The Moral Hazard of Institutions and What We Can Do

Teancum · May 25, 2023

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

One needs some mechanism for differentiating moral from immoral, right from wrong, etc.

I agree.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would think you know where I stand on this.

I do to some extent but I still think it creates a dilemma. There are many that think they have morals based on some god they follow that conflicts with the morals of others who thing their god is directing their morals.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

And Joseph Smith didn't just say "Trust me." Moroni's Promise and other concepts pertaining to personal revelation are in play.

When Joseph Smith was alive it did not go well for those who openly opposed him did it? The happiness letter takes a position that whatever God says it correct even if what God says now conflicts with what God said in the past. Unless God speaks directly to me or you we in the main are relying on those who claim to speak for God. So one needs to trust them. We can discuss the ways one can come to trust that what they say is from God but yes you do have to trust them.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Stormin' Mormon · May 25, 2023

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I concede that it can he difficult but not impossible. There are a lot of bright people managing things for the church. It seem to me if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it.

Absolutely the Church could be deploying more of its resources for humanitarian purposes, but is that the responsible thing to do? Would it be responsible to donate more funds to a charity than they have the infrastructure to utilize in a given year? Would it be responsible to give to an organization that can only convert 10% of donations into actual real world outcomes? Would it be responsible to build our own humanitarian infrastructure when that infrastructure has already been built by half a dozen or more other responsible organizations?

This isn't a moral issue about hoarding funds, but an economic issue about diminishing returns. Up to a point, the Church's giving (and partnering with vetted, responsible organizations like Catholic Charities) will return a nearly 1-to-1 ratio of donations-to-Good-put-back-in-the-world. But at some point, additional dollars are only gonna generate $0.90 of Good, or $0.75, or $0.20.

In my opinion, the responsible way for the Church to put more Good back into the world, is to seek out partnerships with existing organizations who effectively use their donations and have built up their own humanitarian infrastructure, and help them to grow their capacity (so that in future years they are capable of receiving more donations from the Church). Those endeavors take time, and during that time excess funds can either be spent (with a lesser rate of return on Good), or saved up in anticipation of the day when the partnerships are in place and ready to receive more.

Or we could go it alone, which, in your own words would be "difficult but not impossible." In economics "difficult but not impossible" is just another way of saying "expensive and inefficient"

Edited May 25, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

Teancum · May 25, 2023

20 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Absolutely the Church could be deploying more of its resources for humanitarian purposes, but is that the responsible thing to do? Would it be responsible to donate more funds to a charity than they have the infrastructure to utilize in a given year? Would it be responsible to give to an organization that can only convert 10% of donations into actual real world outcomes? Would it be responsible to build our own humanitarian infrastructure when that infrastructure has already been built by half a dozen or more other responsible organizations?

This isn't a moral issue about hoarding funds, but an economic issue about diminishing returns. Up to a point, the Church's giving (and partnering with vetted, responsible organizations like Catholic Charities) will return a nearly 1-to-1 ratio of donations-to-Good-put-back-in-the-world. But at some point, additional dollars are only gonna generate $0.90 of Good, or $0.75, or $0.20.

In my opinion, the responsible way for the Church to put more Good back into the world, is to seek out partnerships with existing organizations who effectively use their donations and have built up their own humanitarian infrastructure, and help them to grow their capacity (so that in future years they are capable of receiving more donations from the Church). Those endeavors take time, and during that time excess funds can either be spent (with a lesser rate of return on Good), or saved up in anticipation of the day when the partnerships are in place and ready to receive more.

Or we could go it alone, which, in your own words would be "difficult but not impossible." In economics "difficult but not impossible" is just another way of saying "expensive and inefficient"

It amazes me the roadblocks and excuses some of you come up with to justify the church just sitting on and growing a massive amount of wealth. I am glad others with large resources don't find reasons not to relieve human suffering. I will continue to find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate my resources to.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Teancum

jkwilliams · May 25, 2023

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It amazes me the roadblocks and excuses som may of you come up with to justify the church just sitting on an growing a massive amount of wealth. I am glad others with large resources don't find reasons not to relieve human suffering. I will continue to find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate my resources to.

My favorite part is where the idea that charitable organizations ought not to stockpile many times their operating expenses is akin to believing that abortion is the pinnacle of morality. This thread has at times been rather breathtaking.

Stormin' Mormon · May 25, 2023

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It amazes me the roadblocks and excuses som may of you come up with to justify the church just sitting on an growing a massive amount of wealth. I am glad others with large resources don't find reasons not to relieve human suffering. I will continue to find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate my resources to.

And it amazes me how critics can turn economic tradeoffs with pros and cons in either direction into a moral issue with only one right answer.

The Church has chosen a strategy that maximizes the amount of Good each individual dollar can do in the world, which leads to some inefficiency in delaying the use of some dollars for some future day. It could have instead chosen a strategy that maximizes the Good in the world, regardless of how efficiently that Good is achieved. That strategy has the advantage of doing more total Good, but also has the drawback of using funds less efficiently.

I just can't see this as black-and-white as others do. Which tells me that this is a question of different policy preferences, not deficient morality.

smac97 · May 25, 2023

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Absolutely the Church could be deploying more of its resources for humanitarian purposes, but is that the responsible thing to do? Would it be responsible to donate more funds to a charity than they have the infrastructure to utilize in a given year? Would it be responsible to give to an organization that can only convert 10% of donations into actual real world outcomes? Would it be responsible to build our own humanitarian infrastructure when that infrastructure has already been built by half a dozen or more other responsible organizations?

I have been wondering about these questions, and I appreciate you noting them here. I previously raised similar questions here:

Quote

5. Prudence in Charitable Giving: There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups.

The example of California's enormous expenditures on homeless issues is a good example of what I have in mind. See, e.g., here:

Quote

The state keeps spending more to address the crisis, and the crisis keeps getting worse. So where, they ask, is all the money going?

On Wednesday, California lawmakers got something that resembles an answer.

The state’s Interagency Council on Homelessness, a state body tasked with overseeing the state’s homelessness strategy and divvying up funding to local governments, issued a report detailing just how much the state has spent on the crisis between 2018 and 2021 — and what it’s gotten in return.

The answer to those questions, according to the report: The state has spent nearly $10 billion and provided services to more than 571,000 people, each year helping more people than the last.

And despite all that, at the end of year three, the majority of those more than half a million Californians still didn’t end up with a roof over their heads. The number of unsheltered Californians continues to swell.

Presented at a three-hour joint committee hearing in the Assembly, the report has sent housing policy experts across the state into a twitter. Services for the homeless are so disjointed — split among nine state agencies, hundreds of county and municipal governments, nonprofits and charitable organizations — the 253-page document may be the first statistical birds-eye view of the state’s many-tentacled efforts.

But it also shows just how intractable the problem is.

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

What do disgraced congresswoman Katie Hill, Los Angeles Councilman Mike Bonin, the non-profit PATH developer Thomas Safran, and Executive Director Peter Lynn of the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority have in common?

They are all profiting or have profited from the so-called homeless crisis. There is also a connection among this crew of self-proclaimed homeless advocates of receiving six-figure salaries stemming from ballot initiatives to public donations, campaign contributions, and sweetheart deals.

California Globe has been focusing on the money behind the homeless crisis. This crisis is a strain for the average California resident but a booming business for others. Maybe it is time for the voters and taxpayers in Los Angeles to say “Bah Humbug” to the misers who continue to ask for millions to help the needy while lining their own pockets.

...

The homeless crisis appears to be manufactured for groups and people to profit through social programs and government positions. Those claiming to be able to fix the crisis continue to hold their hands out for state and federal funds – placing their value on how much public funding they can raise and spread around to campaign donors instead of results.

...

Combing through article after article, there is a common theme among the {} leaders in positions to help the homeless; they all state their work has been successful because they have raised millions of dollars, and hire more staff. They gloat about the increased programs that focus on homelessness or studies. However, the real problem is that the funds to help those in need are not flowing downstream to those in the streets.

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

The Labyrinth of Homeless Programs – who are they helping?

The City of Sacramento has had in place the Emergency Housing and Homeless Resources which is still listed under the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. However, the Sacramento Emergency Housing and Homeless Resources had a name change and currently operates as “Next Move Homeless Services | formerly known as Sacramento Area Emergency Housing and Homeless Resources,” but is now a non-profit, not subject to California’s open records act.

The City touts a program called Sacramento Steps Forward, “a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to ending homelessness in our region through collaboration, innovation, and connecting people to services,” the website says.

The neighbor-advocates for the homeless fellow contacted shelters and many city programs, before finally locating a “Navigator” with Sacramento Steps Forward, located inside the Sacramento Library downtown on the third floor. She wasn’t easy to find, and the neighbor-advocates wanted to know why she wasn’t visiting the homeless camps under the freeways instead of hidden away deep inside of the library.

