The Church as the 5th Largest Private Landholder in U.S.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is a very important consideration that critics ignore, overlook, refuse to address, etc.

It is not.

Quite a bit, actually.  It really goes to the motives and explanations for what is going on.

Many of our more virulently hostile critics implicitly or explicitly decry "massive wealth accumulation" by the Church by comparing the Church to for-profit businesses, which typically focus on making money and enriching the executives and shareholders.  Then there are the comparisons to televangelists and the like to "live large" (mansions, jets, fancy cars, yachts, etc.).  Implicit in such comparisons are accusations of avarice, greed, love of money, and so on.

These comparisons and analogies are, in my view, largely gutted by pointing out - as I often do - that the Brethren are not enriching themselves off of the Widow's Mite.  Nor are they "hoarding money for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ" (which has always come across as an asinine claim anyway).

So if greed / avarice / self-dealing is not a viable explanation, and if "hoarding for the Second Coming" is not a viable explanation, then what is?

I think this comment attributed to D. Michael Quinn merits some attention:

It's a good interview.

See also here:

Alongside disregarding the reality of the Brethren living modestly, critics also typically fail to address the changing demographics and growth of the Church, the Church's extensive humanitarian efforts ("close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis"), and so on.

And here:

Critics generally disregard stuff like this.

You are not stating "fact."  You are expressing an opinion.

Just so we're clear.

"Wealth accumulation" in what sense?

Again, you are glossing over some important realities here.  The Brethren are not enjoying "wealth accumulation."  Nor is anyone else in the Church.  The Church takes in huge amounts of money, and spends huge amounts of money on religious and philanthropic efforts, and has also gotten itself out of debt and built up a sizable (but still easily diminished) financial store.

See, e.g., here (from May 2022) : LDS Church loses billions on stocks. See how much and how it did compared to the Dow.

Note the "b" in "billions."

6%.  $3.1 billion dollars.  In a single three-month period.  Imagine if that were to happen quarter over quarter, year after year. 

A loss of $8 billion in early 2020.

A loss of $1.6 billion in Q3 2021.

Imagine what a market crash could do to the "more than half the account's total value" held in stocks and mutual funds.

Again, critics generally disregard this sort of thing.

John 12 comes to mind:

So too does Matthew 25:

And Jacob 2:

And Genesis 41:

See also these remarks Bishop Waddell:

From these I glean a few things:

First, I place very little stock in the moral pronouncements from endlessly faultfinding critics of the Church.  In the main, I think they - like Judas - mouth insincere platitudes about "the poor" without really giving two figs about their welfare, and in reality are speaking out of malice and antipathy against the Church.  There will never be a point at which such implacably hostile critics will be satisfied.  They will always find fault.  Always.

Second, I think the Parable of the Talents was intended to provide a "financial" blueprint, both for individuals and groups.  We are supposed to labor, to earn bread by the sweat of the brow.  But more than that, we are supposed to help each other, and that becomes difficult or impossible if we remain reduced in our circumstances.  So we are supposed to work hard with whatever "talents" we have been given (skills, education, opportunity, etc.) and use them wisely to create more.  

Third, I think Jacob 2 reflects what the Lord wants us (collectively) to do with "riches."  Your claim that Jesus "was rather anti wealth accumulation" is way oversimplified.  Jesus condemned the love of money, the pride and stiffneckedness than so readily arises from having too much of it.  Instead, we are told that "after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them," and that we must do so "for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted."

Fourth, I think Bishop Waddell has a pretty solid point about Genesis 41.  I think the Church will have "lean years" ahead.  As Patrick Mason put it: 

"They're thinking about 50 years from now."

Yep.

Unlike you and me, the Church will exist in perpetuity, so it's stewards have to think about much longer prospects.  If we are to survive the "lean years," we need to prepare now.

I question whether we are situated to competently assess the future "needs" of a 17-million member Church.

I also question whether we are situated to competently assess where the Church would be in the long term, in terms of financial health and viability, without taking steps against what Bishop Waddell calls "contingencies."

Thanks,

-Smac

A couple of more comments from me.

 

Yes your constant prattling about the LDS leaders not enriching themselves is a canard. I don't see anyone arguing that here.  The argument is focused on an organization that is amassing HUGe amounts of wealth. Any organization the claims to be the church of Jesus.  The man who condemned wealth accumulation.  That is it. The question is what is a reasonable amount of wealth for such an organization to accumulate. I have noted many time I think some level of wealth accumulation seems proper given our modern world and the fact that the church is a large world wide  organization.  Based on what I know abou t such organizations the LDS church's wealth accumulation is horribly excessive.

 

As for stock market losses, oh well. I go through the same thing in my own portfolio.  Amounts are relevant to what has been invested.  If the church thinks suffering a 15 to 20%V loss in a down market the results in billions of unrealized losses (an important term as well an un realized gains) then put the $$ in less risky assets.

 

 

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Many of our more virulently hostile critics implicitly or explicitly decry "massive wealth accumulation" by the Church by comparing the Church to for-profit businesses, which typically focus on making money and enriching the executives and shareholders.  Then there are the comparisons to televangelists and the like to "live large" (mansions, jets, fancy cars, yachts, etc.).  Implicit in such comparisons are accusations of avarice, greed, love of money, and so on.

These comparisons and analogies are, in my view, largely gutted by pointing out - as I often do - that the Brethren are not enriching themselves off of the Widow's Mite.  Nor are they "hoarding money for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ" (which has always come across as an asinine claim anyway).

So if greed / avarice / self-dealing is not a viable explanation, and if "hoarding for the Second Coming" is not a viable explanation, then what is?

A few points. First, remember that saving money for the Second Coming was the idea put forth by Roger Clarke, the president of Ensign Peak Advisors. 

