Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Putting the Church’s “Rainy Day Fund” In Perspective


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And when, exactly, is this New Jerusalem scheduled to be built? Before or after the calamaties allegedly foretold by sacred texts?

With due respect, that's a false dichotomy.  There is another possibility that you are overlooking.  Everything I have read about the Second Coming, about events preceding it, and about events that will follow it convinces me that the New Jerusalem will be established as these calamities are occurring, preparatory to Christ's coming in glory.  Christ's coming will occur just as what is perhaps the largest of those calamities, Old Jerusalem's near collapse at the hands of her enemies, is about to occur [in all cases, emphasis mine].

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

... (I)f you guys could put a dollar value on the value of the time the members give serving others, what would the number be? Does the Church get credit for inspiring such giving?

Excellent question!

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Yes, I know you don't believe it - that's why I spelled out the two differing camps. Based on the fact that you do not accept the teachings of the LDS faith (and perhaps still would question the Brethren's motives even if you were a believer), the fact that you do not know what the future may bring severely handicaps your conclusions.  Speculation based on good thinking on Analytic's part and absent any belief about the 2nd Coming? Sure. It's good food for thought

Perhaps I should be more clear - I know quite well the Church's doctrines, scriptures, and teachings on the Second Coming. I am saying that there is no evidence that the Brethren have any special insight beyond what all the rest of us were studying from the time we were in Primary through to Gospel Doctrine (which I used to teach, by the way).

52 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

The alleviation of suffering of individuals is an individual matter. The Church membership does that extensively on an individual level. They do it because they are motivated by the truths that they have learned as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When there is a so-called immediate need, as you put it, the institutional Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the first organizations to jump into action. Ask anybody in Haiti, or any other country or State hit by a natural disaster. One of the brothers in my ward recently commented in priesthood meeting of an experience he had with the coordinators of a relief effort that the two organizations that are provided the most help were the Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

if you guys could put a dollar value on the value of the time the members give serving others, what would the number be? Does the Church get credit for inspiring such giving?

Who's saying there is no value in those things the Church does? I'm certainly not. We are arguing over degrees not a 1 or zero. Both Analytics and me are suggesting there is a great deal more the Church could be doing. You seem to be satisfied with the status quo.

51 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I would refer you to Alma and his response to Zeezrom when  Zeezrom demanded to know things that he hadn’t put the time or effort in to discovering.

How do you know I haven't put in the time or effort? I was trying to elicit your interpretation of the text.

49 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I reject your characterization that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preparing for the Second Coming amounts to "sitting on [its] wealth."  It's building temples; and chapels; and other facilities; and operating them; and so on. 

And the Church of Jesus Christ can "walk and chew gum at the same time" by alleviating temporal suffering, while, at the same time, seeing to the spiritual needs of its members and of others through attending to other prongs of its mission, such as perfecting the Saints, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and redeeming the dead. 

Again, I refer you to the passage I quoted earlier from King Benjamin's address in Mosiah 4: "See that all these things are done in wisdom and order."

As I said above, this is a discussion of degrees, not one or the other.

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, that's a false dichotomy.  There is another possibility that you are overlooking.  Everything I have read about the Second Coming, about events preceding it, and about events that will follow it convinces me that the New Jerusalem will be established as these calamities are occurring, preparatory to Christ's coming in glory.  Christ's coming will occur just as what is perhaps the largest of those calamities, Old Jerusalem's near collapse at the hands of her enemies, is about to occur [in all cases, emphasis mine].

And, do you think Apple and Tesla stock will be holding their value as the days get close? Should we look to Ensign Peak to look for signs of the Second Coming as they divest themselves of investments that will lose value as those days approach? The prophets don't seem to be saying much.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yep.  You lose me with your (seemingly still unexamined) assumption that owing billions of dollars worth of productive farmland stopped maximizing everyone's utility x number of billions ago, and the church needs to stop "hoarding" that productive farmland, by selling it to someone else that will use it to grow food in a way that somehow isn't considered hoarding by you. 