Sacramento Steps Forward has an income of $14 million, $13 million of which is government grants, according to their 2017 IRS Form 990. Since 2013, Sacramento Steps Forward has received $53,438,945.

The Form 990 shows they grant $10,032,858 to other organizations, and spend $1,341,111 on salaries and $220,055 in benefits, $99,087 in office expenses, $86,279 in travel, $22,521 in conferences and $116,972 in occupancy.

They have one full time employee who is paid $150,000 annually, making the travel and conference expenses questionable.

And here (emphasis added) :

Quote

WASHINGTON (SBG) - The California Department of Housing and Community Development collected $316 million from the Federal Cares Act to help homeless Californians during the COVID pandemic, according to Open The Books. But according to an audit by Open The Books, those funds have been mismanaged.

“It's just sitting there," said Open The Books' Adam Andrzejewski to Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk. “Most of the money, even as of August of this year, according to federal reports just sits there. Only $2 million out of $316 million has actually been distributed.”

California expects a $75 billion surplus this year, thanks to the success of Silicon Valley which was able to continue working throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. They also received $26 billion in COVID-19 relief from federal taxpayers. Over 600,000 Californians so far have received additional state stimulus payments of $600 from the surplus funds as part of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s plan to give back nearly $12 billion to residents this year.

“There's a ton of money sloshing around in the Golden State. And it's our money, U.S. taxpayer money, and we must be able to follow the money and hold them accountable for how they spend it,” said Andrzejewski.

With a looming deadline on spending funds to address the homeless crisis in California, the nonprofit groups could possibly lose that federal money.

“By the end of September, if you don’t spend the money you lose it. It’s called use it or lose it spending at the federal level, so this could be gone,” said Andrzejewski.

And here:

Quote

San Francisco has the highest per-capita budget of any major city in the country. At $15,650 per person, it is about 40 percent higher than Bill de Blasio’s over-the-top New York City budget. You would think San Franciscans would have wonderful city services coming out of their ears. Wrong.

San Francisco represents perhaps the greatest failure of governance in the country, and with this failure comes enormous waste, inefficiency, and dysfunctional politics. Beginning with providing tent living for the homeless, which costs about $61,000 per individual per year. This is not a typo. Not one too many decimal places. Remember, this is San Francisco, which squanders money at a rate that makes your head spin. San Francisco’s enormous spending on homelessness has worked about as well as throwing gasoline on a fire.

The city’s 2020–21 budget for the Department of Homeless and Supportive Housing is about $852 million. To put that in perspective, Sacramento’s city budget is about $650 million, which covers all public services for their population of over 500,000.

San Francisco estimates about 8,000 homeless living in the city. The $852 million budget works out to about $106,500 per homeless individual. Just imagine how much medical treatment and housing could be provided at that level of support. But how the budget is spent would be comedic if the problem weren’t so tragic.

During the pandemic, San Francisco distributed 262 tents across six locations. These tents are sheltering just over 300 people. I don’t know how much the city paid for these tents, but one can purchase a perfectly fine, very large tent from REI for about $400. The annual budget for these tents is $16.1 million, which comes out to about $61,000 per tent per year. This includes meals, bathroom facilities, and security.

These issues are what come to my mind when I read blithe and vague demands from people like Teancum:

"There are plenty of smart people that run the church, work for the church and that could be hired by the church to make this happen."
"I think I an others have pointed out that for an organization like the church it is best practices to have 2 to 3 times its annual operating revenue set aside."
"I concede that it can he difficult but not impossible. There are a lot of bright people managing things for the church. It seem to me if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it."
"It amazes me the roadblocks and excuses some of you come up with to justify the church just sitting on and growing a massive amount of wealth."
"I am glad others with large resources don't find reasons not to relieve human suffering. I will continue to find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate my resources to."

This seems like armchair quarterbacking. Big time.

I am glad Teancum can "find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate {his} resources to." He has the luxury of having sole stewardship over his own money, of having unfettered discretion to spend it any way he sees fit, with no accountability to the general public or anyone else. And he also has the luxury of having, relatively speaking, a tiny amount of "resources" to expend.

Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has huge financial resources. So does California, which has done what Teancum seems to want the Church to do: throw billions at homelessness. And in doing so it has been profligate and incompetent. It has facilitated all sorts of corruption, graft and malfeasance in both public and private sectors purporting to be dedicated to ending homelessness.

Teancum has repeatedly declared that the Church has a lot of "bright people" in it, and "if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it." How notably blithe and vague this is. "Bright people" figuring out "way{s}" to "start deploying more ... resources."

What are these "ways," I wonder? Teancum is perpetually and notably vague every time this comes up.

What evidence does Teancum have to impugn the integrity and decency of the Presiding Bishopric and others involved in "managing things for the church." In his view, their commitment to helping others is lacking ("if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it..."). Apparently, then, the only problem here seems to be that the Presiding Bishopric, et al. are just not as committed to the welfare of their fellow man as others are. They do not really want to do these things, because they aren't doing these things (to Teancum's satisfaction, anyway).

Is that the way it is? Or is it possible that Bishops Caussé, Waddell and Budge, as well as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and all the many others in the Church involved with humanitarian efforts, just might as decent as Teancum is? Is it possible that they really do want to deploy the resources of the Church to help their fellow man?

I am glad to hear that Teancum is looking for "worthy organizations" to which he can contribute some portion of his discretionary income. Likely a few thousand each year. Truly. We all ought to be looking for ways to help our fellow man, and to then proceed to utilize those ways. Is it possible, though, that the foregoing persons who hold the wealth of the Church in trust, and who seemingly take their responsibilities seriously, might have more difficulty in responsibly and effectively "deploying" hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, in such efforts?

Is it possible that the Church has looked at examples of profligacy, corruption, graft, etc. in supposed charitable / humanitarian efforts, and said "Hey, let's not do that, as the funds we have been given are sacred, and we need to be sure they are effectively and efficiently utilized, which means that we need to carefully vet groups with which we work, and projects to which we donate, etc."?

Contrary to the implications I get from Teancum's posts, funding and facilitating charitable / humanitarian efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (global/international) is hard. Hundreds of countries. Hundreds or thousands of partnered NGOs/nonprofits. Thousands or tens of thousands of potential humanitarian projects. Byzantine laws, regulations, etc. Logistical challenges all over the place. The risks for inefficiencies, for graft and corruption and mismanagement, are abounding.

Again, look at the mess California has created for itself. Effectively deploying resources is difficult. The risks of graft, corruption, mismanagement, malfeasance, etc. are quite substantial.

Here's a personal experience: I currently represent a private company that has a pretty cool business model in which they purchase run-down motels and such, renovate them, and re-purpose them into affordable housing (basically, each room becomes a very small studio apartment). Virtually all of our tenants are coming out of, or close to heading into, homelessness. This means we have a fair amount of behavioral problems to address (mental health, substance abuse, long-term dysfunctional behaviors, violence, etc.). To that end, we work closely with a variety of state/county/city programs, and some nonprofit groups, which specialize in relevant fields (housing, social work, employment, homelessness, etc.).

The homelessness problem in Utah has become worse in recent years, particularly in Salt Lake City. It is my understanding that some smaller counties/municipalities sometime resolve homeless issues in their jurisdictions by buying the homeless person a one-way ticket to Salt Lake City, which is left to work with these folks - including bearing the substantial financial costs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, counseling, job placement, policing, etc.). See, e.g., here (from November 2021) :

Quote

Concerned about the fast-approaching winter, the Salt Lake City Council approved a plan Tuesday to turn a North Temple motel into an overflow homeless shelter.

But in doing so, the council expressed its deep frustration that other cities are not doing more to help the unsheltered and that this temporary refuge from the cold is being placed in the economically disadvantaged west side for a second year in a row.

“I am frustrated beyond belief. We are the ones and our residents are the ones that bear this burden,” said Council Chair Amy Fowler. “It sometimes feels as if our compassion is taken advantage of.”

And yet, Fowler voted to allow the shelter, finding it unacceptable to let people who are homeless freeze on the streets.

The council voted 5-2 to allow a temporary shelter at the Ramada at 1659 W. North Temple St., doing so at the request of the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, which is responsible for finding enough shelter beds. This group said it considered four locations in three cities before once again turning to Salt Lake City.

My client thereafter purchased the above-referenced Ramada property (actually, it purchased the long-term lease) and is currently in the process of securing funding to renovate and re-purpose it as permanent affordable housing. This is one of a number of housing projects to be funded to some extent via a 2022 allocation by the State of $55 million for "affordable housing." See also here (from December 7, 2022) :

Quote

Salt Lake City wants to infuse millions of dollars into developments that would help keep Utahns off the streets, and policymakers are getting close to deciding where that money would go.

Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s administration presented a proposal Tuesday to the City Council to divvy $6 million evenly among three projects that would serve medically vulnerable residents and provide permanent supportive housing for veterans, older Utahns and others.

