Church to Build 74 Middle-Class Housing Units in Laie

[smac97]

@Analytics has recently taken exception to my description of him as an untrustworthy source of information about the Church.  I responded:

Quote

Quote

This thread has made me think about a lot of stuff I haven’t thought about in years and to reevaluate things that I’ve said and done, and this comment seems really weird to me, and I find it quite ironic.

My signature line is taken from a Ralph Waldo Emerson essay and describes what I talk about--on this forum I “testify” of my own experience and views; nothing more. In my interactions with @smac97 , he has never heard me say anything “for Mormonism.”

Poppycock.  You regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc.  You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light.

One instance that comes to mind is when you presumed to tell us what Terryl Givens believes about The Book of Mormon, which is that "Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud ... {a} beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless."

Broadly speaking, I do not recognize the malignant institution that Analytics and his compatriots so regularly describe.  While some of these critiques of the Church are fair, most are not.  Of the most that are not, they are substantially off, and pretty much always off in ways that - as I say above - "{cast} us in the worst possible light."

By way of further examples, in recent years Analytics has taken up and emphasized the drumbeat notion that the Church is reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge (see, e.g., here, here, here), and has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly," and has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation" (even going so far as to impliedly deny the Church as having a Christian ethos), and has also compared it to a hypothetical "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people {} because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine."

Over and over and over, for years and years and years, Analytics and his compatriots say these sorts of things about us.  What they say to us about us is often pretty alien to me, and largely incompatible with what I have observed in the Latter-day Saints, their leaders and the Church in general.  Analytics' foregoing characterizations came to mind just now as I came across this news item:

Mormon Church Plans To Build Dozens Of Rental Units For The Middle-Class In Laie

Some excerpts:

Quote

The Hawaii land management arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is seeking permits to transform 14 mostly vacant lots on Laie Beach into 74 rental units.

Hawaii Reserves Inc. says it is creating beachfront rentals for local working individuals and families with smaller households primarily in Koolauloa — an area that stretches from Kaaawa to Waimea Bay.
...
The development called Na Hale Manai, a Laie rental housing initiative, is clearly unusual — maybe the first of its kind, an oceanfront project created for middle-class local residents and families.

I read these sorts of things about the Church and its efforts on a regular basis (I often post such stories on this board).  

Analytics has been quite emphatic that the Church really is as much of a Miser/Scrooge/Pharoah/Primarily-a-Hedge-Fund kind of institution.  He is certainly entitled to his opinion.  Free Speech is a wonderful thing.

But then, why would an institution he describes as "primarily a giant hedge fund" spend substantial amounts of money on a housing development, using some of the most expensive real estate in the world, and specifically do this to create housing "for middle-class local residents and families"?

If the Church is "primarily a giant hedge fund," if it is bent on - as Analytics has put it - "enriching itself," if the Church metaphorically "starved" its members to "to save up food for {it}self," if it really is Scrooge-like and "miserly," if the Church's "mission is to hoard money as an end in and of itself," if the Church is "{m}aking money for the purpose of making money" because that is "exactly what hedge funds do," then why is it using the Na Hale Manai housing initiative ways which are incongruent with Analytics' characterizations? 

The article comments about this:

Quote

Normally, a landowner would turn such rare open shoreline into luxury homes or high-end vacation rentals for the wealthy rather than rental dwellings priced for firefighters and teachers.

Yes, one would expect that to be "normally" the case because landowners tend to want to maximize profits from their land.  There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself.  The Church's land holdings are generally intended to generate profit.  However, I think stories like this invite some introspection and inquiry.  If the Church is - as Analytics would have us believe - laser-focused on "making money for the purpose of making money," then why are those motives seemingly absent in the Na Hale Manai?

The article continues:

Quote

“Our shoreline properties are the only residentially zoned open land we have to do such a project. All our mauka lots are filled. Many of our properties inland sold to individual owners,” HRI president Eric Beaver said.

Beaver said HRI plans to develop its shoreline lots into rentals rather than selling them for single-family homes because “we are told that all most working families and individuals can afford are rental units.”

