Darth J: So you do not in fact know where the money for City Creek is coming from, nor how the Church got to a point where it was able to have that kind of capital for business projects, nor why the Church needs tithing money if it can afford a multi-billion dollar mall, be the largest private landholder in the state of Florida, have a hotel in Hawaii, own numerous media outlets, etc., etc.
But I do not doubt that it does not make sense to you how it seems that the Church has misplaced priorities when it claims to be the church led by the one who said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
You (and others here) clearly do not think the Church should pay to revitalize the downtown area, create jobs, etc. I get that. I also get that you (apparently) think that Jesus’ statement that His kingdom is not of this world means that churches should not do XYZ. One of my questions I posed in my post to which you did not reply was what you think churches legitimately should (or should be able to) do within the temporal sphere. Are you able to draw concrete parameters and lines? I am genuinely curious. What do you, and others who cry foul at City Creek, personally think are “legitimate uses” the Church can/could do? Some of the things it’s doing now? None of them?
Do you really think, as the above appears to say, that the Church “needs [no] tithing money if it can afford a multi-billion dollar mall” and other investments? I’ve never even considered the thought of how the day-to-day Church would change if tithing were abolished. You certainly couldn’t maintain a program of new buildings to accommodate growth while simply “living off of the interest.”
Other churches publicly disclose their finances. And the Church never disclosed its finances to me when I was sitting in front of one of its agents (bishop) disclosing my finances to it (i.e., take how much tithing I have paid, multiply it by ten).
One big difference I see is that other churches don’t bring in anywhere near the tithing/donations we do (on a per capita basis, and maybe on an absolute basis in some/many cases), and don’t face the level of fishing expeditions by critics and malcontents that we do. This doesn’t imply that there’s anything to hide, but rather, that the Church prefers not to provide those who lie in wait to make it an offender any assistance in attacking it if it doesn’t have to.
That must be why the Church always disclosed its finances to the general membership until 1959. I guess all those members up to that point were not faithful like you are . . . See, the issue is why the Church does not disclose its finances to its tithe-paying members, and you have yet to articulate a reason for that. Nor will you be able to provide one that does not involve speculation or assumption, because the Church won't give a specific reason. Maybe you could start by explaining why the Church did disclose its finances to its members until 1959, and why it stopped.
I don’t know why the Church disclosed its finances until 1959 and hasn’t since, but I suspect that this has a lot to do with what has changed from 1959 to the present. Church population growth, investments/acquisitions, laws, sociopolitical climate, and many other factors are profoundly different now and during the last few decades than in the 1950s and prior. Granted, this is, as you predicted, speculation and assumption on my part. Of course, the opposite is true as well. Critics’ reasons are just as speculative and reveal just as much about their orientation as mine do.
I don't mean to interrupt your totally pwning that straw man there, but are you able to point out where anyone has said that the Church never does any good with its finances?
Can you point me to any instances on this forum where people who are not TBM homers have given any praise or positive comments on what the Church does with its finances? While I can’t “point out where anyone has said that the Church never does any good with its finances,” I also don’t think anyone can produce examples from people critical of the Church here who give the Church praise for doing good, either. Your backhanded hope that City Creek succeeds “if only for the sake of the city” would be in spite of the Church, not because of it (just for the city, mind you).
Also, do you feel that those who anonymously defend, proclaim, and bear testimony of the Church are cowards trying to avoid real-life consequences? If so, do you plan on starting a call-out thread for the vast majority of believing members here and on Mormon Dialogue (or whatever MADB is now) who do not post under their real names?
“The vast majority of believing members here and on . . . MADB . . . who do not post under their real names” are not trying to out other anonymous online people while insisting on maintaining their own anonymity. Isn’t that a big difference?
Let's start with asbestosman. Or Nevo. Or mentalgymnast. They post anonymously. Go ahead; denounce them as cowards. I've publicly said I like and respect all of those guys, so clearly there must be something wrong with them.
See above. There is a big difference between their anonymous online behavior and those who clamor for others to be “unmasked” while refusing to reciprocate. Good faith --- what an odd concept. Imagine that?
You are not able to articulate what appropriate expenditures would be, either. You are just stating that whatever the Church does, it is right.
That makes my task easier than yours, no doubt about it . . . :-) Why do you suppose that those who feel so strongly about the Church misusing tithing money “aren’t able to articulate what appropriate expenditures would be?” Could it have something to do with how absurd it would look on paper if they actually committed to proposed things to ban and include, things that would do things differently than how the Church is doing them now? I think the malcontents and critics intuitively know that their position appears stronger if they stick with complaining and criticizing in general instead of articulating what they think the Church could/should so instead.
You also have this recurring problem during your short time on this board of making erroneous assumptions about the people whom you are addressing. I am still a member of the Church and still go to church, although less often. If I knew what the Church was doing with the money and could make an informed decision that would influence whether I would be willing to continue paying tithing.
In what way? What could/should the Church do that would convince you to pay tithing, whereas you (apparently) do not pay it now because of conscientious objection? Again, this harks back to committing to concrete proposals and scenarios. I would find specifics fascinating to discuss and consider, even if I’m not likely to agree with them. Help me out here; broaden my mind!
Since the facts are undisputed that the Church does not disclose its finances to its tithe-paying members and that it does have a vast business empire, I'm not sure what is the conspiracy to which you are alluding.
I mentioned “Birthers” and “Truthers” as simply readily available current examples of conspiracy theories from both extremes of the political spectrum. My point was that neither Birthers nor Truthers are likely to back away from their theories, no matter what evidence is given. I applied this to critics, malcontents, and TBMs. Do you really think there’s anything that would cause either of these camps to shift or make any substantial intellectual concessions to the other?
How about, what would it take for you to concede that the Church does not hold itself to its own standards?
What standards do you specifically want me to comment on? I’m happy to comment in detail if you will specify which standards you would like me to address.
Since I am the one you are quoting most often as the starting point for your non sequiturs and straw men, you show me where I have ever said that the Church never does any good (as you are implying), and then you will have a point.
Can you provide instances where you have pointed out the good that the Church does? How about others here who aren’t TBM homers? I would be happy to be proven wrong, in spades.
Not to interrupt your false dilemma or anything, but you sure are making a lot of assumptions about how things are going in City Creek. Do you happen to know how the Church is doing at making a profit on selling its condos, or how many retail tenants it has brought in, or whether it is having to pay its two major anchor stores (Nordstrom and Macy's) to be there?
No, I don’t know specifically how the project is currently going (whether it’s a lemon or a blockbuster). It seems to me that critics and malcontents try to have it both ways. If it’s a bomb, they will be delighted at the Church’s discomfiture. If it’s a wild success, then they will complain about the Church’s opulence and extravagant waste.
I also find your hinted suggestion above that the project is/might be a disaster kind of amusing in light of your other criticisms of the Church’s acumen and experience with “vast” business holdings and projects. The image critics seem to be encouraging is one that is simultaneously the Bank of Evil guy in Despicable Me, and Barney Fife. It breaks down under the witness of results. Does anyone think that the City Creek project is going to blow up in the Church’s face and leave lots of egg on it? The Church has a long track record of carefully planned and thought-out endeavors, and given the resources that you and others have complained about the Church committing to City Creek here, I think it’s a safe bet that the Church knows what it’s doing and carefully looked before it leaped. If I turn out to be wrong on this, then let the echo chamber rage!
Not that I am accusing you of talking out of your ass or anything like that.
Classy. And convincing.