The funding recommendation is the latest step of a grant program the administration announced in September to get more affordable housing on line before Millcreek’s winter overflow shelter closes this spring. Council members will need to sign off on the plan before any money can be distributed.

“If we can take 450 people off the streets, put them in some permanent supportive housing care, that is a wonderful opportunity,” council Chair Dan Dugan said, “especially coming right after winter.”

The application window opened from Sept. 30 to Oct. 14. The city received five applications requesting nearly $12 million. Officials ultimately landed on funding for three motel-conversion projects.
...
The first would go to a developer who is converting the Ramada at 1659 W. North Temple into a housing development that would include 197 units. The building served as an overflow shelter last winter and would operate as Ville 1659 when it opens as permanent supportive housing.

My client is the above-referenced "developer."

I have spent the last six months working with my client and with the City on sorting out the particulars for the public funding for the renovation of the facility (which funding only covers a portion of the overall costs, with the rest coming from private lenders). For me, it has been very interesting to both observe and participate in the overall process. Salt Lake City has worked hard to make sure that this use of public funds is "wise." About 1/3 of the public funds will be a grant (not to be paid back), and the remaining 2/3 will be a loan. Plenty of strings attached. Plenty of oversight by SLC's attorneys. Plenty of scrutiny paid to the paperwork. We seem to be getting close to closing the deal.

I say all this to give some real credit and plaudits to Salt Lake City. Relative to the absurd public expenditures I have read about in California, SLC has been quite responsible, circumspect and prudent in its management of public funds. In the end SLC

is only funding a minority of the renovation costs;
most of the public funds are as a secured loan which will be paid back with interest,
the per-housing-unit expenditures will be - compared to California's absurd figures - very modest,
the physical footprint of the facility is very small (and, therefore, quite affordable) and close to downtown, and
the property will remain as affordable housing essentially in perpetuity.

SLC has a substantial homelessness problem, and it is spending a lot of money on it, but it seems to be working hard to make sure that such funds are spent in sensible, proportionate, effective ways. I commend the city for that. I note here, though, that such scrupulous oversight has made the project hard. Lots and lots and lots of meetings, consultations, delays, internal reviews, negotiations, drafts and revisions, etc. Such scrupulosity, nevertheless, has been mostly necessary and appropriate.

I have above excoriated California, but I also acknowledge that's homelessness problem is vastly more serious than Utah's. That is, rather, my point. The bigger the problem, the less tractable and more complicated it becomes in terms of financial assistance, oversight, management and accountability, etc.

The Church is, I think, situated more like California than like Utah. And yet even Utah has ended up with the same sort of financial mismanagement problems as California (regarding homlessness), just on a smaller scale. See, e.g., here:

Quote

Even though it’s been about three years since state auditors raised red flags about Utah’s multimillion-dollar homeless system and a lack of accountability — which led to a full restructuring of the system’s management — another audit has found problems still persist.

Among those problems? Even though Utah has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars toward addressing homelessness, the state’s homeless population has continued to climb.

“For many years, the Utah State Legislature has been concerned with how to best address homelessness in the state,” legislative auditors said in an audit report released Tuesday. “As the homeless population has grown each year, so has the funding for homeless services.”

In their 2018 audit, legislative auditors estimated Utah’s homeless system spent more than $100 million in 2017 on direct and indirect costs associated with the homeless. Fast forward two years, and that figure ballooned to over $300 million in 2019, according to estimates by the Governor’s Office for Planning and Budget, auditors in the Office of the Legislative Auditor General wrote in Tuesday’s report.

And the money is still pouring in.

“Since that time, additional funds have been committed from public and private sources,” legislative auditors wrote. “Both the Legislature and private donors have expressed concern as to whether this increased funding is producing tangible results given the growing number of individuals experiencing homelessness.”

Since 2016, state spending on homelessness in Utah has increased by more than 600%, according to auditors. Most of the increase has come from state contributions to build the three new homeless resource centers, which were designed to stop warehousing homeless individuals and rather put a heavier focus on diversion, treatment and housing. Plus, the Utah Legislature this year committed $15 million more for homelessness.

“Given the COVID-19 pandemic and minimal time (the homeless resource centers) have been in operation, it is difficult to assess the impact of the funding adequately and fairly,” auditors acknowledged.

But auditors compared the increase in funding to the number of unsheltered individuals, which has also grown since 2016 — an increase of nearly 200%, they wrote, while the number of sheltered individuals has only decreased by 6%.

Over that five-year period, the total number of homeless individuals has grown by nearly 12%. “That growth in unsheltered homelessness, which tripled from 2016 to 2020, is of particular concern,” auditors wrote.

Auditors wrote Utah’s chronically homeless population has “more than tripled during the last five years,” though they acknowledge it’s important to note that changes in the Point-in-Time count’s methodology have likely impacted the count, especially in 2020.

Specifically, auditors noted there’s “little turnover” among residents staying in permanent supportive housing — and that lack of turnover is “another limitation of Utah’s strategy to address homelessness.” For example, auditors said they found one permanent supportive housing facility where 30% of its residents have stayed for 10 years or more.

“We’re not seeing a lot move on,” James Behunin, senior audit supervisor with the Office of the Legislative Auditor General, told lawmakers while presenting the audit to the Legislative Audit Subcommittee on Tuesday.

The audit also stated the increasingly high cost of housing remains an obstacle to “fully implementing Utah’s housing-based strategy” to tackle homelessness. Auditors noted permanent supportive housing is an “especially costly alternative” estimated at about $250,000 to $275,000 per unit.

“That’s just unsustainable,” Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, said after Behunin presented the audit’s findings on low turnover out of permanent supportive housing.

Auditors agreed, and that’s why they suggested perhaps state leaders need to consider a “moving on” strategy focused on helping people move out of permanent supportive housing after they no longer require that level of support.

California allocated "nearly $5 billion in 2021‑22 for housing‑related programs" in 2021-2022.

The Church has substantial resources, but I respectfully submit that there are also substantial challenges and difficulties in the Church deploying those resources in ways that are prudent, efficient, effective, managed, etc.

This is why I tend to shake my head when I read armchair quarterbacking remarks like "if they {the Church's leaders} really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it." I've been in the trenches for six months, working alongside many other people and spending all sorts of time and effort to ensure proper oversight of partial public funding for one housing project for one city in one state. The amount of time and effort needed to properly oversee such expenditures (that is, time and effort needed to avoid or reduce the risk of profligacy, mismanagement, graft, etc.) on a global/international scale (which is where the Church operates) is, I suspect, many orders of magnitude larger.

"Just throw money at it!" just isn't workable. Blithely vague demands such as this do not properly account for the boots-on-the-ground reality that the Presiding Bishopric faces every day.

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In my opinion, the responsible way for the Church to put more Good back into the world, is to seek out partnerships with existing organizations who effectively use their donations and have built up their own humanitarian infrastructure, and help them to grow their capacity (so that in future years they are capable of receiving more donations from the Church).

I agree. I think it is ethically and morally necessary for the Church to take this approach.

By way of analogy, consider what happened during Prohibition. Presumably well-intentioned zealots forged ahead with a noble idea of ending the adverse effects of alcoholic consumption in America. They did so by taking a "Just criminalize it!" approach, and the results were pretty terrible. Bad people saw how much money could be made, and they swooped in to take advantage of the situation. And they succeeded wildly.

I think the "Just throw money at it!" approach is likewise being advanced by well-intentioned zealots, and is likewise resulting in all sorts of bad people swooping in to take advantage and reap huge financial rewards (again, see California's profligate spending on homeless issues as an example).

Contrary to Teancum's insinuation, I think the leaders of the Church do want to help others, and they want to deploy the resources of the Church in that effort. But it wants to help in ways that are effective and prudent.

I recently came across this article:

Quote

This is Wendy.

Earlier this year, she lived in a tent on the streets of Portland, Ore., where the city allows people to squat in a tent and smoke their rent.

At the time, she boldly told a Portland addiction counselor the truth about her life on the streets of this once wonderful Oregon town that Leftists have ruined with their woke politics.

Counselor and homeless expert Kevin Dahlgren shared an update about Wendy on my Adult in the Room Podcast recently. He told me he was shocked that Wendy told him the truth.

Quote

Dahlgren: So how is it being homeless in Portland?

Wendy: It’s a piece of cake, really. I mean that’s why you got so many out here because they feed you three meals a day. You don’t have to do **** except stay in your tent or party. If you smoke a lot of dope you do that. Um, what else? […] It’s like, you wake up, you go eat at Blanchet [a Portland soup kitchen], get high. Go eat at Blanchet for lunch, get high. Go eat dinner, get high. That’s all you do all day long. Everyday. I’m being honest.

Dahlgren: It doesn’t feel like that’s helping anybody.

Wendy: It’s not! That’s why you see all the tents! People are up all night. Sleep all day. […] They are loving us to death.

