Mormon Church negotiates for Italian Welfare!

[_Kishkumen]

Actually I think its Moonbat U, one of those "free schools" of the kind where Ward Churchill received his degree.

Now, Droopy, you really shouldn't bad mouth your alma mater. Just because free education has failed you (largely because of your own shortcomings) doesn't mean it fails those with the requisite intelligence and self discipline to succeed.

Serious, careful thinkers are a relative rarity in this world, inside or outside the academy.

Well, Droopy, just because most serious thinkers leave the room when you enter, doesn't mean that they are truly in short supply. We tried to teach you about the pitfalls of anecdotal evidence, but it seems that you failed to learn that lesson too.

[_Kishkumen]

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Droopy, we're offering a remedial reading course in the first summer block as part of our continuing adult education series. I highly recommend you sign up. Maybe this time it will take. I believe in you!

[_Kishkumen]

When did piranha start running?

I think several of these fellows were sporting a hefty man-crush on Will. In response to the deflation of seeing him scrutinized for his posting habits, they want payback.

[_Pahoran]

'Fat cats' benefit from EU farming subsidies

So the LDS arm is a foreign non-profit organization milking millions from British tax payers. This is funding that should be going to British farmers who depend on it for their livelihoods. But good thing Pahoran knows how the Church works.

Once again, you demonstrate that you rely upon your malice, which is controlling, to make up for your ignorance, which is total.

Note that the story was published in the Independent, a well-known left-wing tabloid owned by a former KGB agent.

Just like it does in Utah, the Church does its commercial investment activities through corporations that are taxable in the ordinary way. In this case the farms in question are owned by a corporate entity called Agreserves Ltd. It is not a "foreign non-profit organization" but a UK registered for-profit company. It does business in the same way, and competing in the same marketplace, as other UK agribusinesses.

Agricultural subsidies are controversial in many parts of the world. The lack of them is controversial in other parts (and sometimes the same parts.) But there's nothing unlawful about them. And please note that the subsidies in question are going to Agreserves, not the Church. The fact that the Church owns Agreserves is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion.

While googling for information about this, I found something rather interesting on CARM. Note the remarks by "magdalena," a virulently hateful anti-Mormon.

Note how exactly they resemble your malicious misrepresentations.

What a strange coincidence that is.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

Just like it does in Utah, the Church does its commercial investment activities through corporations that are taxable in the ordinary way. In this case the farms in question are owned by a corporate entity called Agreserves Ltd. It is not a "foreign non-profit organization" but a UK registered for-profit company. It does business in the same way, and competing in the same marketplace, as other UK agribusinesses.

Agricultural subsidies are controversial in many parts of the world. The lack of them is controversial in other parts (and sometimes the same parts.) But there's nothing unlawful about them. And please note that the subsidies in question are going to Agreserves, not the Church. The fact that the Church owns Agreserves is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion.

God's own true church should never be in the for-profit food production industry, unless there are no hungry left anywhere on earth. That the church owns for-profit agricultural businesses is a disgrace.

[_Pahoran]

Just like it does in Utah, the Church does its commercial investment activities through corporations that are taxable in the ordinary way. In this case the farms in question are owned by a corporate entity called Agreserves Ltd. It is not a "foreign non-profit organization" but a UK registered for-profit company. It does business in the same way, and competing in the same marketplace, as other UK agribusinesses.

Agricultural subsidies are controversial in many parts of the world. The lack of them is controversial in other parts (and sometimes the same parts.) But there's nothing unlawful about them. And please note that the subsidies in question are going to Agreserves, not the Church. The fact that the Church owns Agreserves is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion.

God's own true church should never be in the for-profit food production industry, unless there are no hungry left anywhere on earth. That the church owns for-profit agricultural businesses is a disgrace.

Thank you for your opinion, Harmony. I hope this doesn't come as too much of a shock, but I disagree with you.

Everywhere farming is commercially viable, people have enough to eat. Everywhere there is hunger, farming is not economically sustainable.

I conclude from that, that the very best antidote for world hunger is to expand what you call "the for-profit food production industry."

In googling for information on this topic, I found that Agreserves in Australia devotes a goodly proportion of its output each year to humanitarian aid. If it's able to do that and still turn a profit, then it is indefinitely sustainable; something that more emotionally-driven alternatives are not.

But I think this may be off-topic for this thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_cafe crema]

In googling for information on this topic, I found that Agreserves in Australia devotes a goodly proportion of its output each year to humanitarian aid. If it's able to do that and still turn a profit, then it is indefinitely sustainable; something that more emotionally-driven alternatives are not.

But I think this may be off-topic for this thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

According to the Griffith City council's list of businesses, Ag Reserves in Australia operates as a charity and not as a for profit company. Whether or not it's a taxable entity in Australia or receives any government subsidy I don't know, does anyone here know about Australia's taxing of charitable organizations and/or agricultural subsidies?

[_Pahoran]

(You do know they no longer use lire, right? And that the singular of 'lire' is 'lira', right?)

You're right. They've gone to Euros.

No comment from the Mormon Right Wingers?

No, and there won't be.

The UK example of an LDS-owned corporation getting a massive handout from the British taxpayer is unanswerable. The sign of an an unanswerable post is that you don't get any answers, and the thread sinks like the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Your crowing was premature.

But let's see if Magdalena has anything to add.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_madeleine]

Back in the day, when I had working connections to DMC, Farm Management was a for-profit entity of the LDS Church, under DMC.

They were switched to non-profit, and taken out from under the DMC for-profit umbrella. That was at least ten years ago.

[_Kishkumen]

The underlying issue, which not only critics and apologists are not only divided on, but also members of differing opinion, is how comfortable people feel with the corporate character of the modern LDS Church.

I can see how some might find that completely acceptable and reasonable.

I can also see how others are uncomfortable with it.

It is true that anti-Mormons will make hay out of the corporate structure and personality of the Church.

At the same time, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether corporate culture and structure really serves the LDS Church well, all things considered.

I definitely fall in the latter category, and have for some time. Every once in a while someone like Pahoran will bring to my attention some facts that make me reconsider my largely negative views on Mormonism and corporate culture.

Still, I can't say I am comfortable with what appears to me to be the ascendance of business in Mormonism. City Creek is one of those symbols of that state of affairs that sticks out like a sore thumb for people like me.

That may be because I was so enchanted by the dream of Zion. And for all of my lack of belief in many things, I still find that hope attractive. The notion of Zion hit me like a ton of bricks on my mission. As a student of Nibley at BYU, I got a lot more indoctrination along those lines. I still have a great deal of fondness for Nibley. Finally, I still cherish Elder Maxwell's little novellas on Zion. My wife wants me to toss the volume out, along with my Nibley, but I can't bring myself to do it.

So, from my point of view, things like City Creek appear antithetical to Zion. I do appreciate Pahoran tempering my view about the LDS Church and public funds with some enlightening facts.