Church buying up more farms

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You've had good fortune in your personal charitable endeavors, then. My late wife and I did this kind of thing a number of times over the years, and in every single case the person so helped stole from us. In one case, the person returned a few days after stealing money from us, and attempted a daytime burglary because he thought no-one was home (he was wrong). I've become leery of letting people into my house. I've helped since then, but not invited into my house to stay. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.

We've had good and (very, very, traumatically so) bad experiences. One has to be careful but even then can get burned.  

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Times change and people change. What can the Twelve do to stop a president who is going against them all?

"Common consent" is an important principle in the church (for that matter, in all human organizations). Even dictatorships cannot long survive after losing it.  

Leaving aside the possibility of divine intervention, which I'm pretty sure you don't believe in anyway, if Twelve apostles and two counselors in the First Presidency were convinced the President had lost the plot, how likely would it be that they would just go along with what they believed was wrong, just because the President said so? You say "times change," and yes they do, but from the beginning the leaders in the highest levels in the church have governed according to "common consent" or better stated, "consensus". When President David O. McKay wanted to end the practice of priesthood restriction, he polled the Twelve, didn't get consensus, and dropped the matter. Consensus came later. Now I contend that it was revelatorially confirmed, and thus cemented the consensus, but you're free to believe that they saw the figurative writing on the wall.

However it went, nobody becomes President of the Church without decades of increasing experience in consensus. Isn't it youth which has the radical ideas, and not the old, who tend to be more set in their ways? The youngest President of the Church since Brigham Young to ascend to that office was 77; with the oldest being 94 (2 examples). The average age over that period has been 79. The average time serving in the Q12 before ascending has been 41 years, with the shortest being 30, and the longest 60. 

Is it statistically possible for a Church president to go dictatorial without his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve resisting him? Of course. Almost anything is possible. Is it at all likely, given all of past experience? No it isn't. The men in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are of demonstrably strong leadership, who have been proven in righteousness over long periods of time. Are these the kind of men who are going to go off the rails on some unrighteous tangent, disregarding the advice and consent of men with whom they have worked with for many decades?

 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

 

Is it statistically possible for a Church president to go dictatorial without his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve resisting him?

 

What does question even mean?  Do you understand statistics?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the annual increase from the 100 billion?

I don't know. It would be fascinating to know. Then maybe we could discuss it a little more cogently, instead of engaging in continuous guesswork-inspired contention. 

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How many times greater is that than 50 million, which is what the church has identified as an amount donated over several years. Just one percent is one billion, which is 20 times greater than 50 million. So the church, if only using one percent of the one hundred billion, could do in one year twenty times what it has said its done over many years. Every year, while still growing those assets. 

I appreciate your dedication to your principles in this. It's almost admirable. 

But absent the necessary numbers you are mumbling in the dark -- and I happily admit that so am I. 🙂 Without the needed information, just where do you expect this to go? I'm pretty sure you won't convince anyone who has a testimony of the church -- and there's nobody here who has any influence with the church to hear your arguments and perhaps get them to modify what the church does. Unless it's Nemesis -- who is he, anyway? Or she? Perhaps Nemesis is a member of the Twelve, and is using this forum as a quasi sounding board. 

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Does that put it into a bit of perspective?

The perspective is already quite clear. You are speaking from one and only one perspective and assumption: that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a type of charitable organization, and nothing more. If that were what it actually is, with the 100% charitable Gates Foundation as a measuring stick, the Church would come off very poorly, in my personal opinion.

But that ISN'T what the church is. You are consistently judging the church as if it were a charitable organization, which it is not. The Gates Foundation spends about $302 million per year just on general management and programmatic support, which I suppose includes salaries for workers and overhead expenses of one sort or another that are incident to providing their charitable programs. The Gates Foundation's headquarters in Seattle (which I've visited, by the way) consists of a building in the Seattle Center -- they may have other buildings, but doubtless not very many. They don't have anything like the financial responsibilities that the church has. Or the future commitments that the church has. You may remember reading what I wrote earlier, that the Gates Foundation has a "death date", so to speak? And remember that its goal is to give all of its assets away to the benefit of charitable causes no later than 20 years after the deaths of both Bill and Melinda Gates?

The LDS church has no such "death date". The LDS church will persist into the Millenium (there will probably be large organizational changes with Christ Himself in charge). Which I am sure you believe will never happen, which makes the LDS church a forever organization. Thus, from the point of view of an organization with vast responsibilities, the more assets to prepare for the future, the better. It's not like a Warren Buffet, an Elon Musk, or a Jeff Bezos, who will all eventually die and whose fortunes will be divided up among potentially squabbling heirs.