"They are loving us to death."

Yeesh. What a terrible reality, and not one that I think the government of Portland intended. But that's where feckless "just throw money at it" approaches to serious issues will take you.

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Those endeavors take time, and during that time excess funds can either be spent (with a lesser rate of return on Good), or saved up in anticipation of the day when the partnerships are in place and ready to receive more.

Or we could go it alone, which, in your own words would be "difficult but not impossible." In economics "difficult but not impossible" is just another way of saying "expensive and inefficient"

I don't think the Church can or should "go it alone." We have our mandates, including taking care of the poor and needy, but we cannot be all things to all people. Nor do we need to be. Back in the day, the Church set up banks, hospitals, schools, etc., because it had to "go it alone." Over time, the need for the Church to provide these things diminished, and the Church sold or closed down these things.

I think the Church can expand, and is expanding, its humanitarian footprint, but it's doing so via heavy reliance on partnerships with other groups and institutions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2023 by smac97

Hamilton Porter · May 26, 2023

You can see multiple non-LDS people on YouTube speak about how moral LDS are, even if you've been living under a rock in real life. Even some from critics. It's not "anectodal."

You guys act like this is something controversial.

Teancum · May 26, 2023

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have been wondering about these questions, and I appreciate you noting them here. I previously raised similar questions here:

The example of California's enormous expenditures on homeless issues is a good example of what I have in mind. See, e.g., here:

And here (emphases added) :

And here (emphases added) :

And here (emphasis added) :

And here:

These issues are what come to my mind when I read blithe and vague demands from people like Teancum:

"There are plenty of smart people that run the church, work for the church and that could be hired by the church to make this happen."

"I think I an others have pointed out that for an organization like the church it is best practices to have 2 to 3 times its annual operating revenue set aside."

"I concede that it can he difficult but not impossible. There are a lot of bright people managing things for the church. It seem to me if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it."

"It amazes me the roadblocks and excuses some of you come up with to justify the church just sitting on and growing a massive amount of wealth."

"I am glad others with large resources don't find reasons not to relieve human suffering. I will continue to find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate my resources to."

This seems like armchair quarterbacking. Big time.

I am glad Teancum can "find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate {his} resources to."  He has the luxury of having sole stewardship over his own money, of having unfettered discretion to spend it any way he sees fit, with no accountability to the general public or anyone else. And he also has the luxury of having, relatively speaking, a tiny amount of "resources" to expend.

Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has huge financial resources. So does California, which has done what Teancum seems to want the Church to do: throw billions at homelessness. And in doing so it has been profligate and incompetent. It has facilitated all sorts of corruption, graft and malfeasance in both public and private sectors purporting to be dedicated to ending homelessness.

Teancum has repeatedly declared that the Church has a lot of "bright people" in it, and "if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it." How notably blithe and vague this is. "Bright people" figuring out "way{s}" to "start deploying more ... resources."

What are these "ways," I wonder? Teancum is perpetually and notably vague every time this comes up.

What evidence does Teancum have to impugn the integrity and decency of the Presiding Bishopric and others involved in "managing things for the church." In his view, their commitment to helping others is lacking ("if they really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it..."). Apparently, then, the only problem here seems to be that the Presiding Bishopric, et al. are just not as committed to the welfare of their fellow man as others are. They do not really want to do these things, because they aren't doing these things (to Teancum's satisfaction, anyway).

Is that the way it is? Or is it possible that Bishops Caussé, Waddell and Budge, as well as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and all the many others in the Church involved with humanitarian efforts, just might as decent as Teancum is?  Is it possible that they really do want to deploy the resources of the Church to help their fellow man?

I am glad to hear that Teancum is looking for "worthy organizations" to which he can contribute some portion of his discretionary income. Likely a few thousand each year. Truly. We all ought to be looking for ways to help our fellow man, and to then proceed to utilize those ways. Is it possible, though, that the foregoing persons who hold the wealth of the Church in trust, and who seemingly take their responsibilities seriously, might have more difficulty in responsibly and effectively "deploying" hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, in such efforts?

Is it possible that the Church has looked at examples of profligacy, corruption, graft, etc. in supposed charitable / humanitarian efforts, and said "Hey, let's not do that, as the funds we have been given are sacred, and we need to be sure they are effectively and efficiently utilized, which means that we need to carefully vet groups with which we work, and projects to which we donate, etc."?

Contrary to the implications I get from Teancum's posts, funding and facilitating charitable / humanitarian efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (global/international) is hard. Hundreds of countries. Hundreds or thousands of partnered NGOs/nonprofits. Thousands or tens of thousands of potential humanitarian projects. Byzantine laws, regulations, etc. Logistical challenges all over the place. The risks for inefficiencies, for graft and corruption and mismanagement, are abounding.

Again, look at the mess California has created for itself. Effectively deploying resources is difficult. The risks of graft, corruption, mismanagement, malfeasance, etc. are quite substantial.

Here's a personal experience: I currently represent a private company that has a pretty cool business model in which they purchase run-down motels and such, renovate them, and re-purpose them into affordable housing (basically, each room becomes a very small studio apartment). Virtually all of our tenants are coming out of, or close to heading into, homelessness. This means we have a fair amount of behavioral problems to address (mental health, substance abuse, long-term dysfunctional behaviors, violence, etc.). To that end, we work closely with a variety of state/county/city programs, and some nonprofit groups, which specialize in relevant fields (housing, social work, employment, homelessness, etc.).

The homelessness problem in Utah has become worse in recent years, particularly in Salt Lake City. It is my understanding that some smaller counties/municipalities sometime resolve homeless issues in their jurisdictions by buying the homeless person a one-way ticket to Salt Lake City, which is left to work with these folks - including bearing the substantial financial costs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, counseling, job placement, policing, etc.). See, e.g., here (from November 2021) :

My client thereafter purchased the above-referenced Ramada property (actually, it purchased the long-term lease) and is currently in the process of securing funding to renovate and re-purpose it as permanent affordable housing. This is one of a number of housing projects to be funded to some extent via a 2022 allocation by the State of $55 million for "affordable housing." See also here (from December 7, 2022) :

My client is the above-referenced "developer."

I have spent the last six months working with my client and with the City on sorting out the particulars for the public funding for the renovation of the facility (which funding only covers a portion of the overall costs, with the rest coming from private lenders). For me, it has been very interesting to both observe and participate in the overall process. Salt Lake City has worked hard to make sure that this use of public funds is "wise." About 1/3 of the public funds will be a grant (not to be paid back), and the remaining 2/3 will be a loan. Plenty of strings attached. Plenty of oversight by SLC's attorneys. Plenty of scrutiny paid to the paperwork. We seem to be getting close to closing the deal.

I say all this to give some real credit and plaudits to Salt Lake City. Relative to the absurd public expenditures I have read about in California, SLC has been quite responsible, circumspect and prudent in its management of public funds. In the end SLC

is only funding a minority of the renovation costs;

most of the public funds are as a secured loan which will be paid back with interest,

the per-housing-unit expenditures will be - compared to California's absurd figures - very modest,

the physical footprint of the facility is very small (and, therefore, quite affordable) and close to downtown, and

the property will remain as affordable housing essentially in perpetuity.

SLC has a substantial homelessness problem, and it is spending a lot of money on it, but it seems to be working hard to make sure that such funds are spent in sensible, proportionate, effective ways. I commend the city for that. I note here, though, that such scrupulous oversight has made the project hard. Lots and lots and lots of meetings, consultations, delays, internal reviews, negotiations, drafts and revisions, etc. Such scrupulosity, nevertheless, has been mostly necessary and appropriate.

I have above excoriated California, but I also acknowledge that's homelessness problem is vastly more serious than Utah's. That is, rather, my point. The bigger the problem, the less tractable and more complicated it becomes in terms of financial assistance, oversight, management and accountability, etc.

The Church is, I think, situated more like California than like Utah. And yet even Utah has ended up with the same sort of financial mismanagement problems as California (regarding homlessness), just on a smaller scale. See, e.g., here:

California allocated "nearly $5 billion in 2021‑22 for housing‑related programs" in 2021-2022.

The Church has substantial resources, but I respectfully submit that there are also substantial challenges and difficulties in the Church deploying those resources in ways that are prudent, efficient, effective, managed, etc.

This is why I tend to shake my head when I read armchair quarterbacking remarks like "if they {the Church's leaders} really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it." I've been in the trenches for six months, working alongside many other people and spending all sorts of time and effort to ensure proper oversight of partial public funding for one housing project for one city in one state. The amount of time and effort needed to properly oversee such expenditures (that is, time and effort needed to avoid or reduce the risk of profligacy, mismanagement, graft, etc.) on a global/international scale (which is where the Church operates) is, I suspect, many orders of magnitude larger.

"Just throw money at it!" just isn't workable. Blithely vague demands such as this do not properly account for the boots-on-the-ground reality that the Presiding Bishopric faces every day.