Selling the lots for homes to individuals would also attract buyers who donʻt live in the area.
...
Beaver says he sees the proposed rentals as a way to make a dent in the pressing need for housing in Hawaii with more and more local residents moving away to seek job opportunities and homes they can afford — including his own five adult children, all of whom now live on the mainland.

HRIʻs office says it receives phone calls almost every day from people asking for rentals in Laie when there are more than 50 people already on a waiting list, hoping that one of the company’s existing 48 rental units will become available.

“Families want to raise their kids where they were raised. With this project, more families and individuals can have a roof over their heads,” Beaver said.

HRI has hired the architectural planning company G70 to prepare the multiple permit applications it needs before it can begin the housing project. 

A rendering of the proposed housing project in Laie, which developers say would provide market-rate rentals for local residents and families. (Screenshot/laierentalhousing.com/2024)

The development — to be constructed in phases — calls for two to three structures on each of the 14 lots in the form of duplexes, multiplexes and some single homes.

HRI says the structures would feature one-, two- and three-bedroom rental units “to address the severe, ongoing shortage of housing in the community.”

If Scrooge and/or Pharoah were alive and living in Hawaii, I don't think they would design and build housing units like this and then rent it to the middle class of the area rather than leasing or selling them in ways that maximize prophets.

Quote

HRI’s website says that although it is “impossible to predict what market rental prices will be in future years” its existing rentals in Laie run between $1,200 and $1,600 a month for one-bedroom units and $2,400 to $3,000 for three-bedroom units.
...

Among the larger problems with the proposed 74-unit development that Faye Fukuyama foresees are increased traffic in Laie and HRIʻs challenge to make sure the wider local workforce of Koolauloa gets a fair crack at renting the attractive beachfront units, not just employees and friends of the LDS church.

HRIʻs Beaver said in a phone message Monday that the units will be open to anyone who applies and ultimately qualifies to rent them. He said it is not a closed system and that HRI in all its housing initiatives complies with the Federal Fair Housing Act.

I was born on Lai'e, but my family could not continue to afford living there, and that was in the late 70s.  I am happy to see the Church doing this. 

In my view, the Church is nothing like the amoral and avaricious organization Analytics and his compatriots make it out to be.  When it comes to broad generalizations and characterizations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I generally prefer to give the Church first crack and representing and speaking for itself, both expressly and through its actions.  Those actions include things like Na Hale Manai initiative in Hawai'i.  The Church is also involved in many humanitarian projects, educational initiatives, and other worthwhile pursuits.

The Church ain't perfect, but it is really good, and it is trying hard.  I am happy to be a member of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2024 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

I’m glad the church is doing this! I love Hawaii and hate that so many natives to the islands are pushed out from the land grabs of so many wealthy people. 

[Tacenda]

This reminds me of the rental housing the church builds in Utah, my daughter just quit to work out of her home, but she did recently work for this part of the church's real estate arm. 

I at first was negative about it, here in Utah, because I thought it sounded too much like Pottersville of the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", because I thought people should be able to own their own home. But then spoke with others and I guess some realistically cannot afford a large down payment on a home. So there's that.....

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

DEATH TO THE LANDLORDS!!!!!!

 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This reminds me of the rental housing the church builds in Utah, my daughter just quit to work out of her home, but she did recently work for this part of the church's real estate arm. 

I at first was negative about it, here in Utah, because I thought it sounded too much like Pottersville of the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", because I thought people should be able to own their own home. But then spoke with others and I guess some realistically cannot afford a large down payment on a home. So there's that.....

Another potential consideration is that "affordable housing" is difficult to maintain as "affordable" when it is sold on the open market.  A buyer can just buy the house and turn around and sell it at a marked-up price that reflects the market valuation.  From the article:

Quote

“Our shoreline properties are the only residentially zoned open land we have to do such a project. All our mauka lots are filled. Many of our properties inland sold to individual owners,” HRI president Eric Beaver said.

Beaver said HRI plans to develop its shoreline lots into rentals rather than selling them for single-family homes because “we are told that all most working families and individuals can afford are rental units.”

Selling the lots for homes to individuals would also attract buyers who donʻt live in the area.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Got my anti-response generator up and running.  Let me post some results here.

"How odd that Smac takes Analytics to task about comparing the church to Scrooge, and then quotes an article where the church is going into Scrooge's business of landlordery!"

"Great, another faceless corporation with no soul to kick people out into the elements for no good reason."

"Nothing says love like going into the bleeding-the-poor-dry-through-charging-rent business!"

"I bet they'll kick you out if you let your temple recommend expire!"

[Random emotion-laden story about how someone's sister got kicked out by an abusive ex who got to stay on the lease, with some veiled accusations about how the church'll start doing the same thing now.]

(I didn't watch TheNehor's video, so sorry if some of this is duplicated.) 

[The Nehor]

Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

Got my anti-response generator up and running.  Let me post some results here.

"How odd that Smac takes Analytics to task about comparing the church to Scrooge, and then quotes an article where the church is going into Scrooge's business of landlordery!"

"Great, another faceless corporation with no soul to kick people out into the elements for no good reason."

"Nothing says love like going into the bleeding-the-poor-dry-through-charging-rent business!"

"I bet they'll kick you out if you let your temple recommend expire!"

[Random emotion-laden story about how someone's sister got kicked out by an abusive ex who got to stay on the lease, with some veiled accusations about how the church'll start doing the same thing now.]

(I didn't watch TheNehor's video, so sorry if some of this is duplicated.) 

The video is about strict alcoholic toddler landlords.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

@Analytics has recently taken exception to my description of him as an untrustworthy source of information about the Church.

More specifically, here are you exact words:

"You regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc.  You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light."

• I am looking for examples where I speak for you (plural)
• Where I tell you what you believe, think, and teach
• Where I do so in a way that is distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc.
• Where I cast you (plural) in the worst possible light

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

By way of further examples, in recent years Analytics has taken up and emphasized the drumbeat notion that the Church is reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge (see, e.g., here, here, here), and has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly," and has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation" (even going so far as to impliedly deny the Church as having a Christian ethos), and has also compared it to a hypothetical "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people {} because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine."

These are examples of you telling me what I believe, think, and teach. These are examples of you distorting my views in an unfair way. These are examples of you trying to cast me in the worst possible light.

You do this to me all the time, and you are doing it now.

The question which is still unanswered is whether you can produce any examples of me telling you what you believe, think, and teach, and me distorting your beliefs in a distorted and unfair way that casts you in the worst possible light. 

You are projecting.

[Analytics]

Here is what I actually believe. If you look at what I actually wrote in the posts Smac linked to rather than taking words Smac doesn’t like out of context, you’ll see that I’ve been very consistent.

1- I believe churches and charities should be financially transparent. This is a well-defined thing, and there are best practices for it. The Church doesn’t do this. It hides its finances from its members and from the vast majority of its leaders.

2- I believe churches and charities should have a rainy day fund. The size of a rainy day fund should be around 3 months to 3 years of expenses. If an organization has more money than that in its rainy day fund, it is hoarding money. 

3- N. Elden Tanner’s plan of having the Church live off of 90% of its annual tithing revenue was a great plan in the 70’s and 80’s. But once the rainy fund got built up, this algorithm became more and more inappropriate.  

4- The leaders did this not because they are greedy, but rather because of a lack of vision of what they should do with their money, fear of changing tactics, and group think. I also suspect they like counting the assets--that is funner than looking at the baptism numbers.

5- Given its ability to allocate resources to its religious, educational, and charitable missions, the Church has way too much money. Of its total annual income, less than half goes to its religious, educational, and charitable missions. The majority goes towards increasing the size of its for-profit business portfolio.

6- By using the majority of its annual income to grow the size of its investment portfolio, the problem is getting worse and worse.

That is what I believe, not Smac’s misrepresentations. If I’m wrong, why not enlighten me with the truth, or at a minimum, agree to disagree? Why take a few words out of context so that you can distort my position and depict me in the worst possible light? Why not talk about what you believe rather than slander me?

[Nemesis]

Let’s just stick to issues and not the person please.  Let get beyond the personal squabbles.