The LDS church has approximately 19,000 meetinghouses. And approximately 30,000 congregational units that meeting those buildings. Each unit is given an annual budget allocation, depending upon activity (meeting attendance and tithing faithfulness being prime indicators). 

Now, taking my stake's budgetary finances factored into our sacrament meeting attendance, and extrapolating that into the (supposed) 36% of members of the church who show up for sacrament meeting each week, I get a worldwide total budget allocation of $459,000,000 to all stakes, wards, and branches in the church. Almost half a billion dollars. Just for funding church local programs. Not included is funding for local non-budgeted youth and young adult programs, which comes in separately. I don't have a basis for estimating that worldwide amount. How much does it cost to pay for water, heating and lighting, as well as maintenance of the physical plant of all buildings? No idea. How much does it cost to fly general authorities and missionaries to and from their areas of service? That would be 25,000 missionaries per year at a random guesstimate of $600 per seat, yielding $15 million dollars.

While researching and calculating all this, I discovered an interesting item in regards to church buildings and property tax. I believe all places of worship are property tax exempt in the US and the UK, but in the UK the two temples (London and Preston) are not fully exempt. The church has to pay property tax on the two temples, but with an 80% reduction. This is apparently because the temples are not open to the public, but they do attract the 80% exemption due to being for "charitable purpose." The amount of tax the church has to pay for the temples is probably available online in some government website, but I haven't looked it up.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Question for you: do have standards for how the church operates financially? Are there moral boundary violations that you would reject if the church crossed them? If so, what are they?

My standard for the financial operation of the church is what amounts to what is called "generally accepted accounting principles" or GAAP. I expect that the church will spend its money to the spiritual benefit of the members of the church, to assist its members temporally where needed, and to assist non-members where needed, all in proportion with and in connection to its continued financial health and carrying out of its divinely mandated operations.

Moral boundary violations? I'm actually hard-pressed to imagine likely moral boundaries past which I believe the church could go. The leaders at the highest levels, who are working full time in church service, seem to live quite modestly. What if the church decided to build large mansions for the members of the FP & Q12 to live in? Maybe spend $2 million dollars on each mansion, and $4 million for the President's home? In Salt Lake City, $2 million might not be all that excessive, now that I think about it. Though surely some church-watchers would go ballistic over it. Mainly the ones that look like they were raised on dill pickles and lemons, along with the paid fault-finders on staff at The Tribune. The way property values are going (inflation, mostly), someone could be living in hovel worth six figures. I am acquainted with someone of modest means here in England who owns two modest houses worth a total of million pounds. Nowhere near "mansion" status.

I suppose if the church were to raise and arm a military force of some kind I might have an objection. Depending upon the circumstances, anyway. I recall reading some statement by a previous president of the church who said that the Lord has not given the church permission to wage war. But at times there seemed to be a need for a military force of some kind (see Zion's Camp, the Utah War and the Mormon Battalion).  

I'm trying to come up with moral boundary violations that seem reasonably likely, but I'm coming up short. Maybe my mind isn't devious or clever enough.

Hah, just thought of one. The Church sends the Danites (whoever they are) over to the offices of the Salt Lake Tribune to break up their printing press. Seems like a worthy goal, and there's even a historical precedent, though I'm sure it wouldn't be morally right. I'm sorry, that's probably more a joke than anything likely.

Did you have any ideas?

Edited June 27, 2021 by Stargazer
added to the joke

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

What does question even mean?  Do you understand statistics?

Look, I'm just throwing out words semi-randomly here. Don't get too worked up.

And I do understand statistics. There are three levels of lying: white lies; damned lies; and statistics.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Stargazer

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The Church sends the Danites (whoever they are) over to the offices of the Salt Lake Tribune to break up their printing press

I don’t think they own their own, so may not be so worthy...;) 

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/26/21535377/deseret-news-salt-lake-tribune-media-joa-newspapers-huntsman-mormon-media

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Times change and people change. What can the Twelve do to stop a president who is going against them all?

There is a procedure for removing a member of the First Presidency in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Look, I'm just throwing out words semi-randomly here. Don't get too worked up.

And I do understand statistics. There are three levels of lying: white lies; damned lies; and statistics.

As much as this is true data is so important. Can it be manipulated? Sure. You should just look at the raw data. The interpretation can leave much to be desired. Always fear any conclusion based on one data point.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Look, I'm just throwing out words semi-randomly here. Don't get too worked up.

