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

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I guess I'm a hoarder, too.

Same!

[gav]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

  5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I guess I'm a hoarder, too.

 

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same!

Blood of Israel? Or did Ephraim pick it up from Joseph and the seven years?

[smac97]

On 12/9/2022 at 1:14 PM, smac97 said:

Just saw this, posted a few hours ago:

Not that this will ever matter to the relentlessly fault-finding cynics/critics of the Church.  They'll always have their pre-packaged answer to whatever the Church does, which is that it's...

And that no matter what the Church does, it must do...

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Another:

Quote

Last month, the Church provided 74,000 fruit tree seedlings — including avocado, mango, lemon, orange and guava — for planting at schools, hospitals and homes of families in need at seven locations across the Dodoma region of central Tanzania. 

The region is an arid one, and the trees will also be used to beautify town squares and provide shade.

It is just the first portion of what will be 130,000 fruit tree seedlings that the Church will donate in the districts of Arusha — at the foot of Africa’s tallest peak Mount Kilimanjaro — and Dar es Salaam, the country’s largest business and population center, reported the Church’s Africa Newsroom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

On 12/11/2022 at 4:37 AM, Stargazer said:

I guess I'm a hoarder, too.

 

Perhaps, but let's make sure the situations are similar.

First, the Church is never going to retire. Into perpetuity, the Church will have income from tithing that is proportional to the strength of its membership. Second, the Church already has an obscene amount of money saved.

Trying to make the situation comparable for an individual, is your situation like the following?

1- You have an annuity with a AAA-rated insurance company that will pay you $200,000 a year, every year, until both you and your spouse pass away. The $200,000 annual payment is indexed for inflation.

2- In addition to the $200,000 annuity, you have an additional $4 million in savings for emergencies, such as needing to repair the furnace unexpectedly or whatever. That $4 million in savings provides an additional $200,000 a year in income.

3- You have no debt.

4- Of your $400,000 annual income, you set aside about $220,000 every year in additional savings, because you're not sure the $4 million next egg is big enough. You aren't saving with any particular goal in mind. You just want more money in the bank just in case.

5- You donate about $5,000 a year, or 1.25% of your total income, to charity. You'd like to give more and claim charitable giving is an important part of your identity, but you just can't afford it.

If that were your situation, then yes, I would accuse you of hoarding. If that were you, I'd commend you for giving away $5,000 a year, but when evaluating how much of a philanthropist you are, I'd compare your $5,000 in charity to the $220,000 you put into your already-obscenely large rainy-day fund. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Analytics

[Snodgrassian]

On 12/8/2022 at 11:53 AM, smac97 said:

I can't help but see that there are things notably not "{f}ound in the church's portfolio," namely, mansions / villas / dachas for the leaders of the Church to enjoy for themselves.

https://springhaven.byu.edu/

did this make the original list?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

https://springhaven.byu.edu/

did this make the original list?

If it is the place I am thinking of, it’s not just for leaders.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

If that were your situation, then yes, I would accuse you of hoarding.

Lest you think that your bold statement and perceptions have silenced me, let me respond to your potential accusation:

Go do something useful besides worrying about how other people manage their money.

[Snodgrassian]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is the place I am thinking of, it’s not just for leaders.

I was in the same ward as the son of the family who donated the property to BYU. It is an amazing place, and not available to the General Public. So yes, it is not just for leaders.  Our BYU ward booked it for an afternoon, but we were told that the only reason were able to get it when we did is because the guy in my ward (the donating family get priority). I know other wards and groups use it for activities and retreats. 

I was also told at the time from the family member that senior church leaders often used the property for family reunions, thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.. I guess I should try and and see if I can book it for a family event... 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

I was in the same ward as the son of the family who donated the property to BYU. It is an amazing place, and not available to the General Public. So yes, it is not just for leaders.  Our BYU ward booked it for an afternoon, but we were told that the only reason were able to get it when we did is because the guy in my ward (the donating family get priority). I know other wards and groups use it for activities and retreats. 

I was also told at the time from the family member that senior church leaders often used the property for family reunions, thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.. I guess I should try and and see if I can book it for a family event... 