Second, lusting for money is different than lusting for an opulent lifestyle, and that is a difference you don't seem to acknowledge. Warren Buffet, for example, basically lives in a middle-class neighborhood, drives used cars, and eats at McDonald's. But that isn't evidence that is primary mission in life is something other than accumulating as much money as he possibly can. Hoarding money for the sake of having lots of money is different than trying to make a lot of money so you can live an extravagant lifestyle. Those are different things.

Since it is the Christmas season, I'll offer a holiday example. If somebody accused Ebenezer Scrooge of being greedy and having the primary mission in life of increasing the size of his own bank account, it wouldn't be a valid argument to say, "No, Scrooge isn't stingy! He doesn't love money! After all, he is very frugal and saves money on coal by keeping his home and office cold. That proves he doesn't love money! How come Scrooge's critics never address this?"

But what is the explanation of this situation? It's ridiculously simple:

For about 60 years the Church has said it conducts its financial affairs using a few simple principles:

1. Don’t go into debt
2. Keep all expenses to within about 90% of tithing revenue
3. Save the balance for no other purpose than for "a rainy day."

My accusation is that that is what they are doing.

While this is a decent approach for most people as they go through their working lives and save for emergencies and retirement, it is not a wise approach for non-profits, businesses, or churches. Saving money ad infinitum without a specific goal, for a rainy day, just in case, is a poor, inefficient use of capital.

Banks and insurance companies spend a lot of time thinking about this. They want to have enough money to stay in business and fulfill their contractual obligations, even if things go bad. But they do not want to have an infinite amount of money socked away for even the most terrible situations conceivable, because that results in a poor, inefficient use of resources.

If you applied any reasonable standard that is employed by banks, insurance companies, or non-profits, the Church has way too much saved. It shouldn't save so much for a theoretical rainy day. It is raining now. 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this comment attributed to D. Michael Quinn merits some attention:

Quinn is a historian. He doesn't know anything about finance. His speculations about the welath of the Church are terrible.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Alongside disregarding the reality of the Brethren living modestly, critics also typically fail to address the changing demographics and growth of the Church

Do you think that going forward, it will be impossible for the Church to follow Eldon Tanner's advice and operate on less than its tithing revenue?

If so, why do you think that? Is it going to revoke the law of tithing? Are people with jobs all going to leave the Church? Is it going to start paying for everyone's health insurance? What do you think is going to happen that will make it impossible for a church with a lay ministry to survive on tithing income?

I'm genuinely baffled by this.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

the Church's extensive humanitarian efforts ("close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis"), and so on.

This figure is problematic for me and comingles the humanitarian efforts of the members of the Church with the philanthropic spending of the Church itself. For example, the $1 billion goes way down if members stop paying fast offerings. It goes way down if the members stop donating to Deseret Industries. It goes way down if the members stop going to the cannery. 

In contrast, the members have no control over how tithing money is spent, nor over how investment income is spent. 

In any case, $1 billion is commendable, but it is a tiny number in comparison to how much they save and have saved.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Critics generally disregard stuff like this.

No they don't. You just don't understand the criticisms.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, you are glossing over some important realities here.  The Brethren are not enjoying "wealth accumulation."  Nor is anyone else in the Church. 

Nor is Ebenezer Scrooge. 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church takes in huge amounts of money, and spends huge amounts of money on religious and philanthropic efforts, and has also gotten itself out of debt and built up a sizable (but still easily diminished) financial store.

See, e.g., here (from May 2022) : LDS Church loses billions on stocks. See how much and how it did compared to the Dow.

Note the "b" in "billions."

6%.  $3.1 billion dollars.  In a single three-month period.  Imagine if that were to happen quarter over quarter, year after year. 

These are typical, short-term, predictable fluctuations in the stock market. They made the financial decision to invest in stocks knowing that these temporary dips in the market value of assets would happen. 

The fact that they choose to hoard money in the stock market doesn't mean they aren't hoarding money. If they don't want the risk of short-term dips of the market value of their assets, they can invest in different assets that are less volatile. 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

A loss of $8 billion in early 2020.

A loss of $1.6 billion in Q3 2021.

This is an ironic defense of the Church. These losses are directly caused by their investment style. If they stopped investing in the stock market, they wouldn't be exposed to these types of risks. So if they wanted to focus on their church mission rather than making billions in the stock market, they can eliminate the risk of losing billions this way. Stop investing hundreds of billions in the stock market!

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Imagine what a market crash could do to the "more than half the account's total value" held in stocks and mutual funds.

Exactly! That is why Jesus said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal."

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, critics generally disregard this sort of thing.

You don't understand their arguments.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I place very little stock in the moral pronouncements from endlessly faultfinding critics of the Church.  In the main, I think they - like Judas - mouth insincere platitudes about "the poor" without really giving two figs about their welfare, and in reality are speaking out of malice and antipathy against the Church.  There will never be a point at which such implacably hostile critics will be satisfied.  They will always find fault.  Always.

Just so you know, this comes across as a last-ditch response you make when you realize the critics have a valid point. It sounds exactly like saying, "I can't think of a counterargument here, and I think the critics have a valid point. But that doesn't matter because if the Church fixed this valid problem, the critics would find something else to complain about anyway!"

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, I think the Parable of the Talents was intended to provide a "financial" blueprint, both for individuals and groups.  We are supposed to labor, to earn bread by the sweat of the brow.

Earning money by the sweat of your brow is what the proletariat does. Earning money off of the sweat of the brows of others because you own the means of production is what the bourgeoise does. They are two different things.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

But more than that, we are supposed to help each other, and that becomes difficult or impossible if we remain reduced in our circumstances.

"I'd love to lend you a hand, neighbor, but I can't do that right now. You see, although I have way more than I need, I'm directing most of the excess to savings so I'll have a big fortune and will be able to lend a really big hand to you in 50 years. Can you wait?"

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 Jesus condemned the love of money, the pride and stiffneckedness than so readily arises from having too much of it.

At what point will the Church have too much money? When its stock portfolio hits $200 billion? $500 billion? $1 trillion?