Whether owning farmland is hoarding depends upon the nature of the organization. As another entity to put this in perspective, consider the largest family-owned business in the U.S.: Cargill. Cargill has a staggering $165 billion dollars of annual revenue and 155,000 employees. 

If I was going to be envious of anybody, I'd be envious of the Cargill family. Be born into that family, and your share of the pie is a passive income starting at birth on the order of a hundred million a year.

Anyway, if the Church wants to be the next Cargill, they should knock themselves out. But if this is what they see their mission is, members shouldn't be offended when the Church is called a massive real estate investment trust that happens to have a religious operation on the side. Nor should they object to being taxed that way.

I really don't have a problem with anybody wanting to get rich or build business empires. But growing a mega business for the sake of growing a mega business is different than having a prudent rainy-day fund to support a Church's religious mission.

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Or the equally-seemingly still unexamined assumption, that owning stocks in profit-producing entities that answer to their stockholders also doesn't maximize anyone's utility, so the church should sell X billions of stock to someone else that will buy it and own it in a way that somehow isn't considered hoarding by you.

Are you conceding that accumulating assets is one of the primary missions of the Church? Does the Church using its money to purchase shares of United Health Group and profit off of the chronic illness of the country do as much good as using its money for charitable purposes? I don't see how.

The claim that owning stocks does as much good in the world as giving resources to charity sounds like something Scrooge would say.

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

*shrug*.  I don't believe you.  I don't believe you know they don't have a vision.  I don't believe that you know what primarily fills their heads.  You are bright, knowledgeable about macroeconomics and economic theory, apparently experienced in such things, and yet you continue to fail to persuade me that you have anything beyond a guess at what my church's leaders are thinking.

I may or may not have a personal friend who meets with the presiding bishopric multiple times a week to discuss these things. He may or may not have told me what they grapple with.

You probably think I'm completely making up what I'm insinuating here. I'm counting on that. I'm happy you don't believe me.

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

For all you know, they're preparing for the day that soon cometh when tribulations rain down on humanity, and the church will be one of the only entities out there producing food to sustain humanity...

Why would the farmland stop producing food if it were owned by somebody other than the Church? 

And if the Church's mission is to take over the world's food supply in order to make it more reliable, then why not tell the world about that? Why keep it secret?

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
3 hours ago, provoman said:

My personal opinion, no one except God / Christ has the permission to speak on what the fund is for. Everything is like claiming the Word Of Wisdom is tanic acid and/or caffeine.

For those that follow the Bible, accumulation of wealth for the Kingdom, in my opinion is supported by Christ.

He spoke of 3 servants that were each given a sum of money, two doubled what they were given, and were praised. The third  buried it until the Master returned.

That parable was not meant to be about money it it was a simple way for Jesus to explain what we should be doing with the talents and gifts we have been given.
But I agree if the money the Church accumulates is being used to further the work of God then I am sure He approves. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, manol said:

I have never heard the Parable of the Talents interpreted by any church, let alone the LDS Church, as an instruction to pursue the accumulation of wealth. 

Let me suggest a possible alternative interpretation: 

Three servants were each given something of value, two doubled what they were given, and were praised.  The third buried it until the Master returned.  If the Master is Jesus, then the "something of value" may well be "truth", as apparently Jesus considered truths to be of great value, and spent quite a bit of time and energy teaching truths. 

I think the Parable of the Talents is an instruction to seek that which is of great value - truth - rather than an instruction to accumulate earthly wealth.  And the fearful servant who was afraid of displeasing his Master by taking the truths he had been given out into the marketplace of ideas and being open to adding even more truths to them... well. 

But I could be wrong. 

Personally I have no problem with a church accumulating wealth "sufficient for their needs", and concede that what constitutes "sufficient for their needs" is debatable.  Money is a power to do good, and imo should be used for that purpose, and honest and sincere people can differ on how best to go about doing so. 