I agree. I think it is ethically and morally necessary for the Church to take this approach.

By way of analogy, consider what happened during Prohibition. Presumably well-intentioned zealots forged ahead with a noble idea of ending the adverse effects of alcoholic consumption in America. They did so by taking a "Just criminalize it!" approach, and the results were pretty terrible. Bad people saw how much money could be made, and they swooped in to take advantage of the situation. And they succeeded wildly.

I think the "Just throw money at it!" approach is likewise being advanced by well-intentioned zealots, and is likewise resulting in all sorts of bad people swooping in to take advantage and reap huge financial rewards (again, see California's profligate spending on homeless issues as an example).

Contrary to Teancum's insinuation, I think the leaders of the Church do want to help others, and they want to deploy the resources of the Church in that effort. But it wants to help in ways that are effective and prudent.

I recently came across this article:

"They are loving us to death."

Yeesh. What a terrible reality, and not one that I think the government of Portland intended. But that's where feckless "just throw money at it" approaches to serious issues will take you.

I don't think the Church can or should "go it alone." We have our mandates, including taking care of the poor and needy, but we cannot be all things to all people. Nor do we need to be. Back in the day, the Church set up banks, hospitals, schools, etc., because it had to "go it alone." Over time, the need for the Church to provide these things diminished, and the Church sold or closed down these things.

I think the Church can expand, and is expanding, its humanitarian footprint, but it's doing so via heavy reliance on partnerships with other groups and institutions.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will respond to your post later. I do not have time now. But as I noted it is amazing to me all the roadblocks the true believers throw up to defend the church that they believe is that of Jesus Christ for taking more steps to deploy their massive wealth to relieve human suffering. But where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I will respond to your post later. I do not have time now. But as I noted it is amazing to me all the roadblocks the true believers throw up to defend the church that they believe is that of Jesus Christ for taking more steps to deploy their massive wealth to relieve human suffering. But where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.

What's interesting to me is that, not only are we criticized for daring to make a judgment about the morality of a charitable organization stockpiling cash, but we are accused of bad faith, anti-church hostility, and even lack of moral values for the suggestion. Weird.

Stormin' Mormon · May 26, 2023

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What's interesting to me is that, not only are we criticized for daring to make a judgment about the morality of a charitable organization stockpiling cash, but we are accused of bad faith, anti-church hostility, and even lack of moral values for the suggestion. Weird.

Actually, I criticized Nehor for the exact opposite, for inserting a moral conclusion into a question of economic tradeoffs where both options have counterbalancing good and bad in them. It's not that critics demonstrate a "lack of moral values" for suggesting alternative humanitarian strategies, it's that they claim there is only one right, correct, moral way to do philanthropy.

The Church has chosen to spend funds slowly, to ensure that each dollar spent is going to have its maximum impact. It vets organizations that it works with and donates to in order to ensure that each dollar donated creates as close to a $1 impact in the world as is possible. That takes time, time in which funds continue to roll in and get stockpiled. There's a moral good (wise stewardship of funds) and a moral bad (unnecessary stockpiling of reserves) to this option.

An alternative strategy would be to spend those funds more quickly so the stockpiling doesn't occur, to get those funds out into the world doing good sooner rather than later. And in this option, the moral good and bad of the first option gets reversed.

I don't think there's a clear-cut right answer here, and to assume that there is, is to claim an unjustified moral high ground. It's kind of weird to see the misplaced moral certitude coming from critics of the Church rather than its defenders.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

smac97 · May 26, 2023

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I will respond to your post later. I do not have time now. But as I noted it is amazing to me all the roadblocks the true believers throw up to defend the church that they believe is that of Jesus Christ for taking more steps to deploy their massive wealth to relieve human suffering. But where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.

Right back atcha.

I find it amazing all ingenuity and effort it takes for cynics to endlessly find fault in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To regularly see it and cast it in the worst possible light.

To perpetually demand things of it though they do not support it, or even like it much.

To shift the goal posts and demand a never-rationalized-or-explained-but-ever-before-us-and-perpetually-vague-and-nebulous "more."

To either not give credit where due, or else do it begrudgingly, through gritted teeth, as a backhanded "compliment."

To armchair quarterback all day long. I can't help but think here of one of my favorite quotes, by Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better."

That is what I think of your deprecations of the Presiding Bishopric and the leaders of the Church.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..."

That is what I think of the Presiding Bishopric and the leaders of the Church. They are working hard to do good things. They carry the weight and burden of managing resources and responsibilities that, frankly, I think few of us bystanders and looky-loos and armchair quarterbacks can truly comprehend.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2023 by smac97

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Actually, I criticized Nehor for the exact opposite, for inserting a moral conclusion into a question of economic tradeoffs where both options have counterbalancing good and bad in them. It's not that critics demonstrate a "lack of moral values" for suggesting alternative humanitarian strategies, it's that they claim there is only one right, correct, moral way to do philanthropy.

The Church has chosen to spend funds slowly, to ensure that each dollar spent is going to have its maximum impact. It vets organizations that it works with and donates to in order to ensure that each dollar donated creates as close to a $1 impact in the world as is possible. That takes time, time in which funds continue to roll in and get stockpiled. There's a moral good (wise stewardship of funds) and a moral bad (unnecessary stockpiling of reserves) to this option.

An alternative strategy would be to spend those funds more quickly so the stockpiling doesn't occur, to get those funds out into the world doing good sooner rather than later. And in this option, the moral good and bad of the first option gets reversed.

I don't think there's a clear-cut right answer here, and to assume that there is, is to claim an unjustified moral high ground.  It's kind of weird to see the misplaced moral certitude coming from critics of the Church rather than its defenders.

I don't believe anyone here has claimed "there is only one right, correct, moral way to do philanthropy." Nor is anyone claiming the moral high ground, let alone "moral certitude." We are, as I said, simply saying we have a moral issue with how this is being done. Obviously, other people disagree with me, and that's fine. There's no need to attack the character or morality of anyone here.

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Right back atcha.

I find it amazing all ingenuity and effort it takes for cynics to find fault in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To regularly see it and cast it in the worst possible light.

To endlessly demand things of it though they do not support it, or even like it much.

To regularly shift the goal posts and demand a never-rationalized-or-explained-but-ever-before-us-and-perpetually-vague-and-nebulous "more."

To armchair quarterback all day long. I can't help but think here of one of my favorite quotes, by Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better."

That is what I think of your deprecations of the Presiding Bishopric and the leaders of the Church.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..."

That is what I think of the Presiding Bishopric and the leaders of the Church. They are working hard to do good things. They carry the weight and burden of managing resources and responsibilities that, frankly, I think few of us bystanders can truly comprehend.

Thanks,

-Smac

You honestly think that's what's going on here: we are expending mental energy exercising all our faculties to find fault and shifting the goal posts so that the church will always fail? Give me a freaking break. I may disagree with a lot of people here, but I certainly would never make the kind of sneering attack on their characters that you regularly do with us. It's tiresome and boring.

smac97 · May 26, 2023

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You honestly think that's what's going on here: we are expending mental energy exercising all our faculties to find fault and shifting the goal posts so that the church will always fail? Give me a freaking break.

Not really. I don't think it takes much "mental energy" or "exercising all ... faculties" to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ. Armchair quarterbacking is, in its essence, a lazy endeavor: "someone who gives opinions about something without having direct knowledge or experience of it."

It's easy, in fact, to anonymously carp on a group, to dwell on and obsess over and endlessly point to its flaws and shortcomings, to presume, etc.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I may disagree with a lot of people here, but I certainly would never make the kind of sneering attack on their characters that you regularly do with us. It's tiresome and boring.

I have not said one word disparaging Teancum's character relative to his philanthropic endeavors. On the other hand, he has said "{if the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ} really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it...", as well as many, many similar deprecations.

I am defending the leaders of my faith against the sort of armchair quarterbacking as is reflected in the above statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2023 by smac97

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. I don't think it takes much "mental energy" or "exercising all ... faculties" to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ. Armchair quarterbacking is, in its essence, a lazy endeavor: "someone who gives opinions about something without having direct knowledge or experience of it."

It's easy, in fact, to anonymously carp on a group, to dwell on and obsess over and endlessly point to its flaws and shortcomings, to presume, etc.

"{If the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ} really wanted to start deploying more of these resources in a humanitarian way they could do it..."

I am defending the leaders of my faith against the sort of armchair quarterbacking as is reflected in the above statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Funny how your "defending" looks a hell of a lot like attacking. Almost every thread you start is an attack on some person or group you think is reprehensible, and usually involves you overhyping what they actually do or say.

And of course they could spend more money if they wanted to. And how do you know that no one here has any experience in dealing with charitable funds?

Again, give me a freaking break.

ETA: if we're not expending effort, why did you say this?

