If present trends continue ...

[_Runtu]

I am all for using economic terms in relation to the Church (having done so myself), but I think it helps to understand that economics is intended to provide rational explanations for why people (individually and collectively) make certain choices--though, admittedly, not always are their choices rational from other perspectives. Whereas, what you (and by extention Bond) seem to be doing is just the opposite. What you ascribe to the Church doesn't sound the least bit rational, and so I am curious why you conjecture that the reason the Church is building church houses is to attract membership, rather than...say, as a part of reasonable and intelligent planning (future projections based on past trends). What is the basis, if any, for your conjecture?

I ask, because often in economics, if the hypothesis doesn't prove itself out, it is because the hypothesis is incorrect. In other words, if it doesn't make sense for the Church to build church houses to attract members, it is likely that your hypothesis, to that affect, is incorrect. Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What

Actually, this dates from my days at BYU. My sociology professor (the class was on development in Latin America) argued that the church's building program reflected a "build it, and they will come" attitude. That made sense to me because of my experience. In purely economic terms, the building spree we saw in 1985 in Bolivia made no sense. There were not nearly enough members to support those buildings, and yet they built them anyway. It's less conspiratorial to say that they built them for that purpose than to cynically suggest that somebody was fudging numbers to spur construction and generate business.

[_Yong Xi]

The traditional religious business model (increasing tithing revenue) is obviously broken as Runtu suggested. The problem as I see it is that the Church cannot change it's product to attract high paying customers. I expect that they will resort to growing (making babies) committed high paying customers and increasing their private investments. They will increasingly also demand more from their core customers, those in the U.S. and in particular the Mormon corridor and California.

Ultimately, the Church will follow the money. I suspect the Church's best years are behind it.

[_karl61]

I smell a junta!

[_Who Knows]

Meanwhile, we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing all of this.

[_karl61]

do you think the church is assigning people to come over to this board and throw some jabs. It's seems like there is only one at at time, crockett, coggins now charity.

[_wenglund]

From what I've seen, growth in the church these days seems limited to underdeveloped countries (such as those in Latin America and West Africa) and in the developed world to immigrants and those with little education and low income. The church is not attracting educated people in any areas of the world. It is not attracting the financially secure (and this is probably the most worrisome to the suits). It is not attracting the emotionally and psychologically stable. In short, the missionary program, which has always thrived on attracting people at a vulnerable point in their lives, is attracting the chronically vulnerable. For a church whose mission appears to be growth and income, this is not a healthy trend.

I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites", and I want to see you strengthen the bonds of your friendships here. However, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would caution againts using that kind of dehumanizing (mildly in this case) and disrespectful label.

I understand, too, that it may play well to the home team for you to ascribe "income" as the mission of the Church. However, again, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would also caution against making this kind of conspiratorial conjecture, particularly when it sharply conflicts with the stated mission of the Church.

In other words, good interfaith relations have a better chance when people are treated respectfully and taken at their word.

Unfreakingbelievable! Do you ever stop with the therapy shtick? Here's a clue: You are not a therapist! You are not qualified to offer counseling advice to anyone, particularly ex-Mormons! Give it up, already. Take your Dollar Menu McTherapy to people who want it. Haven't you figured it out yet, Wade? We're not interested!

Good God. McDonald's doesn't chase folks around trying to stuff their nasty Big Mac's down people's throats who don't want them. Do everyone a favor and just stop! KA

I am accutely aware that you view me in that way, and out of respect for you, I have made a concerted effort to comply with your past request not to address you personally or participate on threads that you have started (with the understanding that you would do the same in return)--though, that is made more difficult for me now that you have, ironically, followed me around by posted several messages to me and about me, particularly on threads that I have started.

Now, I wasn't aware that you were in a position to speak universally for the ex-Mormon community, and if that turns out to be the case (which I think is hightly unlikely given the positive and welcomed interactions I have had with multiple ex-Mormons), then I will be content to, out of respect, stop participate in forums where there are ex-Mormons. Until that is reasonably determined, it may prove useful for you to honor our prior agreement with me--i.e. mind your own business, and not stick your nose into matters that don't concern you, and matters that were intentionally not meant by me to be addressed to you personally.

If, however, my mere presense is somehow a tremendous threat to your personal peace and security, and the same is true for a number of other participants here, then even if not all former members here are adverse to my participating here, I may still consider leaving for your sakes, though I haven't decided that for sure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_karl61]

Wade wrote:

"I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites" "


I read that and read the word "suits" - well that's me,

Regards,

thestyleguy

[_Runtu]

Wade wrote:

"I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites" "


I read that and read the word "suits" - well that's me,

Regards,

thestyleguy

It was "suits" indeed. But as I pointed out to Wade, his assigning the word to church leaders was his choice, not mine.

[_karl61]

Wade,

It was suits - I guess I read it right!


Now what could be the possible issue with you as seeing it as "suites"

I have a degree in psychology but I won't even get into what your issues are.

Regards,

thestyleguy

[_moksha]

Frankly, the church's downtown mall project is an important investment to them. If this project, now estimated at over $2 billion, fails, the church could for the first time since 1959 face real financial problems. My visit to the Gateway complex tells me that the downtown malls project is iffy at best. The Gateway is already entrenched with upscale tenants, whom the church will have to attract for their mall project to succeed.

I think we can see some of the effects of the church's financial stresses already: the firing of church maintenance workers and the subsequent push for members to clean and maintain buildings, the tighter restrictions on budgets, particularly for Scouting and Young Women, the increased reliance on members to house and feed missionaries, and the increased use of broadcasts from the home office instead of GA travel.

None of this is to say that I believe that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not. But I do suspect that further belt-tightening is coming, and the church is going to have to rely more on its investments if it wants to continue to thrive.

You could well be right about this. There was someone at Church actually wondering aloud if the belt tightening was related to the Mall. Of course, the Church doesn't need to take the Mall as a loss if it is commercially unsuccessful - it can always use it for Church purposes, plus it always has the clout to encourage members to shop there.

What further belt tightening do you foresee?