Feeding the Fortune 500

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Dr Moore
_Emeritus
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:19 am

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Dr Moore »

Since only a handful of people know the true and complete financial picture of the church, no one can really argue the point from a position of being well informed. I think there is really only one viable argument to be made against critics: “just trust the brethren.”
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:Since only a handful of people know the true and complete financial picture of the church, no one can really argue the point from a position of being well informed. I think there is really only one viable argument to be made against critics: “just trust the brethren.”


That is the constant refrain.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Kishkumen »

Master_DC wrote:His entire series up to this point is such a bore. It is straw man after straw man. I don't believe anyone thinks the church should not have some sort of investment strategy. Dr. P has proven once again that there are no faith promoting answers to the true questions with regards to the church and finances.

The fact that they have to lead with "No tithing funds were used for this..." is a giant red flag to me for anything. I don't know enough to understand how to qualify this statement. Tithing is considered sacred funds, if you don't tithe, you are stealing from God. So, shouldn't any funds that the church has be considered sacred funds? Do they pay a tithe from this so-called non-tithing investment fund into god's scared bank account? These two or more accounts sound like they are different, so there should be a need to tithe i would think. Once churches engage in non-church activities, they should lose their BS tax breaks.

My home ward probably brings in enough annual tithing to maintain every church owned entity in the tri-state area I am in. Including the Temple. I agree with Physics above, something is broken and it is allowing these entities with good lawyers to take advantage of the system.


DCP doesn’t write for us. He writes to keep people who are paying tithing among the tithe payers.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Kishkumen wrote:
DCP doesn’t write for us. He writes to keep people who are paying tithing among the tithe payers.


Hmmm. I wonder about this. It seems often like he's trying to walk a tightrope between wanting to impress us and win our approval (or, sure: to try and score points) and needing to appeal to the "Sister in Parowan," as it were. I think you can evidence for this in this "LDS Inc." series he's been posting. The most recent entry is an absolute howler:

SeN wrote:Already, in the little discussions here, we’ve had avowed and unbelieving critics of the Church solemnly advising us on how the Church’s understanding of its divine mission needs to be altered and, accordingly, what sweeping changes need to be made to its budgetary priorities. To the extent that Church financial data were made generally public, such complaints and demands and campaigns as these would now have the power of actual numbers behind them.

Can you imagine the debates that would erupt, and the demonstrations that would be organized, were the overall Church budget to be made public? The Church should spend less on temples! It should give more to humanitarian aid! Too much for missionary work! Too much for family history! Too little to this country! Too much to that country! This temple cost too much! This temple is too small! Is it small because Church leaders consider the people who will attend it second-class Saints? Are different ethnic groups being treated exactly alike? Should they be treated exactly alike? Should the Church be equitable, or should it practice affirmative action? Does x really deserve a temple? Why doesn’t y get one? Are tithepayers like shareholders? Should they be allowed a vote?

The slogans practically write themselves, and I can already see the placards in the demonstrations at Church headquarters and elsewhere: “Food for the living, not temples for the dead!” “Keep our tithes at home!” “American members are suffering! No aid for foreigners!”

The issues are innumerable, the possibilities are limitless, and, in our divisive and litigious society, there would be no end to the controversies. There would be a feeding frenzy with every release of financial data. The Church would be under constant attack, and it would either defend itself or go silent and, thus, remain undefended.


This whole thing is just nuts. Look at that first paragraph: "such complaints and demands and campaigns as these would now have the power of actual numbers behind them." Meaning, I guess, that the criticisms are already correct (which they generally are), even without financial transparency, and so transparency is bad because it would provide further validation to the criticism? What does he think he's arguing here? Notice that, nowhere in his post does he say anything along the lines of, "If there was transparency, all it would do is validate to the world that the Church is fulfilling the Lord's wishes."

And how about that list of "slogans" and "questions" that would be raised by this theoretical transparency? The thing is: he's not dreaming these up. It's not as if these are new criticisms that he's invented. He's using them because these are already things that people criticize the Church about. So, the idea (I guess?) is that transparency will result in....people making the exact same kinds of criticism that they are already making?

Like I said: this stuff is bonkers. The last line I quoted is priceless: "The Church would be under constant attack, and it would either defend itself or go silent and, thus, remain undefended."

Well, remember, according to DCP and the Mopologists--and their acolytes, for that matter--the Church is *already* "under constant attack," isn't it? And "go silent"? Uh, newsflash: that is already what the Church is doing: it's silent on the matter of Church finances.

