Church to Build 74 Middle-Class Housing Units in Laie

[2BizE]

I wonder how many of these housing units will be set aside for visiting GAs to get some beachfront vacation time?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

 

It’s not like an organization or individual couldn’t be both donating a ton of money and still not be generous with its resources if it has massive.y more than it’s giving out.  Those are not mutually exclusive.  If the US government was handing out the same amount of aid the Church was and holding to taxes for whatever reason, I don’t think you would consider them as generous.  A person who makes $100 a week and who gives $50 of it away is generous.  A person making $10,000 a week who give 50$ away may not be if they pocket most of that after minimal expenses or may be if they have appropriate expenses that amount to $9900 (maybe they are paying off medical debt and a student loan, mortgage for an modestly sized house and car payment, have a large family to feed, etc) leaving them $100 to spend as they want on themselves or others.

I disagree that the Church is miserly, etc, but not because the amounts are reasonable if you just look at income because if that was the only thing the Church was doing, it should be spending much, much more imo.  But humanitarian aid is only one of the missions of the Church and even there it is not the most important/primary mission, though absolutely necessary and needs to be prominent in our concerns.  It should never be neglected, but balanced with the others.  The unique tasks of the Church (temple work, etc) should, imo, be considered first as well as the spiritual needs of its own people and the rest of the world and then comes addressing the physical needs.  Of course, people may not be too concerned with the spiritual if they are starving, so even if we are prone to ignore the physical in favor of the spiritual, it would be counterproductive to do so.

I do trust the leadership have a highly considered plan that I would find acceptable even if not the one I would do.  Unlike analytics (if I understand his comments correctly) I think they care much, much more about the members and people in general than they do about amassing wealth or even security.  I have no doubt they want the Church to be in a position to fulfill its commitments once it makes them (and in fact that is my guess why there has been a steady increase of spending in humanitarian rather than a massive shift once they got the Church into a secure place).  I think if there was as much control possible over the humanitarian side as there is in the temple building side of operations, we would see a similar rapid increase of spending in that area as well, but the situations are not comparable as we don’t maintain control over donations like we do temple property and therefore it is wise imo to take time and see both short and long term effects where possible before committing masses of money to various projects.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Another thing to consider:

If the Church was just throwing out money like candy at a hometown 4th of July parade they would be seen as trying to entice or buy members which could run afoul of countries teetering on legislating laws limiting conversion- India for example.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"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.

No, it’s not.  There are so many good causes out there globally, one does not need to just dump money in several here and there.  For a large amount of money, one would need quite a big staff, but with such one could get good info and evaluate and wisely dispense.

One can throw just a few dollars foolishly away.  It’s not the amount that matters, but the method.

There may be organizations or individuals who don’t know what they are doing or who care more about appearance that end up throwing money at problems rather than taking the time to evaluate, but it’s not a given.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

It’s not like an organization or individual couldn’t be both donating a ton of money and still not be generous with its resources if it has massive.y more than it’s giving out.

Misers, Scrooges and Pharoahs-who-starve-their-people do not care about the welfare other others.  The Church does.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Hence the  "Just Throw Money At It!" and "Never Enough / Move the Goalposts" approach.  No matter what the Church does, people like Roger will always be situated to demand that the Church do more.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree that the Church is miserly, etc, but not because the amounts are reasonable if you just look at income because if that was the only thing the Church was doing, it should be spending much, much more imo.  But humanitarian aid is only one of the missions of the Church and even there it is not the most important/primary mission, though very important and it should never be neglected, but balanced with the others.  The unique tasks of the Church should, imo, be considered first as well as the spiritual needs of its own people and the rest of the world and then comes addressing the physical needs.  Of course, people may not be too concerned with the spiritual if they are starving, so even if we are prone to ignore the physical in favor of the spiritual, it would be counterproductive to do so.

I agree.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do trust the leadership have a highly considered plan that I would find acceptable even if not the one I would do.  

So do I.  And that plan apparently does not involve Roger's proposal of using an arbitrary percentage of the Church's income, year after year, ad infinitum.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unlike you (if I understand your comments correctly) I think they care much, much more about the members and people in general than they do about amassing wealth or even security.  

You do not understand my comments correctly.  I agree that the Brethren "care much, much more about the members and people in general than they do about amassing wealth or even security."

In contrast, Roger has called them "miserly," compared them to Scrooge, to a Pharoah deliberately starving his own people for his own benefit, and so on.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no doubt they want the Church to be in a position to fulfill its commitments once it makes them (and in fact that is my guess why there has been a steady increase of spending in humanitarian rather than a massive shift once they got the Church into a secure place).