And I do understand statistics. There are three levels of lying: white lies; damned lies; and statistics.

Is that how you feel about statistics?  All lies?

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Is that how you feel about statistics?  All lies?

Jeeze, Bob, cut me some slack. How would you like to receive my very first downvote?

If I start talking about the birds and the bees, I'm NOT talking about birds and bees. Likewise when it's raining cats and dogs, the precipitation does not really consist of furry animals.

Just ignore me if you can't get the joke.

And sometimes statistics can be made to lie to you. But never mind.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Is that how you feel about statistics?  All lies?

Evidently your literary repertoire is lacking. Let me introduce to you: Mark Twain, et al.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point. The phrase derives from the full sentence, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."; it was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain and others, who mistakenly attributed it to the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. The phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. The phrase was attributed to an anonymous writer in mid-1891 and later that year to Sir Charles Dilke, but several others have been listed as originators of the quote, including frequent erroneous attribution to Twain himself.

Are we clear now?

Edited June 28, 2021 by Stargazer

[JAHS]

37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Jeeze, Bob, cut me some slack. How would you like to receive my very first downvote?

If I start talking about the birds and the bees, I'm NOT talking about birds and bees. Likewise when it's raining cats and dogs, the precipitation does not really consist of furry animals.

Just ignore me if you can't get the joke.

And sometimes statistics can be made to lie to you. But never mind.

Example. Which chart looks like better progress?:

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Example. Which chart looks like better progress?:

That isn't the statistical method. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is a procedure for removing a member of the First Presidency in the Doctrine and Covenants.

There's also other early-church procedures for its government, which the church no longer uses.

I think that an important part of avoiding abuse of power is transparency, something to help assure members of the organisation. It also demonstrates a commitment to being accountable to standards.

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know. It would be fascinating to know. Then maybe we could discuss it a little more cogently, instead of engaging in continuous guesswork-inspired contention. 

I appreciate your dedication to your principles in this. It's almost admirable. 

But absent the necessary numbers you are mumbling in the dark -- and I happily admit that so am I. 🙂 Without the needed information, just where do you expect this to go? I'm pretty sure you won't convince anyone who has a testimony of the church -- and there's nobody here who has any influence with the church to hear your arguments and perhaps get them to modify what the church does. Unless it's Nemesis -- who is he, anyway? Or she? Perhaps Nemesis is a member of the Twelve, and is using this forum as a quasi sounding board. 

The perspective is already quite clear. You are speaking from one and only one perspective and assumption: that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a type of charitable organization, and nothing more. If that were what it actually is, with the 100% charitable Gates Foundation as a measuring stick, the Church would come off very poorly, in my personal opinion.

But that ISN'T what the church is. You are consistently judging the church as if it were a charitable organization, which it is not. The Gates Foundation spends about $302 million per year just on general management and programmatic support, which I suppose includes salaries for workers and overhead expenses of one sort or another that are incident to providing their charitable programs. The Gates Foundation's headquarters in Seattle (which I've visited, by the way) consists of a building in the Seattle Center -- they may have other buildings, but doubtless not very many. They don't have anything like the financial responsibilities that the church has. Or the future commitments that the church has. You may remember reading what I wrote earlier, that the Gates Foundation has a "death date", so to speak? And remember that its goal is to give all of its assets away to the benefit of charitable causes no later than 20 years after the deaths of both Bill and Melinda Gates?

The LDS church has no such "death date". The LDS church will persist into the Millenium (there will probably be large organizational changes with Christ Himself in charge). Which I am sure you believe will never happen, which makes the LDS church a forever organization. Thus, from the point of view of an organization with vast responsibilities, the more assets to prepare for the future, the better. It's not like a Warren Buffet, an Elon Musk, or a Jeff Bezos, who will all eventually die and whose fortunes will be divided up among potentially squabbling heirs.

The LDS church has approximately 19,000 meetinghouses. And approximately 30,000 congregational units that meeting those buildings. Each unit is given an annual budget allocation, depending upon activity (meeting attendance and tithing faithfulness being prime indicators). 

Now, taking my stake's budgetary finances factored into our sacrament meeting attendance, and extrapolating that into the (supposed) 36% of members of the church who show up for sacrament meeting each week, I get a worldwide total budget allocation of $459,000,000 to all stakes, wards, and branches in the church. Almost half a billion dollars. Just for funding church local programs. Not included is funding for local non-budgeted youth and young adult programs, which comes in separately. I don't have a basis for estimating that worldwide amount. How much does it cost to pay for water, heating and lighting, as well as maintenance of the physical plant of all buildings? No idea. How much does it cost to fly general authorities and missionaries to and from their areas of service? That would be 25,000 missionaries per year at a random guesstimate of $600 per seat, yielding $15 million dollars.