Nonetheless, this is Mopologetics, after all, and so the argument works in certain quarters, it would seem:

Baxter999 wrote:The Nehemiah scripture is especially appropriate. Consider the source of the demands for "transparency". The critics and anti-mormons know full well what harm they have up their sleeves. These days, a stock like Peloton can drop a huge amount overnight just because a harmless commercial irks the usual suspects. What would happen to various entities that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ has stock or influence in? Thousands of jobs would be lost as the internet anti's start campaigning against companies that the Restored Church has stock in. Retirement savings would be harmed for many. Demands to divest would harm charities and universities. Besides jobs, savings and charities being harmed, the Restored Church would be hampered in its missionary, temple and charitable efforts.

Hopefully a few dogs yapping at our heels will not influence us to allow the harms described above. There are very good reasons for limited transparency - as anyone can see in the current climate of hate for everything holy and good and decent.


LOL!!! And check this out:

Michael Hoggan wrote:There's also the possibility that governments, including the US government, would start pressuring us to invest in certain companies in order to remain in their "good graces".


Dang, the Church sure is wily: even the government is in the dark about their financials! Wow!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Kishkumen »

This whole thing is just nuts. Look at that first paragraph: "such complaints and demands and campaigns as these would now have the power of actual numbers behind them." Meaning, I guess, that the criticisms are already correct (which they generally are), even without financial transparency, and so transparency is bad because it would provide further validation to the criticism? What does he think he's arguing here? Notice that, nowhere in his post does he say anything along the lines of, "If there was transparency, all it would do is validate to the world that the Church is fulfilling the Lord's wishes."

And how about that list of "slogans" and "questions" that would be raised by this theoretical transparency? The thing is: he's not dreaming these up. It's not as if these are new criticisms that he's invented. He's using them because these are already things that people criticize the Church about. So, the idea (I guess?) is that transparency will result in....people making the exact same kinds of criticism that they are already making?

Like I said: this stuff is bonkers. The last line I quoted is priceless: "The Church would be under constant attack, and it would either defend itself or go silent and, thus, remain undefended."

Well, remember, according to DCP and the Mopologists--and their acolytes, for that matter--the Church is *already* "under constant attack," isn't it? And "go silent"? Uh, newsflash: that is already what the Church is doing: it's silent on the matter of Church finances.


The root of the tension here is that the LDS Church is aspirationally a theocracy, but it must function more or less as a church. A church in that it must keep the laws established for churches in the countries it operates, but a theocracy in the way it views its members, money, and properties.

When you see DCP and friends go on like this, the underlying assumption here is that no one who complains has any right to do so or any right to know about God’s finances. God is the king, the Church leaders are his representatives, and we all are the subjects. Subjects pay taxes, but they do not dictate to the King how the money should be spent.

Take away the belief that the Church is God’s Kingdom and the whole thing becomes the Wizard of Oz. Do not look at the men behind the curtain! Do not ask them about the way they spend God’s money!

Only the faithless see things this “wrong” way, so their opinion doesn’t count.

DCP’s defenses are partially designed to mirror the Church’s counsel to members in regard to provident living. The Church, so this line of reasoning goes, does exactly what God commands the members to do. (It doesn’t and members can’t possibly do what the Church does.) In other words, if the Church does what God tells His people to do, then there can be no grounds for criticism. See?

Let’s see how the second leader of the LDS Church managed things:

"It was finally determined that his estate was worth approximately $1,626,000, but obligations of more than a million dollars to the Church plus other debts and executor's fees reduced the family's claim to $224,000. When seven of his dissatisfied heirs challenged this settlement, however, that matter was settled out of court and the Church agreed to give the heirs an additional $75,000." (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, by James Allen and Glen Leonard, second ed. 1992, Deseret Book, p.385)


Brigham Young borrowed freely from the LDS Church for his own use to the tune of a MILLION bucks in the 19th century. That would be over $20,000,000 today.

That’s what the theocracy of Brigham Young brought Brigham. Remember, you have no more right to question him than you do Russell M. Nelson today.

My point is not that Russell M. Nelson is living lavishly on the backs of the members. My point is that under almost no conceivable situation would a faithful defender of the LDS Church grant that you had any reason to be suspicious or any right to complain. The facts be damned.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Kishkumen »

And the truth is this: some people want the monarchy. Just because you do not does not mean that everyone agrees. Some people will choose freely to pay taxes in order to have someone live on that money and play the role of king. They want the decisive orders that come from that powerful, almost mystical figure.

Why, there are people eating up images of Trump dressed up like a Roman emperor, a warlord from Warhammer 40,000, or even Rocky Balboa. They do so without the least compunction or sense of irony. Many Mormons actually view the milquetoast CEO images of their leadership with an intense sense of reverence and awe. Behind this bland image is a vision of meetings with King Jesus in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple. People thrive on this vision.

Ten percent of their income is nothing in return for being a subject in God’s earthly kingdom as led by his oracles.