That is party of why.  The other part is that the Church has, in only recent years, accumulated financial resources and financial stability which allow it to steadily increase its spending in humanitarian efforts.  And how does Roger address this?  He characterizes 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).

There is no satisfying Roger and people like him.  No matter what the Church does, it will never be enough.  The goalposts can and will be moved ever further out.  

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think if there was as much control possible over the humanitarian side as there is in the temple building side of operations, we would see a similar rapid increase of spending in that area as well, but the situations are not comparable and therefore it is wise imo to take time and see both short and long term effects where possible before committing masses of money to various projects.

I agree.  The Church has limited control over the overall opportunities to work with partnering organizations and projects that are vetted, worthwhile, and comport with the Church's stated "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

None of this would really matter under Roger's approach.  His only benchmark is for the Church to spend a fixed percentage of its income.  Anything less, and out come the comparisons to Scrooge, Pharoah, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

"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.

No, it’s not.  There are so many good causes out there globally, one does not need to just dump money in several here and there.  For a large amount of money, one would need quite a big staff, but with such one could get good info and evaluate and wisely dispense.

One can throw just a few dollars foolishly away.  It’s not the amount that matters, but the method.

First, Roger's approach is that it is "the amount that matters."

Second, I think your reference to "so many good causes out there globally" is too vague and speculative.  You are not accounting for the substantial "rot," in terms of waste, corruption, graft, mismanagement, etc., that exists across broad swaths of the "international humanitarian" arena.  Good intentions are not enough.  Good results are not enough.  International humanitarian aid is riddled with perverse incentives, corruptions, incompetencies, unintended harmful consequences, and so on.  The Church is wise to require that its humanitarian efforts be predicated on "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

Third, the Church's stated "core principles" are imperiled by adopting Roger's incautious and arbitrary "fixed percentage" approach.  

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

There may be organizations or individuals who don’t know what they are doing or who care more about appearance that end up throwing money at problems rather than taking the time to evaluate, but it’s not a given.

Not, not a "given," but certainly a sufficient cause for the Church to base its approach on the foregoing "core principles," which necessarily involves substantial vetting and review, rather than Roger's proposal involving the Church spending an arbitrary fixed percentage of its income.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

If the Church approaches it wisely, as I have no doubt they would given their other efforts, they would first ensure they had a large enough infrastructure to do the vetting so as there is no rushing at anytime as well as having alternates that are refused the first time around as less urgent that could be reevaluated at the last quarter if it looks like there will be excess.

Plus I don’t believe analytics would insist that each year has to end with a zero balance from the way he has described how he pictures it, just that the money is not taken away for other purposes.  Therefore there would be no rushing at the end of the year, but rather the next year would include the excess funds.  Add appropriate adjustment to their procedures to ensure the excess was more exception than rule.  Same thing if at the end of a year they had overspent.  Adjustments pulling back where possible (which should be built into the system with one time donations that could or could not be renewed the next year depending on funding)

In speculating, if we can assume the Church does things differently than many organizations now and therefore in your view manages their money wisely, why would they not apply the same sort of wisdom if they expand their spending, whether in temple building or humanitarian goals?  It makes no sense to give them the benefit of the doubt based on their current behaviour in the one case, but to assume the worst in the case of a percentage of income goal…even if other organizations succumb to that problem (organizations that often don’t show real discipline with smaller goals either). Is spending a percentage of income per year any more arbitrary than having a goal of a temple within an arbitrary distance from every Saint in the world by a certain time?

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I wonder how many of these housing units will be set aside for visiting GAs to get some beachfront vacation time?

I'm guessing zero.

[Analytics]

 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

A couple of points.

1- By “percentage of income” you mean “percentage of assets”, right?

2- None of this is “Roger’s reasoning” or “Roger’s approach.” These are widely agreed upon and utilized approaches for discussing how endowments should find the appropriate balance between spending and saving.

3- I never said or implied that this target should be limited to “humanitarian efforts.” That is an illusion on your part.

4- What I have said is that this money should be used to further the Church’s religious, educational, and charitable missions, whatever they may be.

5- I never said the fixed percentage was a “requirement.” I have said it was a goal or objective or budget.

6- I never said or thought that spending money wisely is “not a requirement at all” or is a “distant second” to hitting your spending targets.

7- You can have the requirement that money be spent wisely and have a target for what your overall spending is going to be. 

8- I am arguing for nothing more nor less than commonly accepted best practices for how endowments should balance current and future needs.

But hey. Keep presuming to speak for me and tell me what I believe, think, and say. Keep doing it in a way that is distorted, caracaturish, and unfair. Keep doing it to cast me in the worst possible light. 