Would be interesting to see if BYU employees could rent it. May ask my neighbor if I see him out shoveling snow. 

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is the place I am thinking of, it’s not just for leaders.

I went to a family reunion many moons ago here. My aunt and uncle, who was a professor at BYU were able to reserve it. There's another place my husband's family rented that belonged to the church in the mountains and now forgot where. Found this, and it's not open to the general public: https://springhaven.byu.edu/

Edited December 15, 2022 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

On 12/9/2022 at 10:20 AM, Stormin' Mormon said:

In other words, the Church's primary mission is to operate the Church.  

 

And amass wealth.  A lot of wealth. Treasuring up things on earth where moth and rot corrupts or something like that.

[Teancum]

On 12/9/2022 at 11:17 AM, smac97 said:

And again, the nature and beneficiaries and usages of that wealth need to be addressed.  Neither the Brethren nor anyone else are enriching themselves via the Church and its "wealth."  I find that to be a very significant consideration, worth far more of an assessment than "Sure."

This seems your favorite argument to excuse the massive wealth accumulation and it really is a canard.  So great.  The leaders are not living high on the hog. So what?  It still does not excuse the fact that the person whose church this church claims to be was rather anti wealth accumulation and pro using resources to relieve suffering. Even if the leaders are not amassing the wealth, which is commendable, the Church is.  Beyond what seems reasonable for its needs.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Teancum

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Lest you think that your bold statement and perceptions have silenced me, let me respond to your potential accusation:

Go do something useful besides worrying about how other people manage their money.

Sorry I didn’t reply sooner; I’ve been busy doing other things.

I wouldn’t say I worry about how other people spend their money, but I do think it is worthwhile to share an informed opinion about economics and tax policy.

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sorry I didn’t reply sooner; I’ve been busy doing other things.

I wouldn’t say I worry about how other people spend their money, but I do think it is worthwhile to share an informed opinion about economics and tax policy.

Of course we've all got other things going on. I sometimes go weeks without visiting this site. So I didn't know how long it would be before I came back. But here I am again, so...

How informed are you, anyway? I've seen an awful lot of people who don't seem to know as much as they think they know about economics and tax policy. People who, for instance, have never cracked a book on basic economics in their life. Who think ignorant things about economics, for example, like thinking that price controls make things easier for people to afford things. Or that taxing corporations somehow doesn't cause prices for goods and services to increase. 

Let me tell you what I believe would happen the minute the Church became totally transparent on its finances. Not one hour would go by before every meddling busybody activist on every channel of the dial would leap out crying "How dare you!" while posturing about how the Church's ox was goring their favorite horse, and demanding that President Nelson spend the Church's money in a hundred different ways than it currently does. Instead of all these busybody activists grumbling about transparency at a low-key level, the furor around it all would become deafening. And they'd be even less happy than they were before. There is absolutely nothing to gain, from the Church's standpoint, in going transparent.

 

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course we've all got other things going on. I sometimes go weeks without visiting this site. So I didn't know how long it would be before I came back. But here I am again, so...

How informed are you, anyway? I've seen an awful lot of people who don't seem to know as much as they think they know about economics and tax policy. People who, for instance, have never cracked a book on basic economics in their life. Who think ignorant things about economics, for example, like thinking that price controls make things easier for people to afford things. Or that taxing corporations somehow doesn't cause prices for goods and services to increase. 

Let me tell you what I believe would happen the minute the Church became totally transparent on its finances. Not one hour would go by before every meddling busybody activist on every channel of the dial would leap out crying "How dare you!" while posturing about how the Church's ox was goring their favorite horse, and demanding that President Nelson spend the Church's money in a hundred different ways than it currently does. Instead of all these busybody activists grumbling about transparency at a low-key level, the furor around it all would become deafening. And they'd be even less happy than they were before. There is absolutely nothing to gain, from the Church's standpoint, in going transparent.

 

Exactly, the church has way more than what's in the Ensign account. I think those like you and others would be shocked to know. But so be it.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

... the person whose church this church claims to be was rather anti wealth accumulation and using resources to relieve suffering.

Bingo!

Imo money is power to do good, and ought to be used that way.    