In order to hold onto this dream, however, one must block out all of the disconfirming information. Everything must be translated into terms that fit the vision of Church as God’s kingdom. People like DCP and Midgley volunteer to make this their daily task. They translate everything into the language and image of God’s kingdom. They write to reassure the faithful and defy the unfaithful, saying that Christ is behind the curtain, not Kirton-McConkie.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Gadianton »

Like I said: this stuff is bonkers. The last line I quoted is priceless: "The Church would be under constant attack, and it would either defend itself or go silent and, thus, remain undefended."


He stole this from Hugh Nibley, who argued that it's a good thing we don't have the Gold Plates because nobody would agree on the translation.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Mormonicious
_Emeritus
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:59 am

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Mormonicious »

Kishkumen wrote:Our old friend DCP is in top form when he criticizes Church critics for complaining about the corporate nature of the LDS Church:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/lds-inc-part-one.html

One of the more flat-footed aspects of his critique is his comparison of Church critics’ negative views of the multi-billion-dollar upscale shopping destination City Creek with Jesus feeding the 5000.

Think about that. DCP essentially takes critics to task for not seeing how LDS investment in upscale shopping in downtown Salt Lake City is just like Jesus feeding the 5000!

Seriously?

At the very least this sounds a very sour note, but it really misses the point of the message of the Gospels. One of the chief problems of Roman imperialism was that it worked extremely well for a tiny elite and ignored the needs of a vast underclass. Jesus is not depicted building a macellum (market) in Jerusalem. He aims his feeding and instruction at those on the wrong end of Roman imperialism in its cooperation with Jewish elites.

DCP might have focused on LDS welfare, education, etc. It is bizarre, however, to try to liken feeding 5000 hungry people to City Creek Mall.

For all to understand and see, the Mormon Corporation has contracted Facility Management with EMCOR Facility Services www.emcorfacilities.com to reduce costs. This move will enable the Mormon Corporation to eliminate the costs of Salaries, Benefits and Retirement while providing employment to others. Isn't it wonderful, isn't it marvelous, isn't it about the money.
Revelation 2:17 . . give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. Thank Google GOD for her son eBay, you can now have life eternal with laser engraving. . oh, and a seer stone and save 10% of your life's earning as a bonus. See you in Mormon man god Heaven Bitches!!. Bring on the Virgins
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Kishkumen »

For all to understand and see, the Mormon Corporation has contracted Facility Management with EMCOR Facility Services www.emcorfacilities.com to reduce costs. This move will enable the Mormon Corporation to eliminate the costs of Salaries, Benefits and Retirement while providing employment to others. Isn't it wonderful, isn't it marvelous, isn't it about the money.


Thanks for the information, Mormonicious. Will EMCOR provide services for the temples?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Feeding the Fortune 500

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I could be mistaken, Reverend, but it would appear that Dr. Peterson has *you* in his crosshairs for his latest entry on this topic:

Sic et Non wrote:For at least a few critics of Church finances, the issue seems to be, to some extent anyway, one of aesthetics and politics. I have particularly in mind a certain critic — not surprisingly, an academic in an exceptionally impractical field (we’re akin, in that regard) — who has objected for years to the “corporate” character of the Church. His politics, so far as I can tell, trend distinctly leftward, and he apparently dislikes and distrusts business and the people who engage in it. (In academic circles, from my own experience, I doubt that he encounters very many people who don’t share such attitudes. It’s the water in which academic fish swim.)


Where is he getting this?:

DCP wrote:The particular academic that I have in mind also seems to find the male leadership of the Church deficient because they wear business suits. Seriously. Perhaps, instead, they should ostentatiously dress as first-century Galilean peasant fishermen? Maybe he would prefer that they wear beards. Honestly, though, I can’t see why dressing in robes or wearing a beard should be deemed any more spiritual or ethical or “prophetic” than wearing a dark suit. The early apostles probably didn’t dress like ancient people in order to be quaint or “authentic.” They dressed that way because that’s the way their contemporaries dressed. And ditto for today.

To the extent that such objections aren’t mere jokes, they’re mere jokes.


Maybe it was this line of yours?:
The Reverend wrote:Many Mormons actually view the milquetoast CEO images of their leadership with an intense sense of reverence and awe. Behind this bland image is a vision of meetings with King Jesus in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple. People thrive on this vision.


Tough to say; it's possible I missed something. Meanwhile, (of course) there is Midgley, snarling in the "Comments":

Midgley wrote:I am really looking forward to what Dan has to say about a "certain critic." I wonder if he has any obvious deep biases or genuine academic credentials, since many critics have little or exactly no academic credentials, but many biases, as we all do. And I wonder if this critic has published anything.


Quite vicious!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply