designs of God can never be known by the natural man.

The following excerpt from Nephi’s vision is what we faithful members believe, so get over it if you can because without giving we Latter-Day Saints who believe in the Book of Mormon some courteous respect you are likely dooming yourself to a lifetime of unhealthy outrage.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.
14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.
15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.
16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—
17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel. (1 Nephi 14)

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, Fether said:

We don’t know what the end looks like, which is why big money and assets are important.

I do know this. If the church is to be prepared for the end, There needs to be a lot of wealth and assets to care for the world.

Additionally, If, for example, the church has $10bil and they get a 5% annual return on their investments, that is a rolling $500mil every year. If they invest $250mil of that and use the rest to grow the church, donate to charities or use it to fund local church needs, the amount they can donate every year increases and also leaves the church on a position where they can continue to grow and prepare for the future.

And, as mentioned before, the church is not a charity, we should stop seeing it as such. The issue people have is they feel for a church to be Christlike, they need to give away all they have. The more we give now, the less of a force for good we can be in the future.

So now I pose you the question. If the church had $10bil, what do you think they should do with it? Include: preparation, church growth and maintenance, investing, and charity donations.

Well, then don't you think people should be given the same opportunity, save for the future? Therefore not pay the tithe any longer? Pay their bills before tithing? The church doesn't pay tithing, and not much on charity, it's the members donations usually that go to charity. Maybe give the members a way to plan for the future as well? Or at least let members pay tithe as it is stated to be paid in the Doctrine and Covenants, on interest.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, then don't you think people should be given the same opportunity, save for the future? Therefore not pay the tithe any longer?

You have that very opportunity right now. Enjoy it.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The church doesn't pay tithing

What makes you say that?

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you say that?

I know I sound like an idiot. I wonder if the business side should pay some form of tithing, possibly directing it to charities. Legit charities. 

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You have that very opportunity right now. Enjoy it.

It might be ironic, but I was a faithful tithe payer, I paid either on gross or paid on our tax returns for 30 years. It's only been the last 5 years that I haven't, when my husband found out the money his dad promised he and his brothers for staying at his company for many years ended up going to the church, is when my husband quit paying. I wasn't so sure I felt comfortable with that at the time, since I'd been a huge believer in paying tithing. 

[juliann]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My answer is yes.  And I am skeptical that the answer of others is "always a resounding no," because you don't seem to ask the question, just assume the answer.

I know the answer because anyone who can afford a computer could be giving more to the poor. It is the ultimate privilege to think you can sit comfortably in America and think you aren't hoarding or greedy. You didn't answer how many shoes you have. That is the question I ask because if it is more than one, you are the living example of not doing what you lecture others about.