Whether you're a believer or an atheist or a religion, you don't get to take it with you!  Might as well use your power for good while you're here. 

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Exactly, the church has way more than what's in the Ensign account. I think those like you and others would be shocked to know. But so be it.

My wife is a millionaire. Some people might be shocked at that, given our modest lifestyle. 

As it turns out in my wife's case, her wealth is in two paid-in-full houses that are more a source of expense than anything else. It is very likely that the Church's wealth is similarly in non-liquid property, meaning not easily converted to cash. Consider how many meetinghouses the church owns. They're all paid-in-full, and each worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. Wow, super rich, right? Well, not really. The church can't really sell them, because if they did, where would their congregations meet? Even if nobody's using them at this time, who's going to buy them? Even worse when it comes to temples. The larger the property and the more specialized, the harder it is to sell. 

As for the church, I don't think I would be shocked. I actually hope the Church has LOTS of wealth. The time will come when it will definitely need it.

Better to be prepared and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

How informed are you, anyway?

Interesting question. Let's just say that I've recently worked as an expert witness in a billion dollar dispute in an arbitration between two large corporations on an issue that isn't completely unrelated to this. I've spent a lot of time discussing my qualifications, and don't feel like doing that here.

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Let me tell you what I believe would happen the minute the Church became totally transparent on its finances. Not one hour would go by before every meddling busybody activist on every channel of the dial would leap out crying "How dare you!" while posturing about how the Church's ox was goring their favorite horse, and demanding that President Nelson spend the Church's money in a hundred different ways than it currently does. Instead of all these busybody activists grumbling about transparency at a low-key level, the furor around it all would become deafening. And they'd be even less happy than they were before. There is absolutely nothing to gain, from the Church's standpoint, in going transparent.

If the Church were transparent, at a bare minimum it would be able to look its membership in the eyes and say it was following best financial practices for churches and non-profits.

Would everybody be 100% on board with how the Church runs itself? No. But members would have the opportunity to be more informed about what they are donating their money to, and they would be able to weigh whether the Church's rainy day fund needs the money more than their own rainy day fund. Is the Church hiding its finances from critics, or is it hiding its finances from its members? I have a feeling it's the latter because they care about the members much more than they care about the critics.

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Interesting question. Let's just say that I've recently worked as an expert witness in a billion dollar dispute in an arbitration between two large corporations on an issue that isn't completely unrelated to this. I've spent a lot of time discussing my qualifications, and don't feel like doing that here.

Okay! I wasn't expecting a statement of qualifications in any case. It was a rhetorical question.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If the Church were transparent, at a bare minimum it would be able to look its membership in the eyes and say it was following best financial practices for churches and non-profits.

Are you saying that when it does say this, it is looking off to the other side of the room nervously?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Would everybody be 100% on board with how the Church runs itself? No. But members would have the opportunity to be more informed about what they are donating their money to, and they would be able to weigh whether the Church's rainy day fund needs the money more than their own rainy day fund. Is the Church hiding its finances from critics, or is it hiding its finances from its members? I have a feeling it's the latter because they care about the members much more than they care about the critics.

I disagree.  I have a feeling that they care more about the critics' reactions than they care about the members'. And that they have valid concerns about those critics' reactions.

Ultimately, some of the worst critics are members and former members. The church cannot be open totally to the members without being open totally to the critics. As I'm sure you know. 

Unlike you, I have a firm testimony that the Church is being guided not only by sound financial principles, but by inspiration from God through the Holy Ghost. I trust the Church, generally, like I trust God. I expect that mistakes will be made, as despite all the inspiration in the world, we are all fallible humans. And as it turns out, as a general matter their mistakes will impact me only minimally, if at all. So I don't worry all that much about it.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Stargazer

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And again, the nature and beneficiaries and usages of that wealth need to be addressed.  Neither the Brethren nor anyone else are enriching themselves via the Church and its "wealth."  I find that to be a very significant consideration, worth far more of an assessment than "Sure."

This seems your favorite argument to excuse the massive wealth accumulation

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

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

and it really is a canard. 

It is not.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So great.  The leaders are not living high on the hog. So what? 

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:

Quote

Questions persist inside and outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about the $100 billion reserve the faith has amassed in an investment account.