While researching and calculating all this, I discovered an interesting item in regards to church buildings and property tax. I believe all places of worship are property tax exempt in the US and the UK, but in the UK the two temples (London and Preston) are not fully exempt. The church has to pay property tax on the two temples, but with an 80% reduction. This is apparently because the temples are not open to the public, but they do attract the 80% exemption due to being for "charitable purpose." The amount of tax the church has to pay for the temples is probably available online in some government website, but I haven't looked it up.

My standard for the financial operation of the church is what amounts to what is called "generally accepted accounting principles" or GAAP. I expect that the church will spend its money to the spiritual benefit of the members of the church, to assist its members temporally where needed, and to assist non-members where needed, all in proportion with and in connection to its continued financial health and carrying out of its divinely mandated operations.

Moral boundary violations? I'm actually hard-pressed to imagine likely moral boundaries past which I believe the church could go. The leaders at the highest levels, who are working full time in church service, seem to live quite modestly. What if the church decided to build large mansions for the members of the FP & Q12 to live in? Maybe spend $2 million dollars on each mansion, and $4 million for the President's home? In Salt Lake City, $2 million might not be all that excessive, now that I think about it. Though surely some church-watchers would go ballistic over it. Mainly the ones that look like they were raised on dill pickles and lemons, along with the paid fault-finders on staff at The Tribune. The way property values are going (inflation, mostly), someone could be living in hovel worth six figures. I am acquainted with someone of modest means here in England who owns two modest houses worth a total of million pounds. Nowhere near "mansion" status.

I suppose if the church were to raise and arm a military force of some kind I might have an objection. Depending upon the circumstances, anyway. I recall reading some statement by a previous president of the church who said that the Lord has not given the church permission to wage war. But at times there seemed to be a need for a military force of some kind (see Zion's Camp, the Utah War and the Mormon Battalion).  

I'm trying to come up with moral boundary violations that seem reasonably likely, but I'm coming up short. Maybe my mind isn't devious or clever enough.

Hah, just thought of one. The Church sends the Danites (whoever they are) over to the offices of the Salt Lake Tribune to break up their printing press. Seems like a worthy goal, and there's even a historical precedent, though I'm sure it wouldn't be morally right. I'm sorry, that's probably more a joke than anything likely.

Did you have any ideas?

I am going from the perspective that humanitarianism is one of the church's purposes. My rough calculation only considers one percent of one type of asset, which would only be a fraction of expected annual returns. 

Re: standards. Why are you basing potential boundary violations based on your perception of current leaders' behaviour? Do you consider what they are legally capable of doing with the institution at all?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am going from the perspective that humanitarianism is one of the church's purposes. My rough calculation only considers one percent of one type of asset, which would only be a fraction of expected annual returns. 

But you don't know what the returns are. You don't know what the church is preparing for, what it is looking ahead for. You are in an information vacuum. All you can do is pontificate based on your own probably incorrect assumptions.

It's like someone walking into a department store, and seeing a person who looks like your impression of a store worker, you ask them to help you find whatever it is you're looking to buy. And then getting miffed when they claim they don't work there, and demand explanations.

You believe the church should give more. You believe you know how much it gives already, but you don't know all the relevant facts. I might as well come over to your house and critique you based on the food you have in your pantry, not knowing what your family likes to eat, how many there are, and whether you've filled the pantry based on your budget for the week or month.

There really doesn't seem much point in trying to continue this conversation. You have a standard, and the church doesn't live up to it. Fair enough. The church doesn't care about your standard because it doesn't know what your standard is, and even if you told them, they still wouldn't care. You question the believing members of this forum about all of the above, but we know as little as you do. We trust the church and you don't. And so there we are. The signal to noise ratio of this interaction has gone to near zero.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Re: standards. Why are you basing potential boundary violations based on your perception of current leaders' behaviour? Do you consider what they are legally capable of doing with the institution at all?

You're correct from a military planning perspective. One must first consider capabilities. A big reason why the allies lost the Battle of Savo Island in 1942 was because they only considered intentions. For which they had insufficient information. And then when surprised by a Japanese navy night attack, they were defeated in detail by an inferior force.

So, what are the leaders of the church legally capable of? First question, legal as to church law, or legal as to human law? 