 

Nemesis

[ZealouslyStriving]

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

also suspect they like counting the assets--that is funner than looking at the baptism numbers.

Except according to leaked documents, supposedly very few of the leadership, including the apostles have full knowledge of the assets and yet all must be in agreement over the process based on the principle of quorum unity we are told they operate under.  Why would something only a couple can do motivate the whole quorum?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The video is about strict alcoholic toddler landlords.

I thought it entertaining for sure! 

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

But then, why would an institution he describes as "primarily a giant hedge fund" spend substantial amounts of money on a housing development, using some of the most expensive real estate in the world, and specifically do this to create housing "for middle-class local residents and families"?

If the Church is "primarily a giant hedge fund," if it is bent on - as Analytics has put it - "enriching itself," if the Church metaphorically "starved" its members to "to save up food for {it}self," if it really is Scrooge-like and "miserly," if the Church's "mission is to hoard money as an end in and of itself," if the Church is "{m}aking money for the purpose of making money" because that is "exactly what hedge funds do," then why is it using the Na Hale Manai housing initiative ways which are incongruent with Analytics' characterizations? 

What I find fascinating about this is that you actually seem to believe what you say about me. I’ve made respectful posts full of detailed and thoughtful content, supported by links to informative sites. These principle-based posts have been about things like best practices in transparency and capital allocation. You have no expertise in these areas, and even less motivation to learn anything about them. I’m speculating at this point, but it seems you have a psychological defense mechanism that whenever you sense that a principle-based analysis of the issues might indicate that the church  is falling short in some areas, you get really angry, your brain turns off, you redirect your anger towards the critic, make up rationalizations for your anger, and then actually believe that your rationalizations are the truth.

In any event, the Widow’s Mite Report estimates that the Church allocates about 66% of its annual income to increase the size of its for-profit business portfolio, and uses the remaining 34% for fast offering assistance, humanitarian aid, administration, the missionary program, education (BYU & CES), building construction, building maintenance, ward and stake budgets, and marketing. 

I think it is great that the church is allocating perhaps $30 million to create 74 affordable housing units. That’s wonderful.

But it is entirely consistent with what I and like-minded people have actually been saying all along.

[Dario_M]

The most critisism about our church is mostely not fair critisism. Most of those people who criticize the church are ex members of the LDS community. 

Exmo Lex for example. She was born as a member of the church and always devoted to the church. Untill she left the church. And now she is spreading hate about the LDS church and she does it for years now. Mostely on youtube and TikTok. Giving the church a really bad name. She should do something else with her time i find. 

With John Delhin the same storie. Was the most loyal christian. But now he have left the church he has become the biggist hater ever.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Dario_M

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Except according to leaked documents, supposedly very few of the leadership, including the apostles have full knowledge of the assets and yet all must be in agreement over the process based on the principle of quorum unity we are told they operate under.  Why would something only a couple can do motivate the whole quorum?

That’s the point. The apostles aren’t allowed to know what the Church’s total income is (they help dispose of tithes, not investment income). And they are told that it is very important that a percentage of tithing be “saved for a rainy day.” There is some intense group-think going on here, and the pressure is to allocate tithing revenue according to the way things have always been done, rather than to take a step back, look at the Church’s entire income statement and balance sheet, and address the capital allocation question.

I’m not saying they are “bad people,” but I am saying that part of the reason they are making bad capital allocation decisions is because critical information is withheld from the apostles and from the general membership of the Church.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What I find fascinating about this is that you actually seem to believe what you say about me.  I’ve made respectful posts full of detailed and thoughtful content, supported by links to informative sites.  These principle-based posts have been about things like best practices in transparency and capital allocation.

So someone impersonated you when you called the Church miserly, compared it to Scrooge and a Pharoah starving his own people, etc.?

These comparisons are, in your eyes, "respectful" and "principle-based"?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You have no expertise in these areas, and even less motivation to learn anything about them.