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I think Bishop Waddell has a pretty solid point about Genesis 41.  I think the Church will have "lean years" ahead.  As Patrick Mason put it: 

"They're thinking about 50 years from now."

That's obscene. If the Church has a moderate growth of tithing revenue of 3% per year for the next 50 years, and if the stock market and real estate market grows at a moderate 5% per year over that time period, and if the Church continues to operate on 90% of its tithing revenue, then in 50 years it will have about $1.6 trillion in assets.

Why does it need so much money in 50 years?

The Church isn't thinking about 50 years from now. The truth is, they have way more money than they know what to do with. Accumulating more money makes the problem worse, not better.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Unlike you and me, the Church will exist in perpetuity, so it's stewards have to think about much longer prospects.  If we are to survive the "lean years," we need to prepare now.

Are you kidding? The Church has about $120 billion in stocks and commercial real estate, and about 31,500 congregations. That means it has a "rainy day fund" of about $3.8 million per congregation. 

In order to survive the lean years, how much money does the average congregation need?

Edited December 16, 2022 by Analytics

[rodheadlee]

To the critics:

if the Church gave away 90% of their assets and started over, would you be happy? Or complain about who they gave them to?

For extra points, who would you give it to?

Edited December 17, 2022 by rodheadlee

[mrmarklin]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:38 PM, MiserereNobis said:

So are you going to congratulate us on our wise stewardship and for saving up for a rainy day? 😉

Why not?

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

...Jesus.  The man who condemned wealth accumulation.

Did he? I'd be interested to read your proof of this thesis.

The problem with this idea is that if that is what Jesus teaches, then pretty much all economic activity is forbidden, beyond perhaps a little hunting and little gathering. If you own land, you have accumulated wealth. If you plant seed on this land and grow a crop, you have increased your wealth. If you sell a portion of this crop that you don't personally need, you have increased your wealth even further. If you use part of the profit from the sale of your crop to build or purchase better agricultural tools, or more land to grow crops, your potential is to become obscenely wealthy. So you must live in poverty at all times in order not to accumulate wealth. Is this what Jesus teaches? 

So, is there an official definition of "obscenely wealthy"? Or is there a highly subjective definition that varies in its application depending upon who one wishes to castigate or condemn?

[gav]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

...Jesus.  The man who condemned wealth accumulation.

Did he? I'd be interested to read your proof of this thesis.

I don't think an individual's personal bitterness counts...

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

To the critics:

if the Church gave away 90% of their assets and started over, would you be happy?

Maybe this will be a chance to test and see if I understand the criticism that Analytics and similar are levying against the church.

As I understand it, the basic principle is that it is good for a church to have a rainy day fund (only one type of asset, so I'm not necessarily talking about all the different types of assets the church has). However, a church should never forget that it is a church and not a rainy day fund grower, which is, apparently, a temptation many churches fall into when growing a rainy day fund. In short, having a rainy day fund is not a bad thing for a church, but there must be a balance between using the church's resources to grow the rainy day fund and using the church's resources to do churchy things.

To put numbers to this balance, most of the references @Analytics has provided on this topic in past discussions recommend that a church's rainy day fund should be no larger than 1 to 3 (maybe 5 at the outside) years worth of expenses. While no church is necessarily required to come to the same conclusion about that balance, this seems to be the consensus view of the experts that Analytics references. I expect that these experts generally are thinking of small 1 to 5 congregation Protestant type churches, but the basic principle should still apply to large, multinational churches, though the exact numeric balance between growing the rainy day fund and doing churchy things might change.

What is the LDS church's philosophy around growing a rainy day fund? The only statements I can find suggest that the LDS church believes that it should avoid debt and put a portion of its income/resources into a rainy day fund. I can't find anything that talks about what the church believes about this balance between using resources to grow a rainy day fund and using resources to do churchy things. I see nothing said about the temptation of growing an excessively large rainy day fund or how that can be a poor use of church resources. I do not know if this is because the church has thought about or received revelation on the topic and is not disclosing those ideas to the church and the world, or if it is because the church has not really even thought about it (apparently another pitfall in this is that some churches never think about how large their rainy day fund ought to be, they just grow it without considering when it is enough).

Since the church doesn't publish full financial records, we can only estimate. Most estimates that I see suggest that the church's current rainy day fund(s) represent 10 to 20 years worth of expenses (2 to 7 times the value given above). If the church were to give away 90% of its rainy day fund away, then its rainy day fund would represent something like 1 to 2 years worth of expenses -- much more in line with the guideline mentioned above.

I cannot speak for Analytics or others, but it seems to be that the basic principle that there is a proper balance between using church resources to grow a rainy day fund and using church resources to do churchy things is sound. I don't care whether or not the church reveals all of its financial records, but it seems to me that the church would do well to reveal its basic philosophy around accumulating wealth and what it believes is the proper balance between growing rainy day funds and doing other churchy things. at present, it seems that the church (or the body of believers) believes that whatever the church does is the proper balance (a sort of de facto infallibility regarding use of church resources). We've had lots of discussions about falliblity and infallibility and such, so how does it apply to church finances. Can the church make significant mistakes with its wealth that break fundamental principles that govern church resources? If the church can make mistakes, how does the church decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate and choose? How are we as the lay members supposed to understand what the church is doing?

[gav]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

The argument is focused on an organization that is amassing HUGe amounts of wealth. Any organization the claims to be the church of Jesus.  The man who condemned wealth accumulation.  That is it. The question is what is a reasonable amount of wealth for such an organization to accumulate. I have noted many time I think some level of wealth accumulation seems proper given our modern world and the fact that the church is a large world wide  organization.  Based on what I know abou t such organizations the LDS church's wealth accumulation is horribly excessive.

Hear the words of a prophet, that were proved very prophetic...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1998/10/to-the-boys-and-to-the-men?lang=eng

Quote

Now, brethren, I should like to talk to the older men, hoping that there will be some lesson for the younger men as well.

I wish to speak to you about temporal matters.

As a backdrop for what I wish to say, I read to you a few verses from the 41st chapter of Genesis.

Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt, dreamed dreams which greatly troubled him. The wise men of his court could not give an interpretation. Joseph was then brought before him: “Pharaoh said unto Joseph, In my dream, behold, I stood upon the bank of the river:

“And, behold, there came up out of the river seven kine, fatfleshed and well favoured; and they fed in a meadow:

“And, behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor and very ill favoured and lean fleshed. …

“And the lean and the ill favoured kine did eat up the first seven fat kine: …

“And I saw in my dream … seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good:

“And, behold, seven ears, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them:

“And the thin ears devoured the seven good ears: …

“And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, … God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

“The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one. …

“… What God is about to do he sheweth unto Pharaoh.

“Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt:

“And there shall arise after them seven years of famine;

“… And God will shortly bring it to pass” (Gen. 41:17–20, 22–26, 28–30, 32).

Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order.

So many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings.

We have witnessed in recent weeks wide and fearsome swings in the markets of the world. The economy is a fragile thing. A stumble in the economy in Jakarta or Moscow can immediately affect the entire world. It can eventually reach down to each of us as individuals. There is a portent of stormy weather ahead to which we had better give heed.

I hope with all my heart that we shall never slip into a depression. I am a child of the Great Depression of the thirties. I finished the university in 1932, when unemployment in this area exceeded 33 percent.

My father was then president of the largest stake in the Church in this valley. It was before our present welfare program was established. He walked the floor worrying about his people. He and his associates established a great wood-chopping project designed to keep the home furnaces and stoves going and the people warm in the winter. They had no money with which to buy coal. Men who had been affluent were among those who chopped wood.

I repeat, I hope we will never again see such a depression. But I am troubled by the huge consumer installment debt which hangs over the people of the nation, including our own people. In March 1997 that debt totaled $1.2 trillion, which represented a 7 percent increase over the previous year.

In December of 1997, 55 to 60 million households in the United States carried credit card balances. These balances averaged more than $7,000 and cost $1,000 per year in interest and fees. Consumer debt as a percentage of disposable income rose from 16.3 percent in 1993 to 19.3 percent in 1996.

Everyone knows that every dollar borrowed carries with it the penalty of paying interest. When money cannot be repaid, then bankruptcy follows. There were 1,350,118 bankruptcies in the United States last year. This represented a 50 percent increase from 1992. In the second quarter of this year, nearly 362,000 persons filed for bankruptcy, a record number for a three-month period.

We are beguiled by seductive advertising. Television carries the enticing invitation to borrow up to 125 percent of the value of one’s home. But no mention is made of interest.

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., in the April 1938 general conference, said from this pulpit: “Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1938, 103).

I recognize that it may be necessary to borrow to get a home, of course. But let us buy a home that we can afford and thus ease the payments which will constantly hang over our heads without mercy or respite for as long as 30 years.

No one knows when emergencies will strike. I am somewhat familiar with the case of a man who was highly successful in his profession. He lived in comfort. He built a large home. Then one day he was suddenly involved in a serious accident. Instantly, without warning, he almost lost his life. He was left a cripple. Destroyed was his earning power. He faced huge medical bills. He had other payments to make. He was helpless before his creditors. One moment he was rich, the next he was broke.

Since the beginnings of the Church, the Lord has spoken on this matter of debt. To Martin Harris through revelation He said: “Pay the debt thou hast contracted with the printer. Release thyself from bondage” (D&C 19:35).

President Heber J. Grant spoke repeatedly on this matter from this pulpit. He said: “If there is any one thing that will bring peace and contentment into the human heart, and into the family, it is to live within our means. And if there is any one thing that is grinding and discouraging and disheartening, it is to have debts and obligations that one cannot meet” (Gospel Standards, comp. G. Homer Durham [1941], 111).

We are carrying a message of self-reliance throughout the Church. Self-reliance cannot obtain when there is serious debt hanging over a household. One has neither independence nor freedom from bondage when he is obligated to others.

In managing the affairs of the Church, we have tried to set an example. We have, as a matter of policy, stringently followed the practice of setting aside each year a percentage of the income of the Church against a possible day of need.

I am grateful to be able to say that the Church in all its operations, in all its undertakings, in all of its departments, is able to function without borrowed money. If we cannot get along, we will curtail our programs. We will shrink expenditures to fit the income. We will not borrow.

One of the happiest days in the life of President Joseph F. Smith was the day the Church paid off its long-standing indebtedness.

What a wonderful feeling it is to be free of debt, to have a little money against a day of emergency put away where it can be retrieved when necessary.

President Faust would not tell you this himself. Perhaps I can tell it, and he can take it out on me afterward. He had a mortgage on his home drawing 4 percent interest. Many people would have told him he was foolish to pay off that mortgage when it carried so low a rate of interest. But the first opportunity he had to acquire some means, he and his wife determined they would pay off their mortgage. He has been free of debt since that day. That’s why he wears a smile on his face, and that’s why he whistles while he works.

I urge you, brethren, to look to the condition of your finances. I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.

This is a part of the temporal gospel in which we believe. May the Lord bless you, my beloved brethren, to set your houses in order. If you have paid your debts, if you have a reserve, even though it be small, then should storms howl about your head, you will have shelter for your wives and children and peace in your hearts. That’s all I have to say about it, but I wish to say it with all the emphasis of which I am capable.

I leave with you my testimony of the divinity of this work and my love for each of you, in the name of the Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

This was in 1998. 3 years later september 11 happened with its economic repercussions. This was the talk that was given then. Speaking of the war on Terror that had just begun he said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/the-times-in-which-we-live?lang=eng

Quote

No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time.