Well, I don't really care all that much about what they do legally. That's why they are there, after all, to make decisions based on legality, in context of both church or human law. I believe that the Lord is guiding them, and they are following that guidance as well as they can, based on their long experience. You don't believe it, but since you've effectively left the church, it really shouldn't matter to you all that much whatever they do. Because it won't affect you.

You question why I am basing boundary violations on current leaders' behavior. How can I not? Do you want me to write a "choose your own adventure" game in which I pick from an array of stock characters to put in place of the current leaders, and then speculate over what these new characters might do?  

You're the one posing the problem, so, since I don't seem to "get it," why don't you demonstrate how to play the game? 

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But you don't know what the returns are. You don't know what the church is preparing for, what it is looking ahead for. You are in an information vacuum. All you can do is pontificate based on your own probably incorrect assumptions.

It's like someone walking into a department store, and seeing a person who looks like your impression of a store worker, you ask them to help you find whatever it is you're looking to buy. And then getting miffed when they claim they don't work there, and demand explanations.

You believe the church should give more. You believe you know how much it gives already, but you don't know all the relevant facts. I might as well come over to your house and critique you based on the food you have in your pantry, not knowing what your family likes to eat, how many there are, and whether you've filled the pantry based on your budget for the week or month.

There really doesn't seem much point in trying to continue this conversation. You have a standard, and the church doesn't live up to it. Fair enough. The church doesn't care about your standard because it doesn't know what your standard is, and even if you told them, they still wouldn't care. You question the believing members of this forum about all of the above, but we know as little as you do. We trust the church and you don't. And so there we are. The signal to noise ratio of this interaction has gone to near zero. 

No, that's not such a great analogy. I'm going from known but incomplete information. We don't know how complete. In any case, my principle point is that hoarding vast wealth is a moral issue, whether the church is hoarding or not. My second point is that, given the known information, there appears to be reason to be concerned that the church might be hoarding to an immoral extent. 

Of course if you are willing to trust the current and future church leadership completely, and if you believe that would satisfy the God you believe in, I can see how it's not an issue for you.

However, not all believing members feel the same or will feel the same. I think it is worth talking about because setting standards in human institutions matters. Those standards can have ripple effects for generations. Poor institutional standards in one group can reduce incentive for other groups to improve their standards. Yet, high institutional standards in one group can encourage other groups to improve standards.  Considering that, those most familiar with a given institution have the opportunity to expect standards from it. But unfortunately, when complete trust is given to LDS leaders, who will maintain or increase expectations? That is why I find it useful to discuss this.

I think that what the church does with its money matters and that we should care.

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're correct from a military planning perspective. One must first consider capabilities. A big reason why the allies lost the Battle of Savo Island in 1942 was because they only considered intentions. For which they had insufficient information. And then when surprised by a Japanese navy night attack, they were defeated in detail by an inferior force.

So, what are the leaders of the church legally capable of? First question, legal as to church law, or legal as to human law? 

Church law and human law. As far as I know, there is no church law that is enforced or enforceable if a church president goes against the Twelve. If they have used the D&C to straighten out behavior at the very top, I'm not aware of it.

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I don't really care all that much about what they do legally. That's why they are there, after all, to make decisions based on legality, in context of both church or human law. I believe that the Lord is guiding them, and they are following that guidance as well as they can, based on their long experience. You don't believe it, but since you've effectively left the church, it really shouldn't matter to you all that much whatever they do. Because it won't affect you.

How do you know it won't effect me? You have no idea if it will or not. The church and its rules continue to effect my life, not the least of which, through my close family members who still believe. So, yes, I still have a personal stake in what the church does. 

32 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You question why I am basing boundary violations on current leaders' behavior. How can I not? Do you want me to write a "choose your own adventure" game in which I pick from an array of stock characters to put in place of the current leaders, and then speculate over what these new characters might do?  

You're the one posing the problem, so, since I don't seem to "get it," why don't you demonstrate how to play the game? 

You referred to military planning before, so I assume you are aware that military leaders are held to specific standards. So why don't you understand the potential conflict of a church leader doing something wrong?

[Tacenda]

Shaking in my boots, literally. I was the worst person to receive Tom's call because I don't have great recall. He was super nice, he answered each question put forth. I told him about my husband's situation about his parents donating the kid's inheritance, not all though. And how he was upset that his dad didn't keep his promise on making it pay off if his sons stayed in his and another partner's business all these years. And Tom said they try to have parents that donate their kids inheritance to go around and make sure each were well enough off. Well that's what happened with my in laws they came to each of us to make sure we were doing well enough. 