 

That is a neat interpretation

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

It is likely that the New Jerusalem will require extensive infrastructure expenditures which may have to be financed in part by the currency of the foreigners, i.e. those not living in the New Jerusalem. We probably ought to have a few trillion in reserves! 

I have to say, I never ever thought that Christ would need money for anything to accomplish His goals.  Just never occurred to me. What I did think is that if Christ, or the Church for that matter, needed money for any critical reason, couldn't Christ just tell Church leaders where vast gold reserves are at?  Or couldn't he cause the gold to rise to the surface?  If not gold, than whatever was needed to accomplish His goals.  

This whole idea that Christ is relying on the Church as a financial backer of His second coming is a new concept for me to think about.  I actually, like others, can't see how a stock portfolio will help when the second coming starts.  I don't see it as a peaceful transition.  And well, the market never responds to uncertainty well.  Look how much the market has dropped just based on inflation and fear of recession.  Those worries about corporate survival seem pretty trivial compared to what is prophesied about the second coming.

I personally don't really care about the amount of wealth the Church has and continues to build up.  I just wish they were a bit more honest about it and let people decide for themselves if they want to be a member of a Church who is focused on a stock portfolio rather than humanitarian goals.  Maybe full disclosure before baptism is needed?  Let people know what they are getting into?

Link to comment
On 1/12/2023 at 3:53 PM, Analytics said:

 

. If Northwestern Mutual, one of the largest and most admired and most financially secure companies in the world only needs a rainy-day fund of $37 billion to ensure its ability to fulfill trillions of dollars in contractual obligations to nearly 5 million policyholders,

not for an argument, it is just mere curiosity; how does billions, cover trillions?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps I should be more clear - I know quite well the Church's doctrines, scriptures, and teachings on the Second Coming. I am saying that there is no evidence that the Brethren have any special insight beyond what all the rest of us were studying from the time we were in Primary through to Gospel Doctrine (which I used to teach, by the way).

I haven't questioned your knowledge regards to LDS beliefs. You should know just as well as anyone else that many times the lay population is not aware of how much (or little) the Brethren know about any particular topic and especially when it involves something as profound as the 2nd Coming. That there is no 'evidence' as to how much the Brethren know should be cause to moderate one's self-professed - without evidence - assuredness that they know virtually nothing. Were this enterprise just like countless other large corporations I would be much more sympathetic to Analytic's case. That he and you are unwilling to grant the one difference that makes the difference appears to be a massive blind spot on both your parts. His case is all good science were we not talking about the one corporation tasked with usuring in the return of the Lord. That's massive. Your disbelief of such things is irrelevant. 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I haven't questioned your knowledge regards to LDS beliefs. You should know just as well as anyone else that many times the lay population is not aware of how much (or little) the Brethren know about any particular topic and especially when it involves something as profound as the 2nd Coming. That there is no 'evidence' as to how much the Brethren know should be cause to moderate one's self-professed - without evidence - assuredness that they know virtually nothing. Were this enterprise just like countless other large corporations I would be much more sympathetic to Analytic's case. That he and you are unwilling to grant the one difference that makes the difference appears to be a massive blind spot on both your parts. His case is all good science were we not talking about the one corporation tasked with usuring in the return of the Lord. That's massive. Your disbelief of such things is irrelevant. 

It's not a blind spot. It's just that I don't put any blind faith in the Brethren. You are welcome to do that all you want. But, resorting to that argument is a tacit admission that the analysis and comparison do reveal a potential problem. You won't, or can't, address the substance of the analysis so you fall back on your faith. I would have done the same years ago. It's fine if you wish to do so, but don't be offended when someone like me doesn't find that the least bit convincing.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Analytics said:

it really isn't that large.

A $1.2 trillion fund "isn't that large."

On 1/12/2023 at 3:53 PM, Analytics said:

the Church’s “rainy day fund” is somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion ....  the Church’s rainy-day fund being obscene.