In this week’s “Mormon Land” podcast, historian D. Michael Quinn says the church’s reserves are actually much steeper than has been reported. But, he adds, so are its expenses, especially in supporting its global presence.

Quinn, a scholar who has done the deepest dive to date into the history of Latter-day Saint finances — his 2017 book, “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” remains the definitive volume on the subject — discusses the issue.

Listen here.

It's a good interview.

See also here:

Quote

The Presiding Bishopric said a large reserve is necessary, specifically citing as reasons the church’s expansion into countries in which congregations are not self-sustaining, the construction of 50 more temples and the growing cost of providing educational opportunities for more and more students. The church is educating 880,500 students through its seminary and institutes program, universities and Pathway program.

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:

Quote

In fact, Bishop Caussé added, humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years.

“And we believe they are going to increase fast,” he said.

Critics generally disregard stuff like this.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

It still does not excuse the fact

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

Just so we're clear.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

that the person whose church this church claims to be was rather anti wealth accumulation

"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."

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost $3.1 billion on investments as U.S. stock markets swooned this year.

New reports filed with federal regulators put a massive church account managed by the faith’s investment arm, Salt Lake City-based Ensign Peak Advisors, at $49.2 billion for the first quarter, down 6% from the close of 2021, when the fund reached a two-year high of $52.3 billion.

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

Quote

The decline is the second largest quarterly decrease for Ensign Peak’s immense portfolio of stocks and bonds managed for the Utah-based church since a pandemic plunge of $8 billion in early 2020, which temporarily put the fund below $30 billion.

A loss of $8 billion in early 2020.

Quote

The account has gained $19.3 billion since then and is now nearly 64.8% ahead of its early-coronavirus low point, the latest report shows. In the only other quarter that Ensign Peak saw its value sag, the third quarter of 2021, it fell by $1.6 billion, or 3.2%.

A loss of $1.6 billion in Q3 2021.

Quote

The fund has diversified its portfolio significantly since then, expanding a list of investments from 1,622 different stocks, mutual funds and other holdings in late 2019 to spreading its money over 2,210 positions as of last quarter.

Still, more than half the account’s total value is held in 44 stocks and mutual funds — a mix heavy with blue-chip technology companies, financials, energy and health care stocks along with consumer retail favorites such as Procter & Gamble, Walmart and Home Depot.

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.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

and using resources to relieve suffering.

John 12 comes to mind:

Quote

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

So too does Matthew 25:

Quote

14 ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And Jacob 2:

Quote

11 Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee unto this people.
12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.
13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.
14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.
15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!
16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!
17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.
18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them 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.

And Genesis 41:

Quote

25 ¶ And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.
26 The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.
27 And the seven thin and ill favoured kine that came up after them are seven years; and the seven empty ears blasted with the east wind shall be seven years of famine.
28 This is the thing which I have spoken unto Pharaoh: What God is about to do he sheweth unto Pharaoh.
29 Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt:
30 And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine shall consume the land;
31 And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous.
32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.
33 Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt.
34 Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
35 And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.
36 And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine.

See also these remarks Bishop Waddell:

Quote

“When we talk about preparing for the Second Coming, that doesn’t mean we’re hoarding money so that we have it when the Second Coming takes place,” Bishop Waddell said. “In preparing for the Second Coming, we’re talking about building temples and providing places of worship and temples where people can receive sacred and exalting ordinances so we can gather Israel, we can do the missionary work in preparation for that day. And so, when we talk about preparing for it, that means all the work that’s going on now.”

That work could be jeopardized by an economic disaster like the Great Depression, he said.

“There will come a time when all of these resources, reserves, will be necessary,” he said. “We don’t know when, we don’t know exactly in what form, but you think of the (Bible story of the) seven fat years and the seven lean years, there’s so many examples in the scriptures that we strive to follow, whether it’s the parable of the talents and not to bury the talent. We saw what the Lord did to that individual. We want to be ready for any contingency.”

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: 

Quote

USU’s Mason said investing in land fits the church’s conservative buy-and-hold values in protecting its investments — born of the church’s financial difficulties in the 1950s and ‘60s.