I asked JustAustralian's question, and he gave me an example of a recent estate donation. He said they go into the house and get what ever is of value and that gets put back into investments like the Deseret Property Management and to the church. 

Calm, I forgot to ask your question about the overhead cost for the humanitarian center, I'm sorry. 

Also, he brought up the recent property that Bill Gates also wanted to buy, and said that the beef will go out to countries in need. And when I asked if the church donates at least 10% of the business side's earnings he said they donate far more than 10%. So that was good to know. 

He also brought up the pandemic and how the church needs a great amount of money to sustain buildings etc. if the country went under. Things like that. And it did make sense, most of it. 

He told me to call if I have more questions, and really acted like he was glad I asked. So if any of you have questions, just call the church office building and ask for Tom Owens. 

My brain isn't working well this morning, bummer. But came away feeling like the church was forthright, at least Tom was not blocking my questions and making me feel guilty for not trusting what the church does with it's money. 

ETA: Also, he mentioned the costs to feed the cows, and how that was needed if the pandemic keeps happening. I wondered about the need for so many cows the church has acquired. He brought up the ranch in Florida as well. And I thought, how badly do we really need beef, oh well. I really don't know much though. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's also other early-church procedures for its government, which the church no longer uses.

I think that an important part of avoiding abuse of power is transparency, something to help assure members of the organisation. It also demonstrates a commitment to being accountable to standards.

It often is a method of avoiding abuses of power but demands for unlimited transparency tend to do more harm than good.

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It often is a method of avoiding abuses of power but demands for unlimited transparency tend to do more harm than good.

I can agree to that. What would be a reasonable amount of transparency for the church's financials, in your view? Or, generally for an organization of comparable size entrusted with altruistic aims?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

. And I thought, how badly do we really need beef, oh well. I really don't know much though. 

It takes time to switch production, they can’t just slaughter the cows and send them off to market immediately and move to whatever option is seen as both better and workable for the land. It would be nice to have them get into a more sustainable product, but beef is a part of most people’s diets at this point and in stress times it is better not to be changing one’s diet too much if only for the comfort of the familiar so is very useful for now. 
 

I am impressed you did that.  Give yourself a pat on the back. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It takes time to switch production, they can’t just slaughter the cows and send them off to market immediately and move to whatever option is seen as both better and workable for the land. It would be nice to have them get into a more sustainable product, but beef is a part of most people’s diets at this point and in stress times it is better not to be changing one’s diet too much if only for the comfort of the familiar so is very useful for now. 
 

I am impressed you did that.  Give yourself a pat on the back. 

Thanks Calm!! ❤️

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, that's not such a great analogy. I'm going from known but incomplete information. We don't know how complete. In any case, my principle point is that hoarding vast wealth is a moral issue, whether the church is hoarding or not. My second point is that, given the known information, there appears to be reason to be concerned that the church might be hoarding to an immoral extent. 

Your principle point is just your opinion. It has no substance. You believe that hoarding vast wealth is a moral issue. Fair enough, you believe it to be so. You haven't proven it.

So, I ask, is the church hoarding vast wealth, and for that matter, what is "hoarding"? You replied "hoarding refers to wealth and plenty that is not being put to use." But the church's wealth is not an ocean of cash being held in some money pit. It is invested in illiquid assets, such as land, much of it productive (and producing), semi-liquid assets such as stocks and bonds, with no doubt a tiny amount of cash, probably in money market accounts. The land generates commodities that can be distributed to the poor (and often is), as well as sold to help the poor. Stocks represent ownership in productive businesses, and depending upon economic conditions, the value of the stock varies, and some of the companies pay dividends if they are generating a profit. Even the "cash" in money market accounts generates revenue. Virtually none of it is not being put to use.

So, even by your own definition of "hoarding", the church isn't "hoarding vast wealth." Since it isn't doing so, by your own definition the church's action is not immoral. You attempt to have your cake and eat it too, however, by saying "whether the church is hoarding or not". If I allow that, then I can just as easily turn it on yourself, because if even not hoarding can be called "immoral", you leave yourself wide open to being called a hypocrite. How many pairs of shoes do you own? You have only one pair of feet. If you own more than one pair of shoes, you have wealth and plenty that is not being put to use. You need to identify all the people near you who have fewer shoes than you do, and redistribute your hoard of shoes because there is someone, somewhere on earth, who has fewer shoes than you, and thus you own an immorally large number of shoes.