Meh.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I’m speculating at this point,

"At this point"?  You just started?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

but it seems you have a psychological defense mechanism that whenever you sense that a principle-based analysis of the issues might indicate that the church  is falling short in some areas, you get really angry, your brain turns off, you redirect your anger towards the critic, make up rationalizations for your anger, and then actually believe that your rationalizations are the truth.

Miserly.

Scrooge.

Pharoah starving his own people.

"{P}rimarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation."

And on and on.

These are, in your view, "respectful" and "principle-based."

Oh.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In any event, the Widow’s Mite Report estimates that the Church allocates about 66% of its annual income to increase the size of its for-profit business portfolio, and uses the remaining 34% for fast offering assistance, humanitarian aid, administration, the missionary program, education (BYU & CES), building construction, building maintenance, ward and stake budgets, and marketing. 

I think it is great that the church is allocating perhaps $30 million to create 74 affordable housing units. That’s wonderful.

But it is entirely consistent with what I and like-minded people have actually been saying all along.

Yes, yes.  The "Just Throw Money At It!" and "Never Enough / Move the Goalposts" approach never ceases to not impress.

Another recent news item: Engage Now Africa and LDS Church provide boreholes to Kasena-Nankana communities

Quote

Water scarcity has been a persistent issue in some communities in the Kasena-Nankana Municipality and Kasena-Nankana West District of the Upper East Region.

Despite interventions over the years from government and charity organizations, residents in some communities in these areas often travel long distances to fetch water from unreliable sources.
...
Some help has however arrived as community development, NGO, Engage Now Africa in partnership with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has constructed mechanized boreholes for five areas with extremely dire water scarcity problems in the Kasena – Nankana Municipality and Kasena-Nankana West District.
...
Thousands of people in these communities can now access clean and safe drinking water.

The mechanized boreholes, equipped with solar-powered pumps and storage tanks, will provide a sustainable solution to the water needs of these communities.

The Africa Director for Engage Now Africa, Cecilia Amankwa said the main objective of the projects was to reduce the drudgery women and children have to endure looking for water.
...
A Humanitarian Specialist at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ezra Taft Ottoo, said the church has the broader aim of improving self-reliance in the communities and hence, the projects.  

“These are solar-powered boreholes so the communities are going to use their resource which is sunlight to power the solar cells which will in turn, pump water into the 5000-liter tanks”, he said.

The communities are ecstatic about their new boreholes.

“If you have given us water, you have given us life and nothing can be compared to what you have done for our community”, the chief of Mirigu-Pungubisi said to the donors.

Engage Now Africa and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints hope to shortly, bring more interventions to communities in the Upper East Region.

And another: East Texas Food Bank receives 40,000lb. donation from LDS church

Quote

The East Texas Food Bank received a 40,000-pound donation of food and other items Friday from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“We will spread this out throughout the 26 counties and make it available to all of our pantry partners and be able to feed a lot of people with it,” David Emerson, CEO of the East Texas Food Bank, said.

The 18-wheeler full of food was sent from the church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of East Texas applied to their headquarters to be able to make the donation, and the church agreed.

“We just are grateful for the opportunity to be able to bless the lives of the members of our community through this donation to the food bank,” Daren Yeager, a member of the stake presidency of Church of Latter-Day Saints of East Texas, said.

Donated items included shelf-stable milk, beans, soup, flour, peanut butter, laundry detergent and more.

This is the fourth time that the church has made a donation like this in the last few years.

According to you, the same organization that is helping dig wells in Africa and donating tons of food in East Texas is "miserly," Scrooge-like, and akin to a Pharoah deliberately starving his own people.

Whom should we trust, Roger or our lying eyes?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is what I actually believe. If you look at what I actually wrote in the posts Smac linked to rather than taking words Smac doesn’t like out of context, you’ll see that I’ve been very consistent.

1- I believe churches and charities should be financially transparent. This is a well-defined thing, and there are best practices for it. The Church doesn’t do this. It hides its finances from its members and from the vast majority of its leaders.

2- I believe churches and charities should have a rainy day fund. The size of a rainy day fund should be around 3 months to 3 years of expenses. If an organization has more money than that in its rainy day fund, it is hoarding money. 

