Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think that it's probably impossible to have a rational and even-handed discussion about Church finances with the Mopologists. Anyone involved with or sympathetic to the FARMS Review (and I'm not referring just to DCP) will automatically get defensive because the apologists have spent so much time and effort trying to depict critical ministries as being greedy, as being focused on an "old cash nexus," etc.

[_Pahoran]

[Quoting Liz without attribution] So, yes, my tithing did, in part, go toward paying for President Packer's house.

Actually, it did not.

Here, again, is what President Hinckley, a source at least as credible as the baseless hatreds of "Tithing Trough" Harmony, had to say:

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

And despite the inevitable chicken-and-egg whinging that follows, I point out that the business income from the Church's investements derives from contributions made many years ago. No part of your tithing paid for President Packer's house; nor Liz's; nor "Tithing Trough" Harmony's.

[Quoting Liz without attribution] My tithing also, in part, went to BYU. It went to pay for some of my father-in-law's expenses as both a Mission President and a Temple President. A portion of my tithing also went to pay for items in the Bishop's storehouse, which my Dad, who is elderly and needy, partakes of. My tithing also has gone toward the charitable acts that the Church has contributed to, such as Tsunami relief, etc.

Sorry liz, but not a single cent of your tithing went to this.
Church humanitarian efforts and contributions are made from separate member donations NOT tithing funds.

Sorry jon, but the Church supplements those funds, as needed, from the tithing funds.

The Church 'spent' $88 million in total last year on humanitarian aid (Provident Living Factsheet).
How do you think that compares to what the Church spent on City Creek Mall over the same period?

Thanks for the softball question.

The Church "spent" no money on the City Creek development. That is an investment, which means that the money is not "spent." The property is a valuable asset that will produce a return, and which could conceivably be sold for cash. In other words, the Church still has that money; it has simply converted the cash to another kind of asset.

The money given for disaster relief and humanitarian aid is, by contrast, really spent. It's gone, it won't come back, and can therefore never help anyone again.

By contrast, the Church's investments -- such as City Creek -- will return ongoing income to the Church that will enable it to help people again and again for years to come.

And, just by the way jon: it would be a good idea to learn how to use the "Quote" feature.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

First of all, I can't believe I'm defending an apostle, but here goes. :-)

President Packer was a church employee up until his calling in 1961 as an assistant to the Twelve. People get paid at the Church Office Building. I got paid out of tithing funds when I worked there. Should I be ashamed that I accepted the money?

Were you a GA? In your talks to the members over the general conference pulpit, did you ever explain that the tithing you were hammering on the members about went to pay your salary? No? I didn't think so.

Do you not see the underhandedness of that, the conflict of interest? A GA repeatedly hammering on the members to pay their tithes, essentially so he can get paid and buy property that the vast majority of members would never be able to afford and the GA never admitting he gets paid out of those tithes? How slimy is that? Absolutely never in my entire life have I heard a GA tell the members that their tithing goes to pay the GA's personal bills. Never. Instead, members are hammered for not paying enough... it's always more more more, but there's never an accounting of where where where... and who!

As for the GAs getting rich off the backs of the poor, I don't see it in such harsh terms. Yes, they have some "perks," such as a church car, travel expenses, and the stipend for living expenses.

That stipend isn't basic. If it was basic, there would be nothing leftover. In Packer's situation, that stipend was enough that it built a million dollar estate. Why isn't that part of a talk in general conference? Surely he would be the poster boy for Wise Use of Basic GA Stipends! Get rich off the tithes of the poor and widowed: follow Packer's lead!

I don't care how it's sliced: any man who stands at the pulpit in conference and hammers home the need to pay tithes, while simultaneously and secretly taking tithes for his own use, is not worthy of my respect. Only the most frugal lifestyle should be maintained using tithing; a million dollar estate (and I don't care how much it's appreciated in 50 years... it's still worth a million now) is a disgrace for a man who is paid with tithes.

The Pope lives in luxury, paid for with the honest tithes of his members, but it's not in HIS name! He owns no property. He would no doubt be ashamed were anyone to accuse him of such a thing.

From what I gather, most of the apostles sit on the boards of companies that the church at least partly owns.

Why does a church... God's own true church... need to own companies? The church should NOT own companies; the church's money (or rather, God's money) should be used to further God's Kingdom, NOT to own businesses! (and besides, I think that practice was stopped 20-30 years ago, when the media got wind of it).

Board members get paid for serving on boards.

Yes... but why does God's church need to own businesses at all?

Also, most of these men write and sell books.

Best selling authors make money. I doubt there's much profit for Packer in writing books.

The apostles that have a lot of material wealth seem, at least to me, those who came into church service with a lot of wealth. Elder Ballard is a good example. President Kimball lived a very modest life before and after his calling to church leadership. And if Dan says President Packer's house is modest, I take his word for it and apologize for confusing President Packer with someone else.

I have no complaint about Elder Ballard or Pres Kimball. Neither accumulated million dollar estates while demanding tithes from the poor and widowed.

Million dollar homes aren't modest, no matter where they're located, when they've been paid for with tithing.

Frankly, I think the bigger problem in the church is that its wealth goes mainly to a network of connected families and businesses.

Something else that isn't ever brought up, when a GA stands at the pulpit and demands more tithes. I really think the process by which contracts are awarded would fascinating.

The GAs are elderly men with health problems who should be enjoying retirement. Instead, they're running around working long hours and traveling. It's no wonder President Packer collapsed.

I support an emeritus standing for all GAs over 70. If a man can't serve a mission after he's 70, he shouldn't be sitting on the stand in general conference or flying all over.

I would imagine one would have to be really committed to a cause to do what they do. And I don't begrudge them being compensated for their work.

I begrudge secrecy, conflicts of interest, and demanding tithes be paid when a true accounting of how those tithes are spent includes the stipend/salary of the man who is demanding the tithes.

[_harmony]

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

And despite the inevitable chicken-and-egg whinging that follows, I point out that the business income from the Church's investements derives from contributions made many years ago. No part of your tithing paid for President Packer's house; nor Liz's; nor "Tithing Trough" Harmony's.

1. Define "very modest". Oh, that's right... you can't! The books aren't open. You don't know what you're talking about, because you can't support your assertions with facts. I, on the other hand, can support that Packer was paid out of tithes since the day he was called in 1961, and that the house we're discussing was purchased AFTER his call. If he could afford to purchase a house while being paid on tithing funds, his stipend wasn't "modest".

2. Tithing should never be used to purchase businesses. Businesses that are given to the church should be sold and the money used to build the kingdom. The church has/had no business being in business! If it can't run on the tithes of the members, it needs to live within it's means, the same as any member is admonished to live within their means.

Sorry jon, but the Church supplements those funds, as needed, from the tithing funds.

I noticed you ignored the BYU support (which is enormous). Here again, the church has no business being in the education business. If BYU cannot stand on its own, without support from tithing funds, the BYU needs to live within it's means.

The Church "spent" no money on the City Creek development. That is an investment, which means that the money is not "spent." The property is a valuable asset that will produce a return, and which could conceivably be sold for cash. In other words, the Church still has that money; it has simply converted the cash to another kind of asset.

The church is not a business, should never make a profit, should never use tithes of the poor and widowed to buy up businesses. Good grief! That's Satan's plan, if the temple endowment is to be believed!

The money given for disaster relief and humanitarian aid is, by contrast, really spent. It's gone, it won't come back, and can therefore never help anyone again.

That's how it's supposed to work, Pahoran. Churches HELP people, churches give away money, so people's suffering is alleviated. God doesn't command investment; God commands his tithes be used to help people.

By contrast, the Church's investments -- such as City Creek -- will return ongoing income to the Church that will enable it to help people again and again for years to come.

Satan, get thee hence!

Open the books!

[_harmony]

As I said above, no amount of evidence or reasoning will separate harmony from her consuming contempt for the leaders of the Church. It's perhaps her single least attractive public trait, but she clings to it with grim tenacity.

It's already been pointed out that the house wasn't paid for by tithing funds, that it's an old and relatively modest one, that it's the oldest in its neighborhood (which should suggest, to anybody who knows real estate, that the value of the land on which it sits rose markedly after it was built), and so on and so forth.

But none of that makes any difference to harmony, who, when she hates, hates passionately and irrationally.

Please Dan. You no it matters not whether GAs are paid out of tithing funds or some other bucket of money. Money is fungible and all money the church has comes ultimately at some point from members. I understand over the years the church has built up for profit asset and income generating businesses. But those could never have been acquired or built without some sort of member donations.