Occasions of this kind pull us up sharply to a realization that life is fragile, peace is fragile, civilization itself is fragile. The economy is particularly vulnerable. We have been counseled again and again concerning self-reliance, concerning debt, concerning thrift. So many of our people are heavily in debt for things that are not entirely necessary. When I was a young man, my father counseled me to build a modest home, sufficient for the needs of my family, and make it beautiful and attractive and pleasant and secure. He counseled me to pay off the mortgage as quickly as I could so that, come what may, there would be a roof over the heads of my wife and children. I was reared on that kind of doctrine. I urge you as members of this Church to get free of debt where possible and to have a little laid aside against a rainy day.

We cannot provide against every contingency. But we can provide against many contingencies. Let the present situation remind us that this we should do.

As we have been continuously counseled for more than 60 years, let us have some food set aside that would sustain us for a time in case of need. But let us not panic nor go to extremes. Let us be prudent in every respect. And, above all, my brothers and sisters, let us move forward with faith in the Living God and His Beloved Son.

Great are the promises concerning this land of America. We are told unequivocally that it “is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). This is the crux of the entire matter—obedience to the commandments of God.

The Constitution under which we live, and which has not only blessed us but has become a model for other constitutions, is our God-inspired national safeguard ensuring freedom and liberty, justice and equality before the law.

I do not know what the future holds. I do not wish to sound negative, but I wish to remind you of the warnings of scripture and the teachings of the prophets which we have had constantly before us.

I cannot forget the great lesson of Pharaoh’s dream of the fat and lean kine and of the full and withered stalks of corn.

I cannot dismiss from my mind the grim warnings of the Lord as set forth in the 24th chapter of Matthew.

I am familiar, as are you, with the declarations of modern revelation that the time will come when the earth will be cleansed and there will be indescribable distress, with weeping and mourning and lamentation (see D&C 112:24).

Now, I do not wish to be an alarmist. I do not wish to be a prophet of doom. I am optimistic. I do not believe the time is here when an all-consuming calamity will overtake us. I earnestly pray that it may not. There is so much of the Lord’s work yet to be done. We, and our children after us, must do it.

I can assure you that we who are responsible for the management of the affairs of the Church will be prudent and careful as we have tried to be in the past. The tithes of the Church are sacred. They are appropriated in the manner set forth by the Lord Himself. We have become a very large and complex organization. We carry on many extensive and costly programs. But I can assure you that we will not exceed our income. We will not place the Church in debt. We will tailor what we do to the resources that are available.

Finally in 2005 After hurricane katrina and the devastation of New Orleans he reminded us again:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/if-ye-are-prepared-ye-shall-not-fear?lang=eng

Quote

We can heed warnings. We have been told that many had been given concerning the vulnerability of New Orleans. We are told by seismologists that the Salt Lake Valley is a potential earthquake zone. This is the primary reason that we are extensively renovating the Tabernacle on Temple Square. This historic and remarkable building must be made to withstand the shaking of the earth.

We have built grain storage and storehouses and stocked them with the necessities of life in the event of a disaster. But the best storehouse is the family storeroom. In words of revelation the Lord has said, “Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing” (D&C 109:8).

Our people for three-quarters of a century have been counseled and encouraged to make such preparation as will assure survival should a calamity come.

We can set aside some water, basic food, medicine, and clothing to keep us warm. We ought to have a little money laid aside in case of a rainy day.

Now what I have said should not occasion a run on the grocery store or anything of that kind. I am saying nothing that has not been said for a very long time.

Let us never lose sight of the dream of Pharaoh concerning the fat cattle and the lean, the full ears of corn, and the blasted ears; the meaning of which was interpreted by Joseph to indicate years of plenty and years of scarcity (see Gen. 41:1–36).

Over a 7 year period President Hinckley warned us about debt, specifically around housing and also preparing for hard times ahead while at the same time urging prudence and wisdom in our approach. Each time he reminded us of Joseph's preparation for the 7 lean years. 10 years after the initial warning in a priesthood session and 7 years after the warning to the general membership the 2008 housing crisis led to the Global financial crisis.

Quote

We have been counseled again and again concerning self-reliance, concerning debt, concerning thrift. So many of our people are heavily in debt for things that are not entirely necessary. When I was a young man, my father counseled me to build a modest home, sufficient for the needs of my family, and make it beautiful and attractive and pleasant and secure. He counseled me to pay off the mortgage as quickly as I could so that, come what may, there would be a roof over the heads of my wife and children. I was reared on that kind of doctrine. I urge you as members of this Church to get free of debt where possible and to have a little laid aside against a rainy day.

This global crisis was brought about by exactly the things he mentioned, market contagion, of people over extending themself on debt and specifically housing debt and this affecting at the individual level.

Quote

The economy is a fragile thing. A stumble in the economy in Jakarta or Moscow can immediately affect the entire world. It can eventually reach down to each of us as individuals. There is a portent of stormy weather ahead to which we had better give heed.

Quote

We are beguiled by seductive advertising. Television carries the enticing invitation to borrow up to 125 percent of the value of one’s home. But no mention is made of interest.

Quote

But let us buy a home that we can afford and thus ease the payments which will constantly hang over our heads without mercy or respite for as long as 30 years.

Quote

I repeat, I hope we will never again see such a depression. But I am troubled by the huge consumer installment debt which hangs over the people of the nation, including our own people.

He was right, his words were prophetic and those who heeded them were spared the worst of the turmoils that still stalk us from 2008

Edited December 17, 2022 by gav

[Pyreaux]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

To the critics:

if the Church gave away 90% of their assets and started over, would you be happy? Or complain about who they gave them to?

For extra points, who would you give it to?

Them or government, obviously. They are woke and simply assume it is immoral or otherwise somehow a problem to accumulate wealth, period. Somehow the only moral purpose of wealth should be to redistribute it, either voluntarily or forced to by a totalitarian government. Clearly the church is not hoarding their wealth, its investing it, wealth is of no use until it is invested, and then it's creating new jobs and assets. When investments blossom, the Church isn't confiscating wealth from society, it's creating wealth that wasn’t there before. They haven’t taken someone else’s wealth. It’s wealth that they earned. Now the moral question of what one should do with their wealth. That would be to steward it wisely for the furtherance of God’s Kingdom and the common good, and only partly for those in need. It is not moral or better to coercively take the wealth and distribute it.