Quote

I find it amazing all ingenuity and effort it takes for cynics to endlessly find fault in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited May 26, 2023 by jkwilliams

smac97 · May 26, 2023

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Funny how your "defending" looks a hell of a lot like attacking.

Funny how various attacks on the character and intentions and motives and Christianity of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints looks a lot like . . . attacking.

Funnier still how my defending them against such attacks is then called "attacking."

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Almost every thread you start is an attack on some person or group you think is reprehensible, and usually involves you overhyping what they actually do or say.

Malarky. Here are the threads I have started in the last few months:

Group Denigrating Catholics Invited by LA Dodgers to "Pride Night"
"Vengeance is Mine" - Book by Richard E. Turley and Barbara Jones Brown
IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes
Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?" - Part II
Op-Ed: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’?
Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism"
Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children
Ghana Latter-day Saints open stake center to more than 1,000 Muslims celebrating end of Ramadan
Chasing Down Purported Quote from "Standard of Truth"
On Latter-day Saints and Family Size
Controversy at BYU - Professor and her "Trans" child.
Suspicious Fire in Cherry Grove, Alberta, Canada Destroys Latter-day Saint Church Building
New BSA/Church Lawsuit Re: Abuse
Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police
Trib Article Re R-Rated Movies
Thoughts on Indifference / Apathy
Disappointing Development at BYU Law School
LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse
Church of England and a "Gender-Neutral God"
(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
Article on Trans Surgery
Judaism as a "Joinable Tribal Group" - Is "Mormonism" or "The Church" Something Similar?
BYU Study: Pornography use at any level harms romantic relationships
A Breath of Fresh Air: "Do not diminish the peace and happiness many church members enjoy"
Update on Religious Liberty Case
Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)
Utah Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion Clinics
LDS Church President Russell Nelson to receive Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize
Article Re: Clergy/Penitent Privilege
Trib Article: BYU faculty members urged to align their teaching, research better with LDS tenets
5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians
Church releases President Spencer W. Kimball’s journal collection
Update on the "Cake Wars" - Re: Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Nondiscrimination Statutes
YouGov Poll on 35 Religious Groups, Orgs, Etc.
Update on Church Finances
Minerva Teichert estate sues The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU Museum of Art
Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat - An Afterthought
MSN Article: "Interesting facts about Mormonism you may not know"
The Church as the 5th Largest Private Landholder in U.S.
Murder-Suicide of Family in Enoch, Utah
(4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
History Channel Short-Form Documentary: "History of the Mormons | 10 Things You Don't Know About (S1, E7)"
Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace
Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church
Church Member in Rochester Going "Sam Young"
Stanford band mocks Christians during BYU halftime show.
Interesting Article Re: Conversion to Catholicism
Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida
Discovery of Previously Unknown Document Authored by Joseph Smith
Explicit Graffiti at Logan Tabernacle

Most of these are news/legal items about the Church.

Quite a few discuss misconduct by Latter-day Saints. Others discuss adverse coverage or commentary about the Church.

Quite a few touch on disparagements, criticisms, violence, etc. against the Church. And generally speaking, I choose to defend the Church where it is appropriate (which I find to be most of the time).

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And of course they could spend more money if they wanted to.

"Spend more money." Oh. That's all it takes to be moved from from the "Morally Questionable" to "Morally Upright" category, is it? Like, say, what has been going on in California?

"Spend more money if they wanted to." But they just are too depraved and greedy, so they don't want to. Is that it? They just are not sufficiently morally upright and virtuous to care about their fellow man?

So say the armchair quarterbacks, which I find to be facile and ignorant and self-serving, which is why I addressed it at length above. The "Just Throw Money At It!" (or, to hew closer to your commentary, a "Spend More Money!") approach is, in my view, very problematic.

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And how do you know that no one here has any experience in dealing with charitable funds?

Dealing with charitable funds "on the scale at which the Church is operating (global/international"? I'm doubtful any are here, but certainly open to correction. There's a substantial difference between actual quarterbacks and armchair quarterbacks. So if there are folks on this board with experience in managing hundreds of millions of dollars, in hundreds of countries, in cooperation with hundreds or thousands of NGOs, nonprofits, and governmental organizations, and in relation to thousands upon thousands of individual projects, by all means, trot 'em out. Let's see their CVs. Let's hear what they have to say.

Enough with the simplistic commentary from the armchair quarterbacks. Let's hear from the Tom Brady / Aaron Rodgers / Patrick Mahomes types in the field of international humanitarian work.

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, give me a freaking break.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..."

I am reminded here of this story about Pastor Jarrett Maupin:

To his credit, Pastor Maupin seems to have been willing to reconsider his position relative to the use of force. For all his fiery rhetoric, when he stepped into the shoes of police officers (in a training scenario, mind you), he sure seemed to change his tune quickly.

Similarly, it sure would be interesting to see someone like yourself or Teancum step into the shoes of the Presiding Bishopric for a few months and see how well you would do with managing humanitarian efforts. Would you take a "Just Throw Money At It!" approach? We've seen what happens with that in California.

And what would you do when some looky-loo comes along, second-guesses your competency, decency and motives, and declares something like "of course they could spend more money if they wanted to."

"Spend More Money!" and "Just Throw Money At It!" are easy to say. And even easy to do. And we've seen the results of it in California.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2023 by smac97

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Funny how attacks on character and intentions and motives and Christianity of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints looks a lot like . . . attacking.

Funnier still how defending them against such attacks is then called "attacking."

Malarky. Here are the threads I have started in the last few months:

Group Denigrating Catholics Invited by LA Dodgers to "Pride Night"

"Vengeance is Mine" - Book by Richard E. Turley and Barbara Jones Brown

IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes

Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?" - Part II

Op-Ed: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’?

Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism"

Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children

Ghana Latter-day Saints open stake center to more than 1,000 Muslims celebrating end of Ramadan

Chasing Down Purported Quote from "Standard of Truth"

On Latter-day Saints and Family Size

Controversy at BYU - Professor and her "Trans" child.

Suspicious Fire in Cherry Grove, Alberta, Canada Destroys Latter-day Saint Church Building

New BSA/Church Lawsuit Re: Abuse

Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police

Trib Article Re R-Rated Movies

Thoughts on Indifference / Apathy

Disappointing Development at BYU Law School

LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse

Church of England and a "Gender-Neutral God"

(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

Article on Trans Surgery

Judaism as a "Joinable Tribal Group" - Is "Mormonism" or "The Church" Something Similar?

BYU Study: Pornography use at any level harms romantic relationships

A Breath of Fresh Air: "Do not diminish the peace and happiness many church members enjoy"

Update on Religious Liberty Case

Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)

Utah Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion Clinics

LDS Church President Russell Nelson to receive Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize

Article Re: Clergy/Penitent Privilege

Trib Article: BYU faculty members urged to align their teaching, research better with LDS tenets

5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

Church releases President Spencer W. Kimball’s journal collection

Update on the "Cake Wars" - Re: Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Nondiscrimination Statutes

YouGov Poll on 35 Religious Groups, Orgs, Etc.

Update on Church Finances

Minerva Teichert estate sues The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU Museum of Art

Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat - An Afterthought

MSN Article: "Interesting facts about Mormonism you may not know"

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

Murder-Suicide of Family in Enoch, Utah

(4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

History Channel Short-Form Documentary: "History of the Mormons | 10 Things You Don't Know About (S1, E7)"

Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church

Church Member in Rochester Going "Sam Young"

Stanford band mocks Christians during BYU halftime show.

Interesting Article Re: Conversion to Catholicism

Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida

Discovery of Previously Unknown Document Authored by Joseph Smith

Explicit Graffiti at Logan Tabernacle

Most of these are news/legal items about the Church.

Quite a few discuss misconduct by Latter-day Saints. Others discuss adverse coverage or commentary about the Church.

Quite a few touch on disparagements, criticisms, violence, etc. against the Church. And generally speaking, I choose to defend the Church where it is appropriate (which I find to be most of the time).

"Spend more money." Oh. That's all it takes to be moved from from the "Morally Questionable" to "Morally Upright" category, is it? Like, say, what has been going on in California?

This is the sort of armchair quarterbacking I find to be facile, which is why I addressed it at length above. The "Just Throw Money At It!" (or, to hew closer to your commentary, a "Spend More Money!") approach is, in my view, very problematic.

Dealing with charitable funds "on the scale at which the Church is operating (global/international"? I'm doubtful any are here, but certainly open to correction. There's a substantial difference between actual quarterbacks and armchair quarterbacks. So if there are folks on this board with experience in managing hundreds of millions of dollars, in hundreds of countries, in cooperation with hundreds or thousands of NGOs, nonprofits, and governmental organizations, and in relation to thousands upon thousands of individual projects, by all means, trot 'em out. Let's see their CVs. Let's hear what they have to say.

Enough with the simplistic commentary from the armchair quarterbacks. Let's hear from the Tom Brady / Aaron Rodgers / Patrick Mahomes types in the field of international humanitarian work.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..."