Amen.

That said I could care less if GAs are paid with tithing money or some other bucket. Thet should be paid since they give their full time to the Church. But it would be nice if such things were disclosed to the members who tithe at least. Most other churches do this.

Amen!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that it's probably impossible to have a rational and even-handed discussion about Church finances with the Mopologists. Anyone involved with or sympathetic to the FARMS Review (and I'm not referring just to DCP) will automatically get defensive because the apologists have spent so much time and effort trying to depict critical ministries as being greedy, as being focused on an "old cash nexus," etc.

I don't recall having ever -- ever -- raised that issue. Not in print. Not even on a message board.

I see anti-Mormon ministries as rarely if ever motivated by material interest, and have never criticized clergymen for drawing a salary, either.

Were you a GA? In your talks to the members over the general conference pulpit, did you ever explain that the tithing you were hammering on the members about went to pay your salary? No? I didn't think so.

More precisely, an infinitesimally small portion of the proceeds from an enterprise paid for one or more generations previously by a tiny proportion of other people's tithes went to pay your salary.

Do you not see the underhandedness of that, the conflict of interest? A GA repeatedly hammering on the members to pay their tithes, essentially so he can get paid and buy property that the vast majority of members would never be able to afford and the GA never admitting he gets paid out of those tithes?

"Essentially so he can get paid and buy property"?

"Essentially"?

Good grief.

How slimy is that?

It's not slimy at all.

That stipend isn't basic. If it was basic, there would be nothing leftover.

So a person called to be a General Authority shouldn't be able to have a home, or any property?

In Packer's situation, that stipend was enough that it built a million dollar estate.

"Million-dollar estate" sounds a whole lot more spectacular than it really is, when one realizes that the estate consists essentially of land, purchased in a semi-rural area half a century ago that has now become suburban/urban.

Harmony simply won't acknowledge this, because her hatred of President Packer and of the Brethren is too blindingly intense to permit her to do so.

I don't care how much it's appreciated in 50 years

Sigh.

Get rich off the tithes of the poor and widowed: follow Packer's lead!

Appalling.

And I'm not talking about President Packer.

Only the most frugal lifestyle should be maintained using tithing; a million dollar estate . . . is a disgrace for a man who is paid with tithes.

I'm "paid with tithes" every bit as much as President Packer is. So is the non-LDS professor of French and associate dean with whom I had dinner on Tuesday night.

Am I morally bound not to invest my surplus earnings? Should I have none? Should I return everything that I make over and above what it takes to keep my wife and me in basic beans and rice? Should my kids not have had bicycles? Should their clothing all have come from Deseret Industries? Was it wrong to take them to the movies?

Why does a church... God's own true church... need to own companies? The church should NOT own companies;

Why should it not invest its surplus, wisely managed, to provide it income?

This is simple financial prudence.

I'm delighted that the Church has the financial resources to build chapels and temples around the world, to fund seminaries and institutes and colleges, to maintain welfare farms and deploy humanitarian aid.

the church's money (or rather, God's money) should be used to further God's Kingdom, NOT to own businesses!

It's extraordinarily simplistic to assume that the two are inevitably opposed. To me, the extra income from prudent investments multiplies the Church's capacity to further God's kingdom.

When I was a bishop, ladling out financial and other assistance to needy people in sometimes fairly alarming quantities, I was very happy to know that the Church could back me up in such cases.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think that it's probably impossible to have a rational and even-handed discussion about Church finances with the Mopologists. Anyone involved with or sympathetic to the FARMS Review (and I'm not referring just to DCP) will automatically get defensive because the apologists have spent so much time and effort trying to depict critical ministries as being greedy, as being focused on an "old cash nexus," etc.

I don't recall having ever -- ever -- raised that issue. Not in print. Not even on a message board.

I see anti-Mormon ministries as rarely if ever motivated by material interest, and have never criticized clergymen for drawing a salary, either.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=282

And I'm not really up to searching for it at the moment, but I do distinctly recall you saying something here on this board about Decker, Martin, et al. (you might not have named those individuals specifically, but it was a list of well-known Mormon critics) as doing anti-Mormonism for a living.

But my point here, more simply and basically, is that there is an unreasonable and reactionary defensiveness on the part of the Mopologists when it comes to the issue of the Church and money.