Jealousy underlies all socialist and communist ideological variants. They see that others have more than they themselves do, and utterly irrespective of how it is earned and what they plan to do with it, the communist will decry it as immoral as a thin excuse to feel righteous while desiring to commit theft while claiming to “solve” something that isn’t of itself a problem. To redistribute the Church's wealth would lead to lower productivity, and a poor generation or two away from hitting zero. The early LDS Church has had quite a history of money problems and we learned from that. Never again. I would rather they have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Did he? I'd be interested to read your proof of this thesis.

I think you are aware of the NT teaching on the topic.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The problem with this idea is that if that is what Jesus teaches, then pretty much all economic activity is forbidden, beyond perhaps a little hunting and little gathering. If you own land, you have accumulated wealth. If you plant seed on this land and grow a crop, you have increased your wealth. If you sell a portion of this crop that you don't personally need, you have increased your wealth even further. If you use part of the profit from the sale of your crop to build or purchase better agricultural tools, or more land to grow crops, your potential is to become obscenely wealthy. So you must live in poverty at all times in order not to accumulate wealth. Is this what Jesus teaches? 

Straw man.  I did not say that.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So, is there an official definition of "obscenely wealthy"? Or is there a highly subjective definition that varies in its application depending upon who one wishes to castigate or condemn?

You all can keep dancing around this issue if you would like in order to ease your conscience on this and excuse whatever the Church and its leadership does. I think my position that I have outlined numerous times here on the LDS Church finances is reasonable. I do not object to accumulating reasonable wealth and assets.  A world wide organization such as the church needs such things.  Cash reserves of two to three times its annual operating expenses seems reasonable.  And that is not chump change. Investing in land and farms to generate good for the welfare program is very prudent.  Property for meeting houses and temples is needed. I even do not object to some other business and real estate revenue generating investments.  This is prudent in order to preserve and income flow since the most of the Church income is from donations.  My opinion is a hundred billion or so stock portfolio (which I am well aware fluctuates up and down based on the stock market) is excessive and a large portion of that could be put to use in relieving human suffering.  Odd that those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ rail against this idea.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, gav said:

I don't think an individual's personal bitterness counts...

Are you referring to me and insulting me?  I am not bitter about this at all. I gave hundreds of thousands to the Church over my active period. I actually don't feel bad about that at all. At the time I was happy to do so.  I still periodically give to my ward fast offering. I think that is a great program. I now direct the large amount of $ I used to give the the church  elsewhere with a goal of reliving human suffering.

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

To the critics:

if the Church gave away 90% of their assets and started over, would you be happy?

I'll be happy regardless of what the Church does. 

As some background, my day job is helping insurance companies figure out how much money they need saved. Their savings includes a few different levels:

1. the reserves, which should be sufficient to keep the company going indefinitely under "moderately adverse conditions."
    
2. Required capital, which is the additional amount of money they need to have, just in case.
    
3. Target capital, which is additional padding above that, just in case.

My point is that I am in fact a professional at this and advise to people in the C-suites of insurance companies about these issues.

If I were advising the Church, I wouldn't recommend they "give away 90% of their assets and started over." 

What I would recommend they do is:

1. Come up with a plan to give away about 5% of the balance of their rainy day fund a year.
    
2. Comply with best practices of transparency so that the donating public tax payers (who are in fact subsidizing them) know what is going on and can make more informed decisions about donating and continuing tax-favored treatment.

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Or complain about who they gave them to?

I don't really have an opinion on that. I'd just point out that figuring out how to responsibly spend or give away, say, $6 billion a year, every year, into perpetuity, is an incredibly difficult problem. How they do that is outside my area of expertise. 

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

For extra points, who would you give it to?

As a start, I'd suggest:

1. Make missions free.
2. Make BYU free.
3. Give a college scholarship to all members of the church, whether they are accepted to BYU or not.
4. Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you are aware of the NT teaching on the topic.

Again, and this time a CFR: does the New Testament (and specifically Jesus) teach us that wealth accumulation is condemnatory? Please give chapter and verse.

I am aware of what some people interpret as this teaching. The only actual example of Jesus demanding anyone give up their wealth that I can recall is that occasion when the rich young man asked Jesus what lacked he yet. Jesus told him that he should give away all his wealth to the poor and follow him. Two questions in relation to this story:

1. Did Jesus tell the young man that his wealth accumulation was sinful, wicked, or to be condemned?
2. Was Jesus generalizing what he told the young man onto all his followers, that they must give all to the poor and follow him?

Next we come to the story of Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector who climbed a tree to watch Jesus pass by. Jesus saw him, and invited himself to come to Zacchaeus' house for dinner. After Jesus taught Zacchaeus the gospel, Zacchaeus was convinced to follow Jesus, and promised to give up half his wealth to the poor. Two questions:

1. Did Jesus tell Zacchaeus that he must give up half his wealth because it was wrong to have so much?
2. Did Jesus admonish Zacchaeus that he must give it all up, and not just half?
3. Was Jesus generalizing what Zacchaeus volunteered to give up to all his followers, that they must give up half or all their wealth to the poor?

Finally, we come to the matter of Ananias and Sapphira. They were both taken in death by the Holy Spirit after donating a portion of their wealth to what was in our day called the "united order". Why? Because they withheld a portion of their wealth? No, because they lied to the Holy Spirit about it. They claimed to be giving all, when they had not. As the Apostle Peter said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" They could have donated the lesser portion of the value of the land they sold, and kept the rest, as long as they were up front about it, and apparently that would have been fine.

And let me ask you this: did the Lord say anything at all about the finances of his Church in the New Testament? If so, I've never read it. 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Straw man.  I did not say that.

Oh, but you did. A fuller quote:

"The argument is focused on an organization that is amassing HUGe amounts of wealth. Any organization the claims to be the church of Jesus.  The man who condemned wealth accumulation."