Your second point depends upon your first point. If your first point is invalid, so is your second. In fact, your second point is only a slightly differently worded repetition of your first point. I rebut your second point in the same way I rebutted your first: There appears to be reason to be concerned that you might be hoarding to an immoral extent, by virtue of your ownership of more than one pair of shoes (or coats, or dresses, or cars). Whether you're hoarding or not, if you and your husband drive, but you have three cars, then you might be hoarding cars. Obviously you can only drive at most two cars at the same time. Any others might be in excess of what you can put to use, and might be considered hoarding.

Note very carefully that I am not calling you a hypocrite! I am not saying you are immoral! I don't think it's immoral for you to own more cars than there are drivers in your family, or pairs of shoes than you have pairs of feet. All I am saying is: don't judge, for you can be judged by the same standard. Please don't tell me that the church's wealth is nowhere near comparable to your own. I know that already, but that's not an excuse. Isn't the principle of the thing what is important? If the church is immorally owning more wealth than it can use, you may be doing the same, and probably are. Maybe not to the same extent, but what does that matter?

And as I have said repeatedly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NOT a charitable organization like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is a religious organization, and its purposes are not the same as a charitable organization. And even if charity is part of its mission, which it is, it is not the primary part. You seem to be completely unable to comprehend this -- or, if you're not unable to do so, you simply refuse to do so.

On a somewhat related tangent, are the centibillionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet also immorally hoarding wealth, in your opinion? Just curious about your reply, I don't feel the urge to defend them if you do feel they are.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course if you are willing to trust the current and future church leadership completely, and if you believe that would satisfy the God you believe in, I can see how it's not an issue for you.

However, not all believing members feel the same or will feel the same. I think it is worth talking about because setting standards in human institutions matters. Those standards can have ripple effects for generations. Poor institutional standards in one group can reduce incentive for other groups to improve their standards. Yet, high institutional standards in one group can encourage other groups to improve standards.  Considering that, those most familiar with a given institution have the opportunity to expect standards from it. But unfortunately, when complete trust is given to LDS leaders, who will maintain or increase expectations? That is why I find it useful to discuss this.

I think that what the church does with its money matters and that we should care.

Church law and human law. As far as I know, there is no church law that is enforced or enforceable if a church president goes against the Twelve. If they have used the D&C to straighten out behavior at the very top, I'm not aware of it.

Since Brigham Young there has never been a need to implement the process of removing a church president. 

Willford Woodruff, in his office of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator said:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Official Declaration 1: Excerpt from addresses)

You don't believe in the Church, and possibly not in God either. Doesn't matter. There's a process available.

Here's the process described for trial and removal of the President of the Church, in DC 107:82-84:

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

The "common council of the church" has been convened twice. The first occasion was to try Joseph Smith himself. He was absolved of transgression. See here: Trial of Joseph Smith.  The second occasion was after Joseph's death, when Signey Rigdon (who was Joseph's first counselor) was excommunicated.

 

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How do you know it won't effect me? You have no idea if it will or not. The church and its rules continue to effect my life, not the least of which, through my close family members who still believe. So, yes, I still have a personal stake in what the church does. 

The church and its rules continue to affect you? Perhaps it does. But so do all other institutions that you and your close family members are connected with. If you have an Uncle John who is employed by Boeing, and Boeing lays him off, that will affect you. So will your Aunt Mildred's mortgage foreclosure. Everything affects you, in other words, directly or indirectly. You can't possibly attenuate any of those effects. If the church does something that one or more of your relatives feel they can't handle, and they leave the church as a result, of course it will affect you. The church could, for instance, reinstate plural marriage. It's not unprecedented. What are you going to do about it? It's just something you'll have to deal with. Regardless of whether it has to do with the church's supposed hoard of wealth. Maybe that's what the church has the hoard for! To defend the practice of plural marriage! Just kidding. Maybe.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You referred to military planning before, so I assume you are aware that military leaders are held to specific standards. So why don't you understand the potential conflict of a church leader doing something wrong?

Of course I understand it. And of course a church leader can do something wrong. It's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again. But it doesn't change the status of the church. It is either what it claims to be or it isn't. Malfeasance by any church leader doesn't change this. So when it comes to this conversation, I have to throw up my hands in resignation, that there's really not much more to be said. You're proclaiming an emergency before an emergency has occurred. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Your principle point is just your opinion. It has no substance. You believe that hoarding vast wealth is a moral issue. Fair enough, you believe it to be so. You haven't proven it.