And the church's $100-$200 billion fund is "obscene". 

The bias is ridiculous.

Edited by helix
Link to comment
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have to say, I never ever thought that Christ would need money for anything to accomplish His goals.  Just never occurred to me. What I did think is that if Christ, or the Church for that matter, needed money for any critical reason, couldn't Christ just tell Church leaders where vast gold reserves are at?  Or couldn't he cause the gold to rise to the surface?  If not gold, than whatever was needed to accomplish His goals.  

This whole idea that Christ is relying on the Church as a financial backer of His second coming is a new concept for me to think about.  I actually, like others, can't see how a stock portfolio will help when the second coming starts.  I don't see it as a peaceful transition.  And well, the market never responds to uncertainty well.  Look how much the market has dropped just based on inflation and fear of recession.  Those worries about corporate survival seem pretty trivial compared to what is prophesied about the second coming.

I personally don't really care about the amount of wealth the Church has and continues to build up.  I just wish they were a bit more honest about it and let people decide for themselves if they want to be a member of a Church who is focused on a stock portfolio rather than humanitarian goals.  Maybe full disclosure before baptism is needed?  Let people know what they are getting into?

New Jerusalem will have been established already by the time of Christ's Second Advent.  And yes, the Church of Jesus Christ will need resources to do that.  And as for Christ simply "showing Church leaders where the gold is," where, in your reading of the Doctrine and Covenants, did you get the idea that that's how God works with His servants?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well, that's all well and good, but preparing how? At what point does the preparation, in the form of sitting on so much wealth, get surpassed by the immediate need to alleviate the suffering of individuals?

There were probably individuals suffering while Joseph gathered and stored, yea even "hoarded" grain for 7 years, we know how that turned out...

Edited by gav
Link to comment
13 hours ago, ttribe said:

To my knowledge there has been no public statement as to intent of use for the "rainy day fund" other than vague generalities.

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

And, do you think Apple and Tesla stock will be holding their value as the days get close? Should we look to Ensign Peak to look for signs of the Second Coming as they divest themselves of investments that will lose value as those days approach? The prophets don't seem to be saying much.

 

The prophets have said a lot... and been right on the money (pun intended).

Here is one set of examples that also specifically uses the term "Rainy Day"... There were and still are specifics for those paying attention.

 

Here is more that has been said regarding "saving for a rainy day". It is quite a common prophetic theme at general conference and in official publications.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&page=1&query=save for a rainy day

 

Edited by gav
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Anyway, if the Church wants to be the next Cargill, they should knock themselves out. But if this is what they see their mission is, members shouldn't be offended when the Church is called a massive real estate investment trust that happens to have a religious operation on the side. Nor should they object to being taxed that way.

I really don't have a problem with anybody wanting to get rich or build business empires. But growing a mega business for the sake of growing a mega business is different than having a prudent rainy-day fund to support a Church's religious mission.

Are you conceding that accumulating assets is one of the primary missions of the Church? Does the Church using its money to purchase shares of United Health Group and profit off of the chronic illness of the country do as much good as using its money for charitable purposes? I don't see how.

The claim that owning stocks does as much good in the world as giving resources to charity sounds like something Scrooge would say.

I may or may not have a personal friend who meets with the presiding bishopric multiple times a week to discuss these things. He may or may not have told me what they grapple with.

You probably think I'm completely making up what I'm insinuating here. I'm counting on that. I'm happy you don't believe me.

Why would the farmland stop producing food if it were owned by somebody other than the Church? 

And if the Church's mission is to take over the world's food supply in order to make it more reliable, then why not tell the world about that? Why keep it secret?

What kind of criticism do you think could have been leveled at Joseph in Egypt during his "hoarding" spree? Would these you and others level not be of a similar ilk? Whether historical or fictional we do have a scriptural precedent.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Were this enterprise just like countless other large corporations I would be much more sympathetic to Analytic's case. That he and you are unwilling to grant the one difference that makes the difference appears to be a massive blind spot on both your parts. His case is all good science were we not talking about the one corporation tasked with usuring in the return of the Lord. That's massive. Your disbelief of such things is irrelevant. 