You are clearly claiming that Jesus condemned wealth accumulation. Not a straw man at all.

Now, I'm willing to concede that you may not have meant it in quite the way you said it. But it sure looks like you meant to say that Jesus condemned wealth accumulation. Going back to my examples of wealth accumulation in regards to the farm where the owner eventually buys more land with the profit from sale of his crops, where does it cease to be allowable and tread into divine condemnation territory? Is there an amount of land which is owned, a market valuation, or some amount of money held in reserve for a rainy day? Please substantiate the figure that you consider the threshold past which the wealth accumulation is condemned.

And to what degree must the Church trim its rainy day fund back to before you consider it to be no longer violating what you consider to be Jesus's admonition?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

You all can keep dancing around this issue if you would like in order to ease your conscience on this and excuse whatever the Church and its leadership does.

I'm not dancing around it. And my conscience is perfectly clear and untrammeled, thank you very much.  

You can huff and puff over my testimony that President Nelson is a prophet, seer, and revelator all you want, but I trust that he is leading the Church, including its finances, not only according to reasonable best practices, but also in accordance with its mission and according to the will of the Lord. You obviously don't agree, and don't have this testimony. That is perfectly within your rights, as I surely don't need to remind you.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think my position that I have outlined numerous times here on the LDS Church finances is reasonable.

Of course your position is reasonable. Your opinion is not necessarily wrong. But it is based on your own personal beliefs, which beliefs may not be in accord with the facts on the ground, to include whether or not God is directing the Church, and whether the Church is following the principles that God has set forth. 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not object to accumulating reasonable wealth and assets.  A world wide organization such as the church needs such things. 

Again we have that word "reasonable". Different people may have different opinions as to what "reasonable" pertains to. 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Cash reserves of two to three times its annual operating expenses seems reasonable.  And that is not chump change. Investing in land and farms to generate good for the welfare program is very prudent.  Property for meeting houses and temples is needed. I even do not object to some other business and real estate revenue generating investments.  This is prudent in order to preserve and income flow since the most of the Church income is from donations.

And I appreciate and understand your position. But again, reasonability is a matter of opinion.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

  My opinion is a hundred billion or so stock portfolio (which I am well aware fluctuates up and down based on the stock market) is excessive and a large portion of that could be put to use in relieving human suffering.  Odd that those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ rail against this idea.

I don't rail against it at all. I merely disagree with your opinion, as it seems quite subjective, however objectively you try to paint it. In light of what I believe to be true, I don't feel your opinion is based on the facts of the matter, even if your opinion might be reasonable.

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be, and Russell M. Nelson is a true prophet of God, then perhaps your opinion, however reasonable it may seem to be, isn't as valid as you might believe.

And if you want to tell me that this is an appeal to authority, I shall shrug my shoulders apologetically and say that God is quite the authority. 

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe this will be a chance to test and see if I understand the criticism that Analytics and similar are levying against the church.

As I understand it, the basic principle is that it is good for a church to have a rainy day fund (only one type of asset, so I'm not necessarily talking about all the different types of assets the church has). However, a church should never forget that it is a church and not a rainy day fund grower, which is, apparently, a temptation many churches fall into when growing a rainy day fund. In short, having a rainy day fund is not a bad thing for a church, but there must be a balance between using the church's resources to grow the rainy day fund and using the church's resources to do churchy things.

To put numbers to this balance, most of the references @Analytics has provided on this topic in past discussions recommend that a church's rainy day fund should be no larger than 1 to 3 (maybe 5 at the outside) years worth of expenses. While no church is necessarily required to come to the same conclusion about that balance, this seems to be the consensus view of the experts that Analytics references. I expect that these experts generally are thinking of small 1 to 5 congregation Protestant type churches, but the basic principle should still apply to large, multinational churches, though the exact numeric balance between growing the rainy day fund and doing churchy things might change.

What is the LDS church's philosophy around growing a rainy day fund? The only statements I can find suggest that the LDS church believes that it should avoid debt and put a portion of its income/resources into a rainy day fund. I can't find anything that talks about what the church believes about this balance between using resources to grow a rainy day fund and using resources to do churchy things. I see nothing said about the temptation of growing an excessively large rainy day fund or how that can be a poor use of church resources. I do not know if this is because the church has thought about or received revelation on the topic and is not disclosing those ideas to the church and the world, or if it is because the church has not really even thought about it (apparently another pitfall in this is that some churches never think about how large their rainy day fund ought to be, they just grow it without considering when it is enough).

Since the church doesn't publish full financial records, we can only estimate. Most estimates that I see suggest that the church's current rainy day fund(s) represent 10 to 20 years worth of expenses (2 to 7 times the value given above). If the church were to give away 90% of its rainy day fund away, then its rainy day fund would represent something like 1 to 2 years worth of expenses -- much more in line with the guideline mentioned above.

I cannot speak for Analytics or others, but it seems to be that the basic principle that there is a proper balance between using church resources to grow a rainy day fund and using church resources to do churchy things is sound. I don't care whether or not the church reveals all of its financial records, but it seems to me that the church would do well to reveal its basic philosophy around accumulating wealth and what it believes is the proper balance between growing rainy day funds and doing other churchy things. at present, it seems that the church (or the body of believers) believes that whatever the church does is the proper balance (a sort of de facto infallibility regarding use of church resources). We've had lots of discussions about falliblity and infallibility and such, so how does it apply to church finances. Can the church make significant mistakes with its wealth that break fundamental principles that govern church resources? If the church can make mistakes, how does the church decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate and choose? How are we as the lay members supposed to understand what the church is doing?

Thanks for taking the time to lay that out. My problem is I happen to believe the vision by a non-church member called the Cardston Temple Vision. It wouldn't take much to throw the world into the Chaos spoken of in this vision. If that were to happen every resource we have will be needed. I've spoken of it here before and most people don't believe it.

Edited December 18, 2022 by rodheadlee

[gav]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Are you referring to me and insulting me? 