And keep projecting.

 

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unlike analytics (if I understand his comments correctly) I think they care much, much more about the members and people in general than they do about amassing wealth or even security....

Hi Calm,

I appreciate your comments here and agree with almost everything you’ve said in the last few posts. One thing I would like to clarify about my position is that when I occasionally characterize the Church as being miserly, I am not accusing the brethren of being miserly. To me, “the Church” is something that emerges (quoting wikipedia, "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole).

I think the brethren care about people as individuals and about the Church as a whole more than they care about money. But I believe that because of the way the hierarchy of the Church is setup, the Church itself is slow and clunky when it comes to radical change. This is why a group of apostles that generally weren’t racist lead a church with a racist priesthood policy for generations, and it is why they can’t pivot away from N. Eldon Tanner’s inappropriate savings policy and put the Church’s assets to work in a way that resembles a religious or charitable mission more than a hedge fund. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hi Calm,

I appreciate your comments here and agree with almost everything you’ve said in the last few posts. One thing I would like to clarify about my position is that when I occasionally characterize the Church as being miserly, I am not accusing the brethren of being miserly. To me, “the Church” is something that emerges (quoting wikipedia, "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole).

I think the brethren care about people as individuals and about the Church as a whole more than they care about money. But I believe that because of the way the hierarchy of the Church is setup, the Church itself is slow and clunky when it comes to radical change. This is why a group of apostles that generally weren’t racist lead a church with a racist priesthood policy for generations, and it is why they can’t pivot away from N. Eldon Tanner’s inappropriate savings policy and put the Church’s assets to work in a way that resembles a religious or charitable mission more than a hedge fund. 

I will try to remember this, but have to be honest and let you know there is a good chance I will forget as I strongly identify “Church” with leadership and therefore the top quorums when it comes to policy and decisions for the Church even though I understand , I think, your position…in essence the Church is more than the collected top quorums or leadership because it’s not just the people that affect those involved, but the current and historical environment they are operating in.  In other similar contexts the Brethren might make other choices, but tradition/baggage attached to the Church, the mix of practical and spiritual respect for predecessors or those in positions over them etc influences them to take paths they would not normally take. 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hi Calm,

I appreciate your comments here and agree with almost everything you’ve said in the last few posts. One thing I would like to clarify about my position is that when I occasionally characterize the Church as being miserly, I am not accusing the brethren of being miserly.

I smiled at this.  The legal fiction that is "the Church" is, in your view, "miserly," but those who make its decisions are not?  What revisionist nonsense.  Back in 2021, I was speaking of "the brethren" and said this:

Quote

Nobody is getting rich off the Church.  Those with access to the accumulated wealth of the Church are not living high off the hog.  They are not enriching themselves.

You responded: 

Quote

Being miserly is a thing.

So whom are we to believe? 

The 2021 Roger, when you explicitly described the leaders of the Church as "being miserly," or

the 2024 Roger, when you say "I am not accusing the brethren of being miserly"?

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think the brethren care about people as individuals and about the Church as a whole more than they care about money.

These are the same "brethren" whom you have repeatedly compared to Ebenezer Scrooge (see, e.g., here, here, here)?

The same "brethren" whom you have characterized as "lusting for money" and "miserly"?

The same "brethren" whom you compared to "Pharaoh" who "starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself"?

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But I believe that because of the way the hierarchy of the Church is setup, the Church itself is slow and clunky when it comes to radical change. This is why a group of apostles that generally weren’t racist lead a church with a racist priesthood policy for generations, and it is why they can’t pivot away from N. Eldon Tanner’s inappropriate savings policy and put the Church’s assets to work in a way that resembles a religious or charitable mission more than a hedge fund. 

Or it could be that the Church's judicious approach to humanitarian expenditures is pretty good, and that proposed "radical change{s}" to it are not warranted.

It could also be that the calls from one of its most vigorous critics for the Church to "radical{ly} change" how it spends billions of dollars just might come across as lacking in good faith, as pretextual, etc.  I have previously commented on this here:

Quote

Quote

Do you believe in financial transparency for large institutions or not? 

Do you only perceive complex questions in a big, blocky, all-or-nothing, kind of way?  

Again, your question is vague.  And overstated.  

I am not sure what you mean by "financial transparency."  I am, however, reasonably confident that the critics of the Church don't give two figs about the finances of the Church, except as a point of discussion emphasized to make the Church look bad.

I think safeguards should be in place to guard against financial malfeasance for non-profit organizations.  I am, however, fairly skeptical of sweeping, overbroad declarations about such things from axe-grinding critics of religious groups.  We have seen numerous examples of combatants in the Culture Wars weaponizing governmental regulatory power to punish the "other side."  So when we see how the LDS Church is doing a great job at managing its finances, and when there is neither fire nor smoke as to the Church's leaders misappropriating funds, and when axe-grinding critics whose objective is to attack and weaken and undermine the LDS Church come along and present baseless (even counterfactual) insinuations about the Church's finances, and when they further propose that despite the Church's demonstrated good stewardship, the government still needs to step in and use the force of law to impose more regulatory disclosure requirements on it.  Because for such critics, "financial transparency" is a noble-sounding pretext for "How can I use the force of law to bend the LDS Church to my will, including using governmental regulation to punish religious groups if they say or do things I and my compatriots dislike?"

And here:

Quote

John 12 comes to mind:

So too does Matthew 25:

And Jacob 2:

And Genesis 41:

See also these remarks Bishop Waddell:

Quote

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

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

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

From these I glean a few things:

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Yep.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I smiled at this.  The legal fiction that is "the Church" is, in your view, "miserly," but those who make its decisions are not?  What revisionist nonsense.  Back in 2021, I was speaking of "the brethren" and said this:

You responded: 

So whom are we to believe? 

The 2021 Roger, when you explicitly described the leaders of the Church as "being miserly," or

the 2024 Roger, when you say "I am not accusing the brethren of being miserly"?

I didn’t say or imply the brethren were miserly. I said “being miserly is a thing.” That is not “explicitly”  calling anybody miserly. 

But hey. Keep presuming to speak for me and tell me what I believe, think, and say. Keep doing it in a way that is distorted, caracaturish, and unfair. Keep doing it to cast me in the worst possible light. 

And keep projecting.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These are the same "brethren" whom you have repeatedly compared to Ebenezer Scrooge (see, e.g., here, here, here)?

Putting “brethren” in quotation marks dishonestly implies that you are quoting my use of the word brethren. The truth is that in none of the quotes am I comparing the brethren to Scrooge.

But hey. Keep presuming to speak for me and tell me what I believe, think, and say. Keep doing it in a way that is distorted, caracaturish, and unfair. Keep doing it to cast me in the worst possible light. 

And keep projecting.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same "brethren" whom you have characterized as "lusting for money" and "miserly"?

The same "brethren" whom you compared to "Pharaoh" who "starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself"?

Again, I didn’t compare “the brethren” the way you are telling me I did.

But hey. Keep presuming to speak for me and tell me what I believe, think, and say. Keep doing it in a way that is distorted, caracaturish, and unfair. Keep doing it to cast me in the worst possible light. 

And keep projecting.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or it could be that the Church's judicious approach to humanitarian expenditures is pretty good, and that proposed "radical change{s}" to it are not warranted.

Ironically, I actually do think the Church’s judicious approach to humanitarian expenditures is pretty good. I’d say excellent, as a matter of fact. However, that doesn’t change these facts:

1. If we look at EPA assets as a rainy day fund, they are wasting money because it is way to big to be a reasonable rainy day fund
2. If we look at EPA assets as an endowment, they are wasting money because they aren’t making nearly enough in distributions

 

[Tacenda]

I have hope that the church is going to continually get better and better at donating to the well looked into charities out there.

I am very relieved they aren't like the Joel Olsteen's out there, heaven forbid!

I was wondering, and I will check it out, what is up with the wheel chair thing? Glad they are doing that though. Is it easier to get the wheel chair donations through compared to other things?

Also, I was listening to some outfit, now I forgot, and how much they needed the kits that come in the zip lock bags, and it made me feel proud of the church for doing these. The outfit was a large organization not based out of Utah, if remembering right. Of course we have a lot of the members to thank for this, since they've donated time and money towards this kind of donation.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have hope that the church is going to continually get better and better at donating to the well looked into charities out there.

I am very relieved they aren't like the Joel Olsteen's out there, heaven forbid!

I was wondering, and I will check it out, what is up with the wheel chair thing? Glad they are doing that though. Is it easier to get the wheel chair donations through compared to other things?

Also, I was listening to some outfit, now I forgot, and how much they needed the kits that come in the zip lock bags, and it made me feel proud of the church for doing these. The outfit was a large organization not based out of Utah, if remembering right. Of course we have a lot of the members to thank for this, since they've donated time and money towards this kind of donation.

Did you know Joel Osteen doesn't receive a salary from his church? He lives off the royalties from his books (and I guessing smart investments).

[blackstrap]

I find it hard to believe that the GAs , most if not all of whom have risen to the top ranks of their professions/businesses , are going to just sit on their hands and keep their opinions to themselves when discussing Church financial affairs/ policies. 

I just thought of a way that the Church could use up all of its assets in a hurry. They could create a military force to go in and eliminate the warring factions in those countries where war is hindering humanitarian aid efforts. Two birds one stone. ( for the sarcasm impaired , tongue is in cheek )

Edited July 17, 2024 by blackstrap

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did you know Joel Osteen doesn't receive a salary from his church? He lives off the royalties from his books (and I guessing smart investments).

Thanks for the correction.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I find it hard to believe that the GAs , most if not all of whom have risen to the top ranks of their professions/businesses , are going to just sit on their hands and keep their opinions to themselves when discussing Church financial affairs/ policies. 

I just thought of a way that the Church could use up all of its assets in a hurry. They could create a military force to go in and eliminate the warring factions in those countries where war is hindering humanitarian aid efforts. Two birds one stone. ( for the sarcasm impaired , tongue is in cheek )

The Ward Radio guys came up with the idea of buying the Philippines a couple months back:

 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

None of this is “Roger’s reasoning” or “Roger’s approach.” These are widely agreed upon and utilized approaches for discussing how endowments should find the appropriate balance between spending and saving.

As a reminder, the church's wealth is not an endowment.  It's money that has been consecrated to the Lord for the building up of the kingdom of Zion.  Perhaps it's a fine point with a fine distinction, but I believe it's an important point.

Places with endowments like Harvard basically have more money than they need or could ever use, so in order to satisfy human desire to judge, they have negotiated a sort of deal with the opinion leaders on how they can impart a portion of their surplus in order to appear as "doing enough" with their wealth.  If Harvard went on a campus-building spree, with the goal of, say, providing a Harvard campus promising a Harvard-level education in every state in the US, I suspect their interest in adhering to these approaches would change.  

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What I have said is that this money should be used to further the Church’s religious, educational, and charitable missions, whatever they may be.

And we engaged in a figuring on a paper napkin exercise where we thought about the church using it's wealth to engage in temple building in poor nations and funding the operating costs indefinitely.  As long as a dozen or so new temples get announced in every new general conference, that's evidence of the church doing exactly that.  So why you still complaining?

Edited July 17, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

Thinking it’s a different type of endowment, so never mind.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

51 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

As a reminder, the church's wealth is not an endowment.  It's money that has been consecrated to the Lord for the building up of the kingdom of Zion.  Perhaps it's a fine point with a fine distinction, but I believe it's an important point.

I'm not sure if they consistently represent it that way. I recall Hinckley saying that they saving money was nothing different than what they counsel us to do--save a bit for a rainy day.

51 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Places with endowments like Harvard basically have more money than they need or could ever use, so in order to satisfy human desire to judge, they have negotiated a sort of deal with the opinion leaders on how they can impart a portion of their surplus in order to appear as "doing enough" with their wealth.  If Harvard went on a campus-building spree, with the goal of, say, providing a Harvard campus promising a Harvard-level education in every state in the US, I suspect their interest in adhering to these approaches would change. 

I'm not sure I’m following you there. Harvard would say they are trying to find a balance between current and future needs, which is exactly what I suggest. 

51 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And we engaged in a figuring on a paper napkin exercise where we thought about the church using it's wealth to engage in temple building in poor nations and funding the operating costs indefinitely.  As long as a dozen or so new temples get announced in every new general conference, that's evidence of the church doing exactly that.  So why you still complaining?

The only thing I’m complaining about is people who deliberately lie about what I believe. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Your audience here is a given (faithful LDS), and I presume that your purpose is persuasion of those faithful LDS. 

I agree with your post except the audience is mixed if analytics is ‘presenting’ to the board, though he could be focused solely on faithful LDS.

Purpose could be the same as mine…”let’s have some fun!”.   (I like to write, but need something to write about)

Edited July 18, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

recall Hinckley saying that they saving money was nothing different than what they counsel us to do--save a bit for a rainy day.

Can be both consecrated for the building of the Kingdom and being saved for the rainy day that could easily disrupt those plans if unprepared for it.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

You do not understand my comments correctly.

I accidentally switched who I was talking to, this was to analytics 

[Teancum]

On 7/16/2024 at 4:27 PM, smac97 said:

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

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:

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:

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:

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.

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

Since I am often very critical of the church and its wealth and such, I want to say I commend this very much and would love to see them do more like this.  A real estate investment that is smart and also can help make some nice affordable housing to those who may need something more affordable is a wonderful thing.