I am reminded here of this story about Pastor Jarrett Maupin:

To his credit, Pastor Maupin seems to have been willing to reconsider his position relative to the use of force.

It sure would be interesting to see someone like yourself or Teancum step into the shoes of the Presiding Bishopric for a few months and see how well you would do with managing humanitarian efforts. Would you take a "Just Throw Money At It!" approach? We've seen what happens with that in California.

And what would you do when some looky-loo comes along, second-guesses your competency, decency and motives, and declares something like "of course they could spend more money if they wanted to."

Oh, brother. So, the choice is "build up a huge $100-billion-plus fund" or "throw money at it." And if someone "second-guesses [my] competency, decency, and motives," I'm happy to let them (hell, you do it all the time). I don't need anyone to defend me. You seem to be suggesting, again, that I've attacked the character of church leaders. Please point out to me where I have done so. I have simply said I find it morally problematic to sit on that amount of cash. If the Crippled Children's Fund (which gave my parents the money for my lifesaving surgery the day I was born) was sitting on $100 billion in unused funds, of course I'd feel comfortable giving my opinion. One can do so without attacking anyone's character.

And I stand corrected: a large number of your posts are attacks on people and groups you find reprehensible, mingled with encomia to the church and political posturing.

Edited May 26, 2023 by jkwilliams

Vanguard · May 26, 2023

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

There's no need to attack the character or morality of anyone here.

You mean like someone saying -

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.

Quoting New Testament scripture to imply that those who consider themselves Christian and support the Brethren in their decision-making regards to financial matters really only care about money and not alleviating human suffering?

That kind of character attack?

Got it. : (

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

You mean like someone saying -

Quoting New Testament scripture to imply that those who consider themselves Christian and support the Brethren in their decision-making regards to financial matters really only care about money and not alleviating human suffering?

That kind of character attack?

Got it. : (

I didn’t read it that way. In case you missed it, Teancum has repeatedly praised the church’s charitable actions, as have I. Believe it or not, neither one of us hates the church. As Teancum mentioned, he still feels an affinity to the church, and I admit I do, too. Saying we disagree with or are troubled by some church action or another is hardly an attack of the characters of the brethren. I thought the 2015 policy, for example, was awful, and I said so, but I don’t believe i brought anyone’s character into it.

smac97 · May 26, 2023

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, brother. So, the choice is "build up a huge $100-billion-plus fund" or "throw money at it."

No. That's the false dilemma fallacy that you armchair quarterback types seem to find convenient.

My position is laid out in some detail above.

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have simply said I find it morally problematic to sit on that amount of cash.

And I have simply said that this is armchair quarterbacking.

I provided a number of quotes from the Presiding Bishopric here, in which they discuss as some length their reasoning for having a reserve, and the size of the reserve, and also the current humanitarian efforts of the Church, including how "humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years," and that they "believe {expenditures} are going to increase fast" in the future.

They also discuss the practical logistical challenges of prudent humanitarian work, which folks like you seem to blithely ignore or discount out-of-hand:

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner.

This is at odds with the "Spend More Money!" / "Just Throw Money At It!" approach that armchair quarterbacks are demanding. But it is, in my view, a far more wise approach (again, just take a look at places like California and Portland "They Are Loving Us to Death" Oregon).

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

Do armchair quarterbacks care about whether humanitarian efforts and charitable giving actually go? Do they care about whether such things are effective in relieving human suffering? I would assume they do, but then why would they vilify others who are trying ensure such effective oversight of funds and materials is maintained?

“We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

Yes, the Presiding Bishopric has that obligation to "make sure" sacred funds "actually meet a need," but armchair quarterbacks don't. Armchair quarterbacks don't have any skin in the game (heck, they aren't even at the game). No obligations, no responsibilities. Just a lot of hot air. Hence the blithe demands of "Spend More Money!" And if such advice is followed, and if money is then squandered / wasted / stolen, if it is not managed effectively, if it does little to actually help people in need, the Armchair Quarterback can, proverbially speaking, just turn off the TV and go to bed.

Teddy R was right: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better."

“As the church has been established in many more countries, we develop local relationships with nongovernmental organizations and governments, and as we develop those types of relationships, we become aware of more and more needs,” Bishop Caussé said. “In the past our humanitarian reach was done mostly either directly or through our partnerships with global organizations” the church trusts to ensure donations are effective. “We’re going to see more and more partnerships with local organizations, because we are there and we are present and we know the people.”

The Church really seems to be improving here. Doing more and more. None of this matters to the Armchair Quarterback, though. "Spend More Money!" is the order of the day.

“There will be future downturns,” Bishop Waddell said. “How extensive, how dramatic we don’t know. But one of the comments we made to the Journal was that if that were to happen, because of the reserves being carefully watched over, protected and wisely handled, we won’t have to stop missionary work, we won’t have to stop maintaining buildings and building temples, we won’t have to stop humanitarian and welfare work, we won’t have to stop education work. What the journalist (wrote) was that we won’t have to stop missionary work, period. Well, there’s more than that.”

The Latter-day Saints who have donated the funds under discussion care about things like "missionary work," "maintaining buildings and building temples," "humanitarian and welfare work," "education work," and so on. And I think they appreciate efforts to make sure these sacred funds are properly managed, that they are not squandered, and that the Presiding Bishopric not succumb to the simplistic "Spend More Money!" demands of bystanders who have little or no information about what they are speaking, and which bystanders have no particular experience (or investment) in dealing with the substantial logistical and practical issues associated with administering humanitarian efforts on an international/global scale.

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If the Crippled Children's Fund (which gave my parents the money for my lifesaving surgery the day I was born) was sitting on $100 billion in unused funds, of course I'd feel comfortable giving my opinion. One can do so without attacking anyone's character.

Agreed. And yet the character of the Presiding Bishopric has been attacked. Funny, that.

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And I stand corrected: a large number of your posts are attacks on people and groups you find reprehensible, mingled with encomia to the church and political posturing.

Still malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2023 by smac97

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No. That's the false dilemma fallacy that you armchair quarterback types seem to find convenient.

My position is laid out in some detail above.

And I have simply said that this is armchair quarterbacking.

I provided a number of quotes from the Presiding Bishopric here, in which they discuss as some length their reasoning for having a reserve, and the size of the reserve, and also the current humanitarian efforts of the Church, including how "humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years," and that they "believe {expenditures} are going to increase fast" in the future.

They also discuss the practical logistical challenges of prudent humanitarian work, which folks like you seem to blithely ignore or discount out-of-hand:

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner.

This is at odds with the "Spend More Money!" / "Just Throw Money At It!" approach that armchair quarterbacks are demanding. But it is, in my view, a far more wise approach (again, just take a look at places like California and Portland "They Are Loving Us to Death" Oregon.

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

Do armchair quarterbacks care about whether humanitarian efforts and charitable giving actually go? Do they care about whether such things are effective in relieving human suffering? I would assume they do, but then why would they vilify others who are trying ensure such effective oversight of funds and materials is maintained?

“We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

Yes, the Presiding Bishopric has that obligation to "make sure" sacred funds "actually meet a need," but armchair quarterbacks don't. Armchair quarterbacks don't have any skin in the game (heck, they aren't even at the game). No obligations, no responsibilities. Just a lot of hot air. Hence the blithe demands of "Spend More Money!" And if such advice is followed, and if money is then squandered / wasted / stolen, if it is not managed effectively, if it does little to actually help people in need, the Armchair Quarterback can, proverbially speaking, just turn off the TV and go to bed.

Teddy R was right: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better."

“As the church has been established in many more countries, we develop local relationships with nongovernmental organizations and governments, and as we develop those types of relationships, we become aware of more and more needs,” Bishop Caussé said. “In the past our humanitarian reach was done mostly either directly or through our partnerships with global organizations” the church trusts to ensure donations are effective. “We’re going to see more and more partnerships with local organizations, because we are there and we are present and we know the people.”

The Church really seems to be improving here. Doing more and more. None of this matters to the Armchair Quarterback, though. "Spend More Money!" is the order of the day.

“There will be future downturns,” Bishop Waddell said. “How extensive, how dramatic we don’t know. But one of the comments we made to the Journal was that if that were to happen, because of the reserves being carefully watched over, protected and wisely handled, we won’t have to stop missionary work, we won’t have to stop maintaining buildings and building temples, we won’t have to stop humanitarian and welfare work, we won’t have to stop education work. What the journalist (wrote) was that we won’t have to stop missionary work, period. Well, there’s more than that.”

The Latter-day Saints who have donated the funds under discussion care about things like "missionary work," "maintaining buildings and building temples," "humanitarian and welfare work," "education work," and so on.

Agreed. And yet the character of the Presiding Bishopric has been attacked. Funny, that.