“I know nothing about real estate development, except that they aren’t making any more land,” he said. “This seems very much like they are planning. They’re not just thinking about next year or five years from now. They’re thinking about 50 years from now.”

"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.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Even if the leaders are not amassing the wealth, which is commendable, that Church is.  Beyond what seems reasonable for its needs.

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

Edited December 16, 2022 by smac97

[Teancum]

43 minutes 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," but 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.

Of course.  But I do use part my resources for the poor these days.  And more goes to those in need than when the Church took up most of my discretionary charitable contributions.  I have said many times I think the Church leadership is wise and prudent to have reserve funds, invest in land etc.  A modern world requires a large institution to prepare for such things.  But amassing probably 500 billion or so of wealth IMO is excessive for a church that claims to be Jesus's church.  I have more comment that I will give on your recent post in response to my post.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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," but 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.

Of course.  But I do use part my resources for the poor these days. 

I'm glad to hear it.

I would be less glad to hear that self-appointed faultfinders who are predisposed to dislike you are presuming to adjudicate your efforts "for the poor" and endlessly faulting you for not doing "more."

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And more goes to those in need than when the Church took up most of my discretionary charitable contributions. 

A very subjective value judgment, that.

Again, the Brethren are not getting rich off the Church.  Nobody is.  The Church's resources and expenditures are almost entirely devoted to helping "those in need" by providing religious instruction, educational resources, food and commodities, philanthropic and humanitarian efforts, and so on.

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have said many times I think the Church leadership is wise and prudent to have reserve funds, invest in land etc.  A modern world requires a large institution to prepare for such things.  But amassing probably 500 billion or so of wealth IMO is excessive for a church that claims to be Jesus's church.  

CFR regarding "amassing probably 500 billion."  That's a new one for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 The Church's resources and expenditures are almost entirely devoted to helping "those in need" by providing religious instruction, educational resources, food and commodities, philanthropic and humanitarian efforts, and so on.

 

That is factually untrue. The Church spends more of its total income on increasing the size of its for-profit portfolio of assets than on all of those things. Combined.

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church's resources and expenditures are almost entirely devoted to helping "those in need" by providing religious instruction, educational resources, food and commodities, philanthropic and humanitarian efforts, and so on.

That is factually untrue.

It is factually quite true.  See my comments above about the Church thinking about - and planning and preparing for - "50 years from now."  

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Church spends more of its total income on increasing the size of its for-profit portfolio of assets than on all of those things. Combined.

Meh.  Yours is an unserious, even fatuous, position.

The Church is not building a portfolio for the sake of building a portfolio.

The Church is not building a portfolio for the sake of enriching the Brethren or anyone else.

The Church is building a portfolio so that it continue to do "50 years from now" what it is doing today: helping "those in need" by providing religious instruction, educational resources, food and commodities, philanthropic and humanitarian efforts, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2022 by smac97

[Pyreaux]

I think Analytics' Parable of the Hoarding Retiree is flawed; we're speaking of a retiree that is an aging immortal whose ability to earn is constantly threatened by jealous parties with no consideration for longevity. With their right hand they decry his wealth, while with their left hand actively seek to stop his ability to earn anything for retirement. So, its really fake outrage. But since those of us who really love and care about him know he is like a rough stone rolling destined to crush the kingdoms of the earth, in that case how much is enough to retire on then?

Also, those paying him have conditions for how it is spent. So, we can't rob Peter to pay Paul, if there is a billion in one fund, there is no co-mingling of funds like how the irresponsible US does it, it cannot be raided for other purposes, even for the Fast Offering Fund. That's the good part of how the Church manages its money, if you all really cared about the poor, then give to the Fast Offering Fund. I'd be hard pressed to find a better place to give, since every dime you give to a church fund will only go to that fund's purpose, and to claim they are hoarding it is hollow since we all know we feed all who come to our door.

Though, whenever I see complaints about billions in responsibly utilized or invested assets, I don't think it's very much at all, I see a long game perhaps you can't fathom. For it's not for the Millenia, it's for the Tribulation. I half expect the White Horse Prophecy to come to pass, how much does it take to save/take over a nation the size of the US when it collapses do you figure? 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Pyreaux