3- N. Elden Tanner’s plan of having the Church live off of 90% of its annual tithing revenue was a great plan in the 70’s and 80’s. But once the rainy fund got built up, this algorithm became more and more inappropriate.  

4- The leaders did this not because they are greedy, but rather because of a lack of vision of what they should do with their money, fear of changing tactics, and group think. I also suspect they like counting the assets--that is funner than looking at the baptism numbers.

5- Given its ability to allocate resources to its religious, educational, and charitable missions, the Church has way too much money. Of its total annual income, less than half goes to its religious, educational, and charitable missions. The majority goes towards increasing the size of its for-profit business portfolio.

6- By using the majority of its annual income to grow the size of its investment portfolio, the problem is getting worse and worse.

That is what I believe, not Smac’s misrepresentations. If I’m wrong, why not enlighten me with the truth, or at a minimum, agree to disagree? Why take a few words out of context so that you can distort my position and depict me in the worst possible light? Why not talk about what you believe rather than slander me?

I had a high school English teacher that told us that there are only two rules of writing: Audience and Purpose.  It's such great advice that it has stuck with me for the 30+ years since I left his class. 

Your audience here is a given (faithful LDS), and I presume that your purpose is persuasion of those faithful LDS.  As such, there's too much accusation and presumption here to achieve that assumed purpose among your given audience.  I could agree with almost everything you wrote, and then the bolded parts just turned me off and made my defensive shields go up.  Those bolded points may even be true (though I think most of them are debatable), but stating them in such a stark, dismissive, or presumptuous way makes it harder for your message to connect with your audience.  

You've got some excellent points here, but if you really do want to persuade people around here, I think you gotta rethink your rhetorical strategy a bit.  

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

should 
should [or] it is hoarding  
more and more inappropriate.  
lack of vision 
the Church has way too much money
the problem is getting worse and worse.

People get to have opinions.  For every person or organization out there doing something, there are always endless random talking heads opining about how it SHOULD be done.  Every one of them believes, many of them with unassailable certainty, that they are correct, and the subjects of their opining are incorrect.  Each one of 'em speaking from their own mindset/worldview/experience.

Analytics apparently has a bunch of experience in large organizations with a lot of money, apparently knowing much about how they need to comply with regulations and laws and rules and policies. There are also various standards that various people and organizations are best practices for large organizations with a lot of money.  This experience and knowledge feeds into Analytics' mindset/worldview.   His own thoughts and beliefs about the church and its leaders produce various unrighteous judgments and speculations of intent:  "Lack of vision" is an unrighteous judgment.  Suspecting that our leaders find "counting the assets... funner than looking at the baptism numbers" is a speculation.  

But there's a thing about random people with opinions, even when they have no small amount of relevant experience is roughly tangentially aligned industries.  Here's the thing: Their opinions are so utterly easy to discard it's humorous.  "Leave us alone, we're mormoning."  "Go start your own church."  "Meh, pass."  "Go peddle your crap somewhere else, we're not buying."  These are all totally fair and equally valid responses to Analytics opinions. 

(Gotta make sure I'm understood: I'm not suggesting anyone be silenced or banned or censored.  Have all your opinions you want on this board, post them as often as you like.)

Basically, in the realm of opinion, which is all that Analytics truly has, anyone else's opinions are just as good. Here's mine:

The church and it's leaders are growing a massive pile of wealth that currently isn't being used.  I look forward with hope and anticipation to see how it gets used.  When looking at the current rate of temple construction and the associated costs, and so many temples going into poor nations where the members couldn't hope to support the costs and maintenance, there's an obvious answer about what the plan will be for this wealth.   Imagine 70-90 years from now, the church operating 2000+ temples across the world, bringing the blessings of the restoration to millions, approaching billions of people.  Each temple with it's own endowment similar to Harvard's, where the operating costs are covered, no matter how poor the people, no matter what happens to the local economy.  It's a beautiful thing.  If I hadn't already paid my tithing this month, I would have paused my post here and gone and done it. 