Still malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

I wish it was malarkey. You like to pick fights. That's your MO. Which is why you use words like "vilify" when we're talking about something as non-vilifying as wishing the church weren't sitting on so much money. And no, I'm not blithely ignoring anything. I have no doubt church leaders are doing what they think is right (I can't speak for Teancum, but I suspect he agrees), but one can still disagree with something even knowing that those who do it have the best intentions. This manufactured outrage that anyone would dare question the church's actions might have affected me the first hundred times it was used, but this bit went stale a long time ago. I used to care that people thought I had evil intent, but these days, I just like to point out how overused and meaningless such attacks are. You're not scoring any points, Spencer.

Tacenda · May 26, 2023

On 5/25/2023 at 9:35 AM, Teancum said:

It amazes me the roadblocks and excuses some of you come up with to justify the church just sitting on and growing a massive amount of wealth. I am glad others with large resources don't find reasons not to relieve human suffering. I will continue to find worthy organizations that actually attempt to do this to donate my resources to.

Yes to a T!

smac97 · May 26, 2023

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I wish it was malarkey. You like to pick fights. That's your MO.

I like to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We discuss various topics here, including controversial issues. Folks like you and Teancum come here to (mostly) criticize the Church, as is your right. I come here to (mostly) defend it, as is my right.

I greatly value Free Speech, including speech which I find disagreeable, offensive, wrong, etc. Sometimes I find some real value in listening to perspectives that vary substantially from my own.

I don't object to critiques or criticisms of the Church per se. We are not cloistered in a monastery the mountains of Tibet. Our mandates include missionary work, being involved in civic matters, and in general participating in society. The Latter-day Saints have put their ideas into the Marketplace of Ideas, and in doing so we invite scrutiny, feedback, criticism, and so on.

There are times when the Church, or this or that individual within it, makes a mistake. Some of these are minor, some serious. Some merit attention and correction, and some are of the "live and learn" variety.

I have been on this board since 2004. I have spent a lot of time listening to any and every criticism and complaint leveled against the Church, its doctrines, its history, its policies and procedures, its leaders, its members, its culture, and so on. I have heard what critics have to day, and I have interacted with no small number of them. Some of these criticisms raise substantive and meritorious points, and I therefore attempt to incorporate such things into my perspective on the Restored Gospel. In the main, however, I find the the substantial majority of what critics have to offer to be lacking in merit, inaccurate, unfair, uncharitable, cynical, nitpicky, overwrought, likely or demonstrably false, or some combination of these. I have likewise found the Church, despite its shortcomings, to be an overwhelmingly wonderful institution, in both word and deed, in both motive and manifestation thereof.

Critics come here to criticize the Restored Gospel. That's their MO. I come here to (inter alia) to defend it. That's mine. I can and should improve how I do so. But in broad strokes, I reject the accusation that I "pick fights." I speak to defend my faith and my church against "fights" brought to this forum.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Which is why you use words like "vilify" when we're talking about something as non-vilifying as wishing the church weren't sitting on so much money.

"Wishing the church weren't sitting on so much money" is a nicely milquetoast characterization.

I have taken exception to various and consistent disparagements of the character, decency, motives, and basic Christianity of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Presiding Bishopric, and others who have stewardship over the Church's funds, and who I submit just might be as concerned about the welfare of their fellow man as you and Teancum are.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

And no, I'm not blithely ignoring anything. I have no doubt church leaders are doing what they think is right (I can't speak for Teancum, but I suspect he agrees), but one can still disagree with something even knowing that those who do it have the best intentions. This manufactured outrage that anyone would dare question the church's actions might have affected me the first hundred times it was used, but this bit went stale a long time ago. I used to care that people thought I had evil intent, but these days, I just like to point out how overused and meaningless such attacks are. You're not scoring any points, Spencer.

Blithe demands to "Spend More Money!" aren't scoring any points, either.

Nobody here is critiquing your charitable endeavors. Or Teancum's. The armchair quarterbacking is pretty much entirely on your side of things.

Meanwhile, the substance of my comments about armchair quarterbacking and "Spend More Money!"-style demands remain unaddressed:

Quote

Contrary to the implications I get from Teancum's posts, funding and facilitating charitable / humanitarian efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (global/international) is hard. Hundreds of countries. Hundreds or thousands of partnered NGOs/nonprofits. Thousands or tens of thousands of potential humanitarian projects. Byzantine laws, regulations, etc. Logistical challenges all over the place. The risks for inefficiencies, for graft and corruption and mismanagement, are abounding.

Again, look at the mess California has created for itself. Effectively deploying resources is difficult. The risks of graft, corruption, mismanagement, malfeasance, etc. are quite substantial.
...
{T}e Presiding Bishopric and the leaders of the Church ... are working hard to do good things. They carry the weight and burden of managing resources and responsibilities that, frankly, I think few of us bystanders and looky-loos and armchair quarterbacks can truly comprehend.

And they aren't here to speak for or defend themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2023 by smac97

Vanguard · May 26, 2023

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t read it that way. In case you missed it, Teancum has repeatedly praised the church’s charitable actions, as have I. Believe it or not, neither one of us hates the church. As Teancum mentioned, he still feels an affinity to the church, and I admit I do, too. Saying we disagree with or are troubled by some church action or another is hardly an attack of the characters of the brethren. I thought the 2015 policy, for example, was awful, and I said so, but I don’t believe i brought anyone’s character into it.

Well and good though I never said or implied disagreement about policy is an attack. I don't know where you're getting that from in my comment. The quoted comment is a character aspersion against the Brethren and those who would support them.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Vanguard

jkwilliams · May 26, 2023

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I like to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We discuss various topics here, including controversial issues. Folks like you and Teancum come here to (mostly) criticize the Church, as is your right. I come here to (mostly) defend it, as is my right.

I greatly value Free Speech, including speech which I find disagreeable, offensive, wrong, etc. Sometimes I find some real value in listening to perspectives that vary substantially from my own.

I don't object to critiques or criticisms of the Church per se. We are not cloistered in a monastery the mountains of Tibet. Our mandates include missionary work, being involved in civic matters, and in general participating in society. The Latter-day Saints have put their ideas into the Marketplace of Ideas, and in doing so we invite scrutiny, feedback, criticism, and so on.

There are times when the Church, or this or that individual within it, makes a mistake. Some of these are minor, some serious. Some merit attention and correction, and some are of the "live and learn" variety.

I have been on this board since 2004. I have spent a lot of time listening to any and every criticism and complaint leveled against the Church, its doctrines, its history, its policies and procedures, its leaders, its members, its culture, and so on. I have heard what critics have to day, and I have interacted with no small number of them. Some of these criticisms raise substantive and meritorious points, and I therefore attempt to incorporate such things into my perspective on the Restored Gospel. In the main, however, I find the the substantial majority of what critics have to offer to be lacking in merit, inaccurate, unfair, uncharitable, cynical, nitpicky, overwrought, likely or demonstrably false, or some combination of these. I have likewise found the Church, despite its shortcomings, to be an overwhelmingly wonderful institution, in both word and deed, in both motive and manifestation thereof.

Critics come here to criticize the Restored Gospel. That's their MO. I come here to (inter alia) to defend it. That's mine. I can and should improve how I do so. But in broad strokes, I reject the accusation that I "pick fights." I speak to defend my faith and my church against "fights" brought to this forum.

"Wishing the church weren't sitting on so much money" is a nicely milquetoast characterization.

I have taken exception to various and consistent disparagements of the character, decency, motives, and basic Christianity of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Presiding Bishopric, and others who have stewardship over the Church's funds, and who I submit just might be as concerned about the welfare of their fellow man as you and Teancum are.

Blithe demands to "Spend More Money!" aren't scoring any points, either.

Nobody here is critiquing your charitable endeavors. Or Teancum's. The armchair quarterbacking is pretty much entirely on your side of things.

Meanwhile, the substance of my comments about armchair quarterbacking and "Spend More Money!"-style demands remain unaddressed:

And they aren't here to speak for or defend themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

Right. In your world, expressing any non-laudatory opinion about the church is equal to vilification and vituperation. I’ve been here longer than you have, and I know what we both are about. I’m just saying, again, that your attacks on our character are not only off-base but ineffective.

Someone on this board once told me Joseph Smith was a better man on his worst day than I will ever be on my best day. Was he right? Anything is possible. Was that an effective “defense” of the church? Not from my perspective.

You act as if merely having an opinion is improper (maybe even outrageous). I could say the same about any of the people and organizations you attack. Do you know what it’s like to be a gay ex-Catholic, for example? If not, you’re just armchair quarterbacking. See how easy that is? It’s a great strategy for dismissing any and all opinions about everything.

In short, I don’t think it’s out of line to believe a charitable organization ought not to stockpile a massive amount of money. That you think I have no right to have an opinion is of course your prerogative. But then you don’t have any more right than I do to have a contrary opinion. I could just as easily say you’re armchair cheerleading.

The Moral Hazard of Institutions and What We Can Do

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members