The Wealth of the Church

[_Jason Bourne]

Saying I envision a true church of Christ to be more in line with the church Christ started (from what we gather), is a far cry from endorsing the early LDS church's attempt at the united order. But just to be clear, I don't see the early LDS church anything remotely reflecting the early teachings (again so far as is recorded) of Christ.

What specific teachings about money and what they do with it do you see the Church not reflecting?

[_Jason Bourne]

You have to wonder why in the first place. Does the church really have nothing better to do than to get involved with secular enterprises?

What secular enterprises other than the mall- that one has been beat to death-is the Church involved in that you think they should not be.

Of course, a lot woule be better understood if the Church did not hide their finances and were upfront with their members about where their tithing goes

I am all for this.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, you're misrepresenting, or misunderstanding, what I said. I too have no problem with any organization, religious or otherwise, being a good steward over its assets. I also have no problem with a religious organization possessing substantial wealth. My objection in the case of Mormonism, is its priorities in terms of how it disposes of its wealth and the corporate culture it has fully embraced in both its secular and religious functions. Plus, Wheat is sadly misinformed about the extent of Mormon charitable giving. We've cited figures here many times (someone else want to provide them, I don't have the time), showing that the Mormon Church spends no more than around 1-2% of its wealth on charitable giving, which is paltry by any standard and especially paltry for the organization that claims it is the sole representative of Jesus Christ on earth.

Well since we do not see the financial we really do not know. But let's look at this. First you must count temple work as charitable becuase the church believes it essential to salvation. Next you must count missionary work because once again salvation is the Church's first priority. You must also count building and maintaining meeting houses because it is after all a church that needs places of worship as well. All these are valid uses of the money the church collects because they are integral to its purpose. Your complaint is regarding direct humanitarian aid. I do not know what it is but I think it is higher than you think and lower than wheat thinks. You also need to add in man hours that members donate for humanitarian aid which is not substantial.

Then there is what I think is one of the best programs of the Church. That is fast offering and welfare assistance. I do not know the figures but I can guess. If we have 27,000 wards and branches and each ward gives out say 30,000 a year in assistance-not an unreasonable number-then we have if I figure this right, over a billion a year going out of fast offerings to direct welfare needs. Also, you really should check out what the LDS Humatarian center in SLC does. I know I was impressed with it.

Finally, my point viz the Catholic Church; given Mormonism's belief that Catholicism is an apostate sect lacking divine guidance, I cannot see how it, therefore, constitutes the standard to which the sole true Church, and Christ's only representative on earth, aspires.

The Catholic Church thinks it is the Church of Christ. I did not say it was the standard however, just and example of a large church with substantial assets.

[_truth dancer]

Saying I envision a true church of Christ to be more in line with the church Christ started (from what we gather), is a far cry from endorsing the early LDS church's attempt at the united order. But just to be clear, I don't see the early LDS church anything remotely reflecting the early teachings (again so far as is recorded) of Christ.

What specific teachings about money and what they do with it do you see the Church not reflecting?

When I read the New Testament, I see Jesus as a humble man with virtually no possessions, teaching truth on a hill. I see a man who was completely unconcerned with appearances, control, ego, possessions, power, and anything remotely ostentatious. I see a man who was meek and humble, who taught this to his followers. I see a man who was concerned with the heart of humankind not money, businesses, and land deals requiring a building full of attorneys and PR folk. I see a man who taught against pride and didn't seem to care about wealth, power, and prestige. I see a man who taught that possessions and power and fame were not important, but kindness, caring, and concern for others should be the focus of ones life.

I just see the LDS church not exactly reflecting how I would envision Christ's church.

I'm NOT SAYING I AM RIGHT. Just my own personal sense of holiness. :-)

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

Jason, you're misrepresenting, or misunderstanding, what I said. I too have no problem with any organization, religious or otherwise, being a good steward over its assets. I also have no problem with a religious organization possessing substantial wealth. My objection in the case of Mormonism, is its priorities in terms of how it disposes of its wealth and the corporate culture it has fully embraced in both its secular and religious functions. Plus, Wheat is sadly misinformed about the extent of Mormon charitable giving. We've cited figures here many times (someone else want to provide them, I don't have the time), showing that the Mormon Church spends no more than around 1-2% of its wealth on charitable giving, which is paltry by any standard and especially paltry for the organization that claims it is the sole representative of Jesus Christ on earth.

