Here is an example of where your tithing is spent...

[_harmony]

Deseret Cattle & Fruit
- 500 billion gallons of rain fall the ranch receives annually (1.5 times the volume of Utah Lake)
- 290-300,000 acres (450 sq. miles)
•165,000 acres of pasture land
•75,000 acres of wetlands
•60,000 acres of timber
•1,700 acres of citrus orchards (producing 50 million 8 oz glasses of orange juice annually)
•920 acres of row crops (450 acres of potatoes for Frito Lay Chips)
- 44,000 cows
- 33,000 calves born annually
- 1,400 bulls
- 1,400 miles of fencing
- 380+ documented species of vertebrate animals- many threatened or endangered

•245 birds
•53 fish
•33 reptiles
•31 mammals
•20 amphibians
- 90 employees
- 61 years of operation (acquired in 1950)
- 45 hunting clubs have rights to use land

in comparison the Church spent $0 dollars of tithing helping with humanitarian aid...

And this is fair to the farmers and orchardists in Florida how? DC&F is subsidized by the church; those farmers are not. DC&F has volunteer labor from the church; those farmers do not. Those employees that are paid are subsidized by the church; those farmers do not have access to a resource like that.

How much does the church receive from government subidies that is meant to keep small farmers in business?

This is not the only example of the church skewing the agricultural markets.

[_DrW]

Here is a nice description of the Florida property, with a map, from a trusted LDS source.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15602133

As a Florida resident, I have to agree with a lot of what Harmony says about the local attitude towards the Church and this property.

[_maklelan]

And this is fair to the farmers and orchardists in Florida how? DC&F is subsidized by the church; those farmers are not. DC&F has volunteer labor from the church; those farmers do not. Those employees that are paid are subsidized by the church; those farmers do not have access to a resource like that.

How much does the church receive from government subidies that is meant to keep small farmers in business?

This is not the only example of the church skewing the agricultural markets.

I have to disagree with this characterization. Deseret Ranches pays local, state, and national taxes and is an equal opportunity employer. They refuse to receive any government subsidies or taxpayer supported price supports. Additionally, some of the stuff produced there isn't sold, but ends up in Deseret Industries packaging to be given to needy families. My family of seven lived off of Deseret Industries food for a year when the only member was my unemployed (and thus non-tithe paying) mother. I certainly don't think that was a bad thing. I'm curious what you suggest the church do. Should they fire the 100 or so employees who live and work on the ranches? Should they downsize until they're no longer a nuisance to local growers? Just how many church farmers is each local grower worth, anyway?

The notion that anybody's tithing is currently going to this ranch is also kinda silly. It has been self-sustaining for much longer than I've been alive. Hinckley even states specifically that the church's farms were places for the church's assets to be "preserved and enhanced," in addition to being resources for the provision of food to the needy. There are plenty of people on exmormon.org griping about how the church makes so much money off of the Deseret Ranches, including charging nearby cities to draw from their water. You guys can't have it both ways.

[_Droopy]

And this is fair to the farmers and orchardists in Florida how? DC&F is subsidized by the church; those farmers are not. DC&F has volunteer labor from the church; those farmers do not. Those employees that are paid are subsidized by the church; those farmers do not have access to a resource like that.

How much does the church receive from government subidies that is meant to keep small farmers in business?

This is not the only example of the church skewing the agricultural markets.

I have to disagree with this characterization. Deseret Ranches pays local, state, and national taxes and is an equal opportunity employer. They refuse to receive any government subsidies or taxpayer supported price supports. Additionally, some of the stuff produced there isn't sold, but ends up in Deseret Industries packaging to be given to needy families. My family of seven lived off of Deseret Industries food for a year when the only member was my unemployed (and thus non-tithe paying) mother. I certainly don't think that was a bad thing. I'm curious what you suggest the church do. Should they fire the 100 or so employees who live and work on the ranches? Should they downsize until they're no longer a nuisance to local growers? Just how many church farmers is each local grower worth, anyway?

The notion that anybody's tithing is currently going to this ranch is also kinda silly. It has been self-sustaining for much longer than I've been alive. Hinckley even states specifically that the church's farms were places for the church's assets to be "preserved and enhanced," in addition to being resources for the provision of food to the needy. There are plenty of people on exmormon.org griping about how the church makes so much money off of the Deseret Ranches, including charging nearby cities to draw from their water. You guys can't have it both ways.

In case you didn't get the gist of this, Harmony, you've made a fool of yourself yet again.

[_maklelan]

In case you didn't get the gist of this, Harmony, you've made a fool of yourself yet again.

I'm not trying to suggest anyone is a fool. What I'm suggesting is that there is a lack of critical thinking taking place here that is contributing to this mischaracterization. I'd like to see it stopped. I also think that suggesting I'm calling her a fool only serves to stir up the emotions driving these arguments and impede any real communication. I don't think that's helpful.

[_harmony]

I have to disagree with this characterization. Deseret Ranches pays local, state, and national taxes and is an equal opportunity employer. They refuse to receive any government subsidies or taxpayer supported price supports. Additionally, some of the stuff produced there isn't sold, but ends up in Deseret Industries packaging to be given to needy families. My family of seven lived off of Deseret Industries food for a year when the only member was my unemployed (and thus non-tithe paying) mother. I certainly don't think that was a bad thing. I'm curious what you suggest the church do. Should they fire the 100 or so employees who live and work on the ranches? Should they downsize until they're no longer a nuisance to local growers? Just how many church farmers is each local grower worth, anyway?