One thing I tend to do, when researching something, is find the criticisms of that thing.   I remember when Mother Theresa died, I went looking for her detractors to see what I thought of their opinions.  There were endless opinions similar to Analytics, full of what she SHOULD have done with her power, making unrighteous judgments and negative speculations about her motivations and intent.  It was more than simple disagreement, there were people expressing jealousy, anger, even hatred of Mother Theresa and how WRONG she was and what she SHOULD have done if she was the good person she pretended to be.   If Analytics gets to look inside the hearts of our leaders and see their likes and motivations, I get to look into his.  But, not on this thread, because we've been warned already.  But I see you, Analytics.  And my unrighteous judgment of your motivations is not only equally as valid as yours, but I'm also fulfilling scripture when I pass my judgment. 

Edited July 17, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Analytics]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So someone impersonated you when you called the Church miserly, compared it to Scrooge and a Pharoah starving his own people, etc.?

No, somebody took what I said out of context and was being dishonest when they insinuated this was an accurate representation of my views. It is not.

I did have an epiphany, though. On these examples you brought up, I am talking about things like capital allocation, best practices for rainy day funds, best practices for endowment spending rules, and financial transparency. I’m talking about those things in detail, and I’ve analyzed how well the Church is doing in these regards. Furthermore, I’ve speculated a little bit that organizational culture and dynamics, including groupthink, are the reasons the Church does this.

But you (singular) don’t hear any of that. And you (singular) don’t care about any of that. All you care about is whether the leaders of the Church are “good men,” and all you hear is blah blah blah Scrooge blah blah blah.

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whom should we trust, Roger or our lying eyes? 

You (singular), should not trust your (singular) lying eyes, because they are in fact lying to you (singular). You (singular) are taking a couple of words out of context, apparently because you (singular) have some psychological need to demonize me.

 

Edited July 17, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

But there's a thing about random people with opinions, even when they have no small amount of relevant experience is roughly tangentially aligned industries.  Here's the thing: Their opinions are so utterly easy to discard it's humorous.  "Leave us alone, we're mormoning."  "Go start your own church."  "Meh, pass."  "Go peddle your crap somewhere else, we're not buying."  These are all totally fair and equally valid responses to Analytics opinions. 

I totally agree.

If anyone is interested in understanding the concerns of people like me and David Nielsen, I’m happy to explain. If you don’t care, you are free to ignore; I don’t care whether you care or not. 

21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

If Analytics gets to look inside the hearts of our leaders and see their likes and motivations, I get to look into his....

If we are going to change topics from finance to the hearts of your leaders, here are my thoughts on that.

I think they are good men who are earnestly trying to do the right thing.

I also think the organizational structure of the Church leads to suboptimal decision processes and groupthink. 

If I’m going to hell for having these beliefs, then so be it.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I had a high school English teacher that told us that there are only two rules of writing: Audience and Purpose.  It's such great advice that it has stuck with me for the 30+ years since I left his class. 

Your audience here is a given (faithful LDS), and I presume that your purpose is persuasion of those faithful LDS.  As such, there's too much accusation and presumption here to achieve that assumed purpose among your given audience.  I could agree with almost everything you wrote, and then the bolded parts just turned me off and made my defensive shields go up.  Those bolded points may even be true (though I think most of them are debatable), but stating them in such a stark, dismissive, or presumptuous way makes it harder for your message to connect with your audience.  

You've got some excellent points here, but if you really do want to persuade people around here, I think you gotta rethink your rhetorical strategy a bit.  

 

I appreciate you reading what I actually say and for the feedback on my writing style.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

apostles aren’t allowed to know what the Church’s total income is (they help dispose of tithes, not investment income). And they are told that it is very important that a percentage of tithing be “saved for a rainy day.” There is some intense group-think going on here, and the pressure is to allocate tithing revenue according to the way things have always been done, rather than to take a step back, look at the Church’s entire income statement and balance sheet, and address the capital allocation question.