Well since we do not see the financial we really do not know. But let's look at this. First you must count temple work as charitable becuase the church believes it essential to salvation. Next you must count missionary work because once again salvation is the Church's first priority. You must also count building and maintaining meeting houses because it is after all a church that needs places of worship as well. All these are valid uses of the money the church collects because they are integral to its purpose. Your complaint is regarding direct humanitarian aid. I do not know what it is but I think it is higher than you think and lower than wheat thinks. You also need to add in man hours that members donate for humanitarian aid which is not substantial.

Then there is what I think is one of the best programs of the Church. That is fast offering and welfare assistance. I do not know the figures but I can guess. If we have 27,000 wards and branches and each ward gives out say 30,000 a year in assistance-not an unreasonable number-then we have if I figure this right, over a billion a year going out of fast offerings to direct welfare needs. Also, you really should check out what the LDS Humatarian center in SLC does. I know I was impressed with it.

Finally, my point viz the Catholic Church; given Mormonism's belief that Catholicism is an apostate sect lacking divine guidance, I cannot see how it, therefore, constitutes the standard to which the sole true Church, and Christ's only representative on earth, aspires.

The Catholic Church thinks it is the Church of Christ. I did not say it was the standard however, just and example of a large church with substantial assets.

Hey Jason, we've been through this before. Suffice it to say that I don't accept temple work for the dead or missionary work as legitimate humanitarian work. I also find spending money to 'redeem' the dead to be a gross waste of money when there is so much need among the living. The dead are beyond benefiting, and unless you, or anyone, can show me evidence that a dead person is better off because he was necro-dunked in a Mormon temple, I just can't see how spending money on temple work is a good thing.

It is irrelevant to me what Mormon Inc. thinks. It too thinks that denying women the opportunity to act in ministerial roles is ok. I do not. My standard is not what the Brethren deem to be right, but what I deem to be right. So with all due respect, I do not find your argument compelling.

As for humanitarian spending, the figures from Great Britain have been provided, and if I remember correctly, it was about 1-2% of wealth (it could be more, but certainly in the single digits.) The amount of time members volunteer for humanitarian work is relatively trivial (I don't count time donated to preparing a sharing time or EQ lesson to be humanitarian work).

But you said the key thing, "Well since we do not see the financial we really do not know." You're right, we don't know, because Mormon Inc. arrogantly refuses to be held accountable.

I'm sorry, but we won't agree on this. I can see your point of view, I just don't buy it.

I hope you don't consider me a self-inflating gas bag :-)

[_Pa Pa]

I was reading an article in a Florida newspaper about the church's 290,000 acres (forty miles, four times bigger than Orlando), it wants to develop with 10,000 homes or condos and I got thinking of the wealth of the church (13,000,000,000.00 If I recall correctly).

The church is building a 2 billion dollar mall, beachfront condos in Hawaii; it purchased some expensive artwork a couple of years ago, and has all sorts businesses and land all over the world, it is quite a conglomeration. Are there other churches that are more a business than a religion? Do other churches have these vast land holding all over the world? How can the church maintain its tax exempt status?

I can see a church owning its buildings, and historical masterpieces or ancient documents that may be important to it, maybe a museum or a few memorials, but I just don't get why a church must own this extraordinary amount of real estate and numerous businesses.

Are other churches (say Muslim, Sikh, Hindu), similar or is this a unique phenomenon among churches.

~dancer~

The money made off commerical business ventures is not tax exempt. If the leaders of the church were Billionairs, I could see the outrage. But they are not. The chuch invests money to build the kingdom because they believe it to be a just cause. Get over it!

[_TAK]

The money made off commerical business ventures is not tax exempt. If the leaders of the church were Billionairs, I could see the outrage. But they are not. The chuch invests money to build the kingdom because they believe it to be a just cause. Get over it!