Sorry, I don't buy what you're selling. And the books aren't open, so no one knows.

We have church farms around here that employ some local workers, yes, but a good percentage of their staffing is done through missions. Other farms can't compete on a level playing field, when even a small percentage of the staff is not paid, since they don't have access to that kind of volunteer labor source. Labor is a huge expense in agriculture, and any unpaid staff is a huge leg-up in a very competitive market.

As for Deseret Industries... this is just like the humanitarian aid situation. If the church was really interested in actually being God's one true church on the earth, this church-owned corporate farm would be giving ALL it produces to Deseret Industries. It doesn't, because it isn't, and this is one more example of the church getting richer instead of fulfilling its mission.

The notion that anybody's tithing is currently going to this ranch is also kinda silly.

You can't know this. The books are closed.

It has been self-sustaining for much longer than I've been alive.

You can't know this either.

Hinckley even states specifically that the church's farms were places for the church's assets to be "preserved and enhanced," in addition to being resources for the provision of food to the needy.

Then why aren't they providing? Why is their product sold for profit?

There are plenty of people on exmormon.org griping about how the church makes so much money off of the Deseret Ranches, including charging nearby cities to draw from their water. You guys can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Look harmony, I am sure the poor and destitute will be allowed to wander the great expanse of The Great and Spacious Mall of Mormondom® --once it is complete of course.

[_Joseph]

Where did the money come from to buy the land, animals and machinery?

Are any of those working there 'called' to the job?

[_maklelan]

Sorry, I don't buy what you're selling. And the books aren't open, so no one knows.

There's no need for the books. The majority of that information's on their website. The rest I know from personal experience and from having a mission president that ran church welfare for a decade.

We have church farms around here that employ some local workers, yes, but a good percentage of their staffing is done through missions. Other farms can't compete on a level playing field, when even a small percentage of the staff is not paid, since they don't have access to that kind of volunteer labor source. Labor is a huge expense in agriculture, and any unpaid staff is a huge leg-up in a very competitive market.

No, not a good percentage of their staffing. There are a few elderly couples, but they do little when it comes to the ranch work. They hire the best cowboys and farmers in the country. There's a guy on exmormon.org who used to work at the ranch who explains that they do their best to make sure they employ the best people in the country. Universities all over the country send students for internships over the summer to learn from the best. King Ranch does the same thing. Your assumptions are not just unfounded, but demonstrably false.

As for Deseret Industries... this is just like the humanitarian aid situation. If the church was really interested in actually being God's one true church on the earth, this church-owned corporate farm would be giving ALL it produces to Deseret Industries.

And then they wouldn't make any money and the ranches would have to be funded by tithing or close. We know how you feel about the tithing question, so it seems that your inference creates quite a paradox for the "one true church on the earth." For a church comprising millions of people all over the world that is operating outside of someone's imagination, being able to bring in a profit and fund projects without tithing is a necessity. The church pays for everything it does up front and in full. They don't do that by hoping enough comes in in tithes every week. They are able to suddenly send millions of dollars in cash and supplies out to disaster areas at the drop of a hat because they have liquid assets. I don't think this is a remarkably sinister way to operate, and I find it hard to believe that someone who acknowledges these dynamics ever could.

It doesn't, because it isn't, and this is one more example of the church getting richer instead of fulfilling its mission.

I think they fulfilled their mission when my family was destitute. I and a couple hundred other missionaries helped put together thousands of wheelchairs that we passed out to needy handicapped children in Uruguay on my mission. I felt that fulfilled their mission. I have a friend who is a dentist who spends several months a year in Africa training dentists and giving free dental care to locals. I think that fulfills the church's mission. When I was a branch president on my mission I helped a father find a job and I payed his family's rent and brought them food every week until they were on their feet. I think that fulfilled the church's mission. The church has donated billions of dollars over the last couple decades to humanitarian aid, in addition to countless volunteer hours for natural disasters and other kinds of aid. There will always be people who say more should be done, and more could always be done for all people who donate money, but I don't think it manifests a particularly objective position to insist that an arbitrary percentage of total income must be donated to charity in order for an organization to qualify as God's church (and when the percentage is 100% it simply shows someone isn't taking the questions seriously). The church is more than a soup kitchen.

You can't know this. The books are closed.

Are you going to hide behind that? The books are closed so whatever assumption you can come up with is just as valid as the next? I went over this at length a few years ago with several on this board, and I'm not going to rehash the whole argument, but I know quite a bit more than you do about how tithing and church welfare work than you think. In addition to that, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for them to use tithing to subsidize a profitable business venture. On logic alone your assumption is far weaker.

You can't know this either.

I'll thank you not to make assumptions about what I am and am not allowed to know.

Then why aren't they providing?

They are providing? Do you have any idea how much food and money is handed out to members and non-members in a given week? You don't, but I'm beginning to think that no matter what that number is, it will always be less than it would be "if the church were the true church."

Why is their product sold for profit?

That's how one enhances assets, harmony. You know this.

Neither can you.

That doesn't mean anything. I have only argued for one position, and it doesn't at all conflict with anything I've argued elsewhere.

[_maklelan]

Look harmony, I am sure the poor and destitute will be allowed to wander the great expanse of The Great and Spacious Mall of Mormondom® --once it is complete of course.

What a zinger! That conveniently demolishes all the facts I brought up and all it required was a bit of sarcasm.