Agreed.

Analytics's comparison, although seemingly well thought out and articulated, is still not apples to apples and yet it seems nobody is allowed to question that. Indeed it is frequently asserted along the lines below and the core assumptions are not interrogated.

11 hours ago, ttribe said:

As I've alluded to before - The analysis in this thread is sound and the conclusions reasonable based on the verifiable facts and the basis of the assumptions. If you want to argue in favor of faith, that's fine, but just know it has no basis in empirical evidence.

Edited by gav
Link to comment
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

It's not a blind spot. It's just that I don't put any blind faith in the Brethren. You are welcome to do that all you want. But, resorting to that argument is a tacit admission that the analysis and comparison do reveal a potential problem. You won't, or can't, address the substance of the analysis so you fall back on your faith. I would have done the same years ago. It's fine if you wish to do so, but don't be offended when someone like me doesn't find that the least bit convincing.

Well, I guess we'd have to get into a conversation about the difference between faith and blind faith though I know you believe you get mileage on leveling the blind faith accusation against people like me. ; ) Boy, it's a good thing you've evolved from "years ago"! ;o And yes, absent this belief about the 2nd Coming (translation: blind faith in your language), there may well be a potential problem. In fact, a more thorough vetting of these issues (assuming the Brethren haven't already done so) may well encourage them to reconsider their course of action. Who knows? I do know who I wouldn't pick to present them with this information though! And no, there is no offense taken when someone like you doesn't find my position the least bit convincing. Similarly, please don't be offended when someone like me doesn't find yours to be. ; )

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, gav said:

Agreed. Analytics's comparison, although seemingly well thought out and articulated, is still not apples to apples and yet it seems nobody is allowed to question that. Indeed it is frequently asserted along the lines below and the core assumptions are not interrogated.

Yes, that it's not apples to apples is the irreconcilable aspect I refer to. When I do understand what he is saying (admittedly it isn't frequent enough!), I find it to be invigorating until the suggestion (though perhaps not said outright) the Brethren are hoarding money for the sake of hoarding it alone. There is an undercurrent (if not right on the surface!) of moral judgement there that I find distasteful. And yes, the biggest core assumption on their part is arguing against the folly of believing there is a 2nd Coming. While I don't begrudge anyone for not believing, in order to have a more productive conversation there has to be some concession beyond something like the patronizing and even insulting "Well, I used to have blind faith years ago like you do" kind of diattribe. ; )

Link to comment
On 1/12/2023 at 5:23 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personally, I would be thrilled for the Church to have $200 trillion. I want there to be no material limits or restrictions whatsoever on what we can accomplish.

That would be around half the wealth on the planet. It is an absurd amount for anyone or any organization to have and would probably be a liability to the church’s mission.

Link to comment

After the second coming of Christ there is  still going to be commerce and business. Even if 9:10 of the population gets killed in the Great Tribulation that still leaves a billion people. We are going to live here for 1000 years before the earth becomes a Celestial Kingdom. 

Somebody said Jesus could just pull gold up out of the land well I think he would need to own the land or the church would. They would ust accuse him of stealing otherwise.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

After the second coming of Christ there is  still going to be commerce and business. Even if 9:10 of the population gets killed in the Great Tribulation that still leaves a billion people. We are going to live here for 1000 years before the earth becomes a Celestial Kingdom. 

Somebody said Jesus could just pull gold up out of the land well I think he would need to own the land or the church would. They would ust accuse him of stealing otherwise.

I don't know that there will be commerce and business.

You think when God reigns as king of the Earth people are going to accuse Him of violating their mineral rights. And why assume gold will still have value? We are supposed to pave the streets with it so our cars will all become death traps trying to get traction on the gold roads as was prophesied.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...