Since your LDS leaders do not trust you to know how money is (mis)spent, you really have no clue as to how wealthy they really are.

[_truth dancer]

Hi PaPa,

The money made off commerical business ventures is not tax exempt. If the leaders of the church were Billionairs, I could see the outrage. But they are not. The chuch invests money to build the kingdom because they believe it to be a just cause. Get over it!

Nothing to "get over".

You seemed to have missed the point of this thread.

No one is suggesting the church is exempt from paying taxes on their business ventures... this was not the question.

I have no "outrage"... I no longer pay tithing and don't really care except for the fact that I think quite a few people would be uncomfortable if they knew how the church spent its money.

Please tell me how luxury condos on the Hawaiian beachfront, or 40 miles of land in Florida for 10,000 homes, or a two billion dollar mall, or expensive artwork, help build the Kingdom. Was this Jesus' modus operandi?

Do you think Jesus owned a huge conglomeration filled with all sorts of land holdings and business ventures, run by scores of high powered lawyers?

Again... my question is, do other churches also have billions of dollars invested in businesses, own enormous amounts of real estate, and engage in billions of dollars worth of for profit ventures?

~dancer~

[_Wheat]

Hi PaPa,

The money made off commerical business ventures is not tax exempt. If the leaders of the church were Billionairs, I could see the outrage. But they are not. The chuch invests money to build the kingdom because they believe it to be a just cause. Get over it!

Nothing to "get over".

You seemed to have missed the point of this thread.

No one is suggesting the church is exempt from paying taxes on their business ventures... this was not the question.

I have no "outrage"... I no longer pay tithing and don't really care except for the fact that I think quite a few people would be uncomfortable if they knew how the church spent its money.

Please tell me how luxury condos on the Hawaiian beachfront, or 40 miles of land in Florida for 10,000 homes, or a two billion dollar mall, or expensive artwork, help build the Kingdom. Was this Jesus' modus operandi?

Do you think Jesus owned a huge conglomeration filled with all sorts of land holdings and business ventures, run by scores of high powered lawyers?

Again... my question is, do other churches also have billions of dollars invested in businesses, own enormous amounts of real estate, and engage in billions of dollars worth of for profit ventures?

~dancer~

It's a simple principle, really. If you can buy large tracts of land in Florida in the 70's, make boatloads of $$$ in cattle ranching in the meantime, and then sell or develop that same land at a huge profit in the 21st century, then you can buy much more real estate in Jackson, Clay, Caldwell, and Daviess counties in Missouri. And that's just what they've been doing for many decades now. The LDS believe in a very *material* kingdom for their very *material* King.

[_Yong Xi]

Hi PaPa,

The money made off commerical business ventures is not tax exempt. If the leaders of the church were Billionairs, I could see the outrage. But they are not. The chuch invests money to build the kingdom because they believe it to be a just cause. Get over it!

Nothing to "get over".

You seemed to have missed the point of this thread.

No one is suggesting the church is exempt from paying taxes on their business ventures... this was not the question.

I have no "outrage"... I no longer pay tithing and don't really care except for the fact that I think quite a few people would be uncomfortable if they knew how the church spent its money.

Please tell me how luxury condos on the Hawaiian beachfront, or 40 miles of land in Florida for 10,000 homes, or a two billion dollar mall, or expensive artwork, help build the Kingdom. Was this Jesus' modus operandi?

Do you think Jesus owned a huge conglomeration filled with all sorts of land holdings and business ventures, run by scores of high powered lawyers?

Again... my question is, do other churches also have billions of dollars invested in businesses, own enormous amounts of real estate, and engage in billions of dollars worth of for profit ventures?

~dancer~

It's a simple principle, really. If you can buy large tracts of land in Florida in the 70's, make boatloads of $$$ in cattle ranching in the meantime, and then sell or develop that same land at a huge profit in the 21st century, then you can buy much more real estate in Jackson, Clay, Caldwell, and Daviess counties in Missouri. And that's just what they've been doing for many decades now. The LDS believe in a very *material* kingdom for their very *material* King.

Wheat,

Are you ready to document the Church's humanitarian aid?