Not specifically no.

But maybe it is just the textual medium that makes there seem to be more than a few "chips on the shoulder" around here regarding the church, its history, its doctrines, its leaders, its activities etc. etc.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'll be happy regardless of what the Church does. 

I'm happy that you're happy! 😁

And your recommendations do have a lot to recommend them. Seriously. But only if the church were a secular or even a faith-based charitable organization. Which it is not. It is a church. Its ministry includes charitable giving, insofar as it is able, and does not work at cross-purposes with its primary mission, which is the salvation of mankind. Ultimately, that mission transcends temporal concerns.

I feel, by and large, that charitable works should be left to the members themselves. The Lord said (DC 58:27):

Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

I'm not saying that the Church shouldn't be doing charitable work. Just that this is not its primary mission. And if it were too engaged in such work, then it could detract from its members' obligation to be engaged in such work. As in "Let the Church do it."

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

My problem is I happen to believe the vision by a non-church member called the Cardston Temple Vision.

Yes, that's a problem. 😆

[MrShorty]

@rodheadlee I had not heard of the Cardston Temple Vision before. A quick search found a few copies of the letter. A very interesting vision. In short, because you believe this vision (others might believe in different millenarian or apocalyptic ideas). As you say, there is not universal acceptance of these kinds of apocalyptic beliefs. Some believe in a future millennium, but are unsure about when it will occur (citing apparent beliefs by St. Paul and other NT figures that Christ's return was imminent 2000 years ago).

As I said in my final paragraph, if a significant part of the church's reasons for growing such a large rainy day fund is a belief in some kind of imminent apocalypse, I would like to see it share that information with us. Why does the church believe in a future apocalypse? Why does the church believe that, after 2000 years of "any day now" beliefs, it really is imminent now? Imminence is important, I think, because if an apocalypse isn't imminent (even if the potential is there), then it could be argued that we ought to be using our resources to do churchy things now, and prepare for the apocalypse when it is truly imminent. It therefore seems to me that, if this kind of belief is motivating the church's strategy, there ought to be some kind of revelation suggesting that the apocalypse is imminent. As I said, I'm not interested in the detailed financial records, but I do see value in having the church explain why it believes accumulating wealth to this level is justified. If an imminent apocalypse is part of that reasoning, that seems like something the church could share.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/17/2022 at 1:20 PM, Analytics said:

I'll be happy regardless of what the Church does. 

As some background, my day job is helping insurance companies figure out how much money they need saved. Their savings includes a few different levels:

1. the reserves, which should be sufficient to keep the company going indefinitely under "moderately adverse conditions."
    
2. Required capital, which is the additional amount of money they need to have, just in case.
    
3. Target capital, which is additional padding above that, just in case.

My point is that I am in fact a professional at this and advise to people in the C-suites of insurance companies about these issues.

If I were advising the Church, I wouldn't recommend they "give away 90% of their assets and started over." 

What I would recommend they do is:

1. Come up with a plan to give away about 5% of the balance of their rainy day fund a year.
    
2. Comply with best practices of transparency so that the donating public tax payers (who are in fact subsidizing them) know what is going on and can make more informed decisions about donating and continuing tax-favored treatment.

I don't really have an opinion on that. I'd just point out that figuring out how to responsibly spend or give away, say, $6 billion a year, every year, into perpetuity, is an incredibly difficult problem. How they do that is outside my area of expertise. 

As a start, I'd suggest:

1. Make missions free.
2. Make BYU free.
3. Give a college scholarship to all members of the church, whether they are accepted to BYU or not.
4. Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?

If they gave away 5% a year wouldn't natural growth maintain the balance? You can probably tell I'm a carpenter. I did poorly in my finances but I can build one heck of a house.

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, that's a problem. 😆

I don't know it wouldn't take much to kick over the table.

[Teancum]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:57 PM, Stargazer said:

Again, and this time a CFR: does the New Testament (and specifically Jesus) teach us that wealth accumulation is condemnatory? Please give chapter and verse.

 

 

Luke 16:10-15

 

 

Quote

 

New International Version

 

 

¹⁰ “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. ¹¹ So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? ¹² And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

¹³ “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

¹⁴ The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. ¹⁵ He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

 

 

Quote

 

1 Timothy 6:17-18 

“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”

 

Quote

Matthew 19:21-26: "Jesus said to him, 'If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. ' When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

 

Quote

Luke 6:20-21 (NIV)

“Looking at his disciples, he said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh

Quote

Matthew 5:1-3
Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Quote

 

Matthew 25:29: “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” 

 

 

Do you want more?  Go read your Bible. And your Book of Mormon.

 

 

[Harry T. Clark]

The leaders are well-meaning men.  However, perhaps a change in direction as far as money matters is appropriate?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

 

 

Luke 16:10-15

 

 

 

 

 

Do you want more?  Go read your Bible. And your Book of Mormon.

 

 

The scriptures speak volumes.

Also, if it's so important to build temples for work for the dead, why not use the chapels when not in use?

[Tacenda]

Maybe the church could start here:

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-weather-winter-cold-temperatures-below-freezing-homeless-services-coordinator-wayne-niederhauser-overflow-beds#

[Stargazer]

On 12/19/2022 at 5:42 PM, Teancum said:

Luke 16:10-15

Do you want more?  Go read your Bible. And your Book of Mormon.

Thanks for fulfilling the CFR! I appreciate it! I don't often issue CFRs, but when I do, I rejoice in being responded to!  

Unfortunately, time is rather short for this, so I don't know when I'm going to be able to get back to you on it. My wife decided several months ago that we would spend the Christmas and New Year season traveling on coaches and staying in hotels. We leave tomorrow and will be gone for 12 days, in Belgium, Austria, Czechia, and the Netherlands.. She will not permit me to take my laptop, as this is to be a "disconnection" holiday. I'll have a phone and a tablet, but trying to post here (as verbose as I often am) would be very problematic.

May you have a Happy Christmas!