So, I ask, is the church hoarding vast wealth, and for that matter, what is "hoarding"? You replied "hoarding refers to wealth and plenty that is not being put to use." But the church's wealth is not an ocean of cash being held in some money pit. It is invested in illiquid assets, such as land, much of it productive (and producing), semi-liquid assets such as stocks and bonds, with no doubt a tiny amount of cash, probably in money market accounts. The land generates commodities that can be distributed to the poor (and often is), as well as sold to help the poor. Stocks represent ownership in productive businesses, and depending upon economic conditions, the value of the stock varies, and some of the companies pay dividends if they are generating a profit. Even the "cash" in money market accounts generates revenue. Virtually none of it is not being put to use.

So, even by your own definition of "hoarding", the church isn't "hoarding vast wealth." Since it isn't doing so, by your own definition the church's action is not immoral. You attempt to have your cake and eat it too, however, by saying "whether the church is hoarding or not". If I allow that, then I can just as easily turn it on yourself, because if even not hoarding can be called "immoral", you leave yourself wide open to being called a hypocrite. How many pairs of shoes do you own? You have only one pair of feet. If you own more than one pair of shoes, you have wealth and plenty that is not being put to use. You need to identify all the people near you who have fewer shoes than you do, and redistribute your hoard of shoes because there is someone, somewhere on earth, who has fewer shoes than you, and thus you own an immorally large number of shoes.

Your second point depends upon your first point. If your first point is invalid, so is your second. In fact, your second point is only a slightly differently worded repetition of your first point. I rebut your second point in the same way I rebutted your first: There appears to be reason to be concerned that you might be hoarding to an immoral extent, by virtue of your ownership of more than one pair of shoes (or coats, or dresses, or cars). Whether you're hoarding or not, if you and your husband drive, but you have three cars, then you might be hoarding cars. Obviously you can only drive at most two cars at the same time. Any others might be in excess of what you can put to use, and might be considered hoarding.

Note very carefully that I am not calling you a hypocrite! I am not saying you are immoral! I don't think it's immoral for you to own more cars than there are drivers in your family, or pairs of shoes than you have pairs of feet. All I am saying is: don't judge, for you can be judged by the same standard. Please don't tell me that the church's wealth is nowhere near comparable to your own. I know that already, but that's not an excuse. Isn't the principle of the thing what is important? If the church is immorally owning more wealth than it can use, you may be doing the same, and probably are. Maybe not to the same extent, but what does that matter?

And as I have said repeatedly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NOT a charitable organization like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is a religious organization, and its purposes are not the same as a charitable organization. And even if charity is part of its mission, which it is, it is not the primary part. You seem to be completely unable to comprehend this -- or, if you're not unable to do so, you simply refuse to do so.

On a somewhat related tangent, are the centibillionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet also immorally hoarding wealth, in your opinion? Just curious about your reply, I don't feel the urge to defend them if you do feel they are.

Since Brigham Young there has never been a need to implement the process of removing a church president. 

Willford Woodruff, in his office of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator said:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Official Declaration 1: Excerpt from addresses)

You don't believe in the Church, and possibly not in God either. Doesn't matter. There's a process available.

Here's the process described for trial and removal of the President of the Church, in DC 107:82-84:

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

The "common council of the church" has been convened twice. The first occasion was to try Joseph Smith himself. He was absolved of transgression. See here: Trial of Joseph Smith.  The second occasion was after Joseph's death, when Signey Rigdon (who was Joseph's first counselor) was excommunicated.

 

The church and its rules continue to affect you? Perhaps it does. But so do all other institutions that you and your close family members are connected with. If you have an Uncle John who is employed by Boeing, and Boeing lays him off, that will affect you. So will your Aunt Mildred's mortgage foreclosure. Everything affects you, in other words, directly or indirectly. You can't possibly attenuate any of those effects. If the church does something that one or more of your relatives feel they can't handle, and they leave the church as a result, of course it will affect you. The church could, for instance, reinstate plural marriage. It's not unprecedented. What are you going to do about it? It's just something you'll have to deal with. Regardless of whether it has to do with the church's supposed hoard of wealth. Maybe that's what the church has the hoard for! To defend the practice of plural marriage! Just kidding. Maybe.

Of course I understand it. And of course a church leader can do something wrong. It's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again. But it doesn't change the status of the church. It is either what it claims to be or it isn't. Malfeasance by any church leader doesn't change this. So when it comes to this conversation, I have to throw up my hands in resignation, that there's really not much more to be said. You're proclaiming an emergency before an emergency has occurred. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

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

You don't have to tell me anything.

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.

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.

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

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

enforceable standards

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

I’m freely donating money to the church.  The last thing ai would want to see is the government or any other outside organization telling the church what to do with the money I’m donating. 

 

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

those are needed in order for large human institutions to improve

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