That comes across as certainty when you can’t know, few can, what is actually going on at that level. I find it unlikely that the apostles as a whole as well as individuals are simply told what to think rather than having in-depth discussions on what to do with tithes and investment properties.  While there is a lot of compartmentalization going on in the Church, it is also very top down driven and there is a huge emphasis on quorum unity, which could lead to group think, but also is likely to mean all the apostles get informed in the general way, if not specific details. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, yes.  The "Just Throw Money At It!" and "Never Enough / Move the Goalposts" approach never ceases to not impress.

He doesn’t do that. You have credible points in your evaluation of analytics, but you do them damage when you ignore his actual approach like this over and over, which is not without limits (a percentage of income is clearly established as how much is reasonable for the Church to donate to charity and in no way is he saying causes shouldn’t be thoroughly vetted and money wisely given).

My advice is every time you are tempted to use the Throw Money at It remark, stop yourself. There is only one frequent poster who comes across at times imo as saying that when she sometimes posts a gut reaction and even she means to vet and be wise in the choices when she explains what she really wants. 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Yes, yes.  The "Just Throw Money At It!" and "Never Enough / Move the Goalposts" approach never ceases to not impress.

He doesn’t do that.

He does not admit that.  But basing humanitarian expenditures on an arbitrary percentage of the Church's income amounts to an "Just Throw Money At It!"-style of reasoning.  

Let's do a thought experiment:

1. Imagine a scenario where the Church adopts Roger's approach and allocates a fixed percentage of its income to humanitarian efforts. 

2. Let us further postulate that this amount is huge, amounting to many billions of dollars. 

3. Let us also postulate that the folks in the PBO would start out the fiscal year doing their best to "vet" partner organizations and projects in the ways it currently does ("based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability").

4. At the end of the fiscal year, is there any chance that the vetted partners and projects will not have exhausted the amount allocated by the Church?

5. If the answer to #4 is yes, what happens then?  We already know: Having a fixed budget that must be used within a fiscal year is common in government agencies, educational institutions, and other organizations.  As the fiscal year-end approaches, departments rush to spend leftover funds, leading to unnecessary or suboptimal purchases.  In this context, though, because the cause (humanitarian relief) is noble, such unnecessary or suboptimal purchases would be excused, even justified and praised.  Worse, though, is they would be required.  Such unwise thinking is what I have been referencing as a "Just Throw Money At It!" approach.  The risks and likely consequences of this approach are dire: inefficiencies and waste on a grand scale, distorted incentives, malfeasance of stewardship of the Widow's Mite.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have credible points in your evaluation of analytics, but you do them damage when you ignore his actual approach like this over and over, which is not without limits (a percentage of income is clearly established as how much is reasonable for the Church to donate to charity and in no way is he saying causes shouldn’t be thoroughly vetted and money wisely given).

Respectfully, I disagree.  My assessment is that you cannot assert that the Church's humanitarian efforts should be calculated as "a percentage of income" and also say that the Church's efforts should be "thoroughly vetted and money wisely given."  One is, per Roger's reasoning, a requirement, the other one is either not a requirement at all, or else it runs a distant second to Roger's "fixed percentage" approach.

At the level on which the Church operates (that is, with billions of dollars available), donating a fixed percentage, amounting to many billions of dollars, year over year, ad infinitum, necessarily predominates over the latter.  The Church's "vetting" efforts would almost certainly become watered down and weakened because the measurement of the Church's decency as an institution is whether its humanitarian efforts hits a percentage of its income.

The Church's humanitarian efforts are, instead, guided by an alternative and superior approach.  Rather than using an arbitrary percentage of its income as a benchmark, the Church's humanitarian efforts are "based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

One of these approaches must be the "driver."  It cannot be both. 

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

My advice is every time you are tempted to use the Throw Money at It remark, stop yourself. There is only one frequent poster who comes across at times imo as saying that when she sometimes posts a gut reaction and even she means to vet and be wise in the choices when she explains what she really wants. 

Respectfully, I do not think you have thought through the foregoing ramifications.  "Just Throw Money At It!" is near-certain outcome of basing humanitarian efforts on an arbitrary percentage of income rather than on results-oriented efforts. We have seen Roger's approach play out in California, as it bloviates about the many billions it has spent on homelessness, with little or no regard to more important principles (such as those which govern the Church's approach).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2024 by smac97