[_Pahoran]

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

And despite the inevitable chicken-and-egg whinging that follows, I point out that the business income from the Church's investements derives from contributions made many years ago. No part of your tithing paid for President Packer's house; nor Liz's; nor "Tithing Trough" Harmony's.

1. Define "very modest". Oh, that's right... you can't! The books aren't open.

Actually, I can. "Very modest" in this context means "considerably less than average." I don't have to put a dollar figure on it to know what the words mean.

You don't know what you're talking about, because you can't support your assertions with facts. I, on the other hand, can support that Packer was paid out of tithes since the day he was called in 1961,

No.

You cannot.

Read it again:

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

Thus, you are lying to us.

As you continually, even obsessively, do.

and that the house we're discussing was purchased AFTER his call. If he could afford to purchase a house while being paid on tithing funds,

There's that lie again.

his stipend wasn't "modest".

So your definition of "modest" is "not enough to raise a family on."

But President Hinckley did not say "very modest by the spiteful and self-serving standards of an obsessive hater," he said "very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions."

In other words, he is comparing it with the incomes the brethren gave up when they accepted their callings to serve full-time in the Church.

2. Tithing should never be used to purchase businesses.

In your worthless opinion.

Businesses that are given to the church should be sold and the money used to build the kingdom.

In your worthless opinion. Those who know better than you -- i.e. everybody who hates the Church less than you and Ed Decker -- realise that owning and ethically operating businesses may well be a legitimate means of building the kingdom. Inter alia, it is the means by which the Church has managed to ensure that Temple Square isn't surrounded by a slum.

The church has/had no business being in business!

In your worthless opinion.

If it can't run on the tithes of the members, it needs to live within it's means, the same as any member is admonished to live within their means.

In your worthless opinion.

Sorry jon, but the Church supplements those funds, as needed, from the tithing funds.

I noticed you ignored the BYU support (which is enormous). Here again, the church has no business being in the education business. If BYU cannot stand on its own, without support from tithing funds, the BYU needs to live within it's means.

In your worthless opinion. In fact, I ignored BYU because I figured that every reasonable person would agree that the Church -- like every Church -- has a very compelling and legitimate interest in the spiritual, temporal and intellectual wellbeing of its rising generation and as such, has every right to be in the education business.

And AFAICT, every reasonable person does agree with me on that point. The only one who doesn't is that same obsessive, irrational hater.

The Church "spent" no money on the City Creek development. That is an investment, which means that the money is not "spent." The property is a valuable asset that will produce a return, and which could conceivably be sold for cash. In other words, the Church still has that money; it has simply converted the cash to another kind of asset.

The church is not a business, should never make a profit, should never use tithes of the poor and widowed to buy up businesses. Good grief! That's Satan's plan, if the temple endowment is to be believed!

In your worthless opinion. I shall not be discussing sacred matters in this forum; and I shall not be discussing them with you, in particular, anywhere. Matthew 7:6.

The money given for disaster relief and humanitarian aid is, by contrast, really spent. It's gone, it won't come back, and can therefore never help anyone again.

That's how it's supposed to work, Pahoran. Churches HELP people, churches give away money, so people's suffering is alleviated. God doesn't command investment; God commands his tithes be used to help people.

Call for references, please.

By contrast, the Church's investments -- such as City Creek -- will return ongoing income to the Church that will enable it to help people again and again for years to come.

Satan, get thee hence!

I gather you were talking to yourself.

Open the books!

And are we supposed to believe that opening the books would lay your incessant carping to rest for even one second?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

More precisely, an infinitesimally small portion of the proceeds from an enterprise paid for one or more generations previously by a tiny proportion of other people's tithes went to pay your salary.

Tithes by any other name are still tithes.

Do you not see the underhandedness of that, the conflict of interest? A GA repeatedly hammering on the members to pay their tithes, essentially so he can get paid and buy property that the vast majority of members would never be able to afford and the GA never admitting he gets paid out of those tithes?

"Essentially so he can get paid and buy property"?

"Essentially"?

Good grief.

You forgot the important parts: 1) being able to afford to buy property, using the tithes of the poor and widowed, and 2) never admitting getting paid at all.

How slimy is that?

It's not slimy at all.

We obviously disagree on the definition of slimy.

That stipend isn't basic. If it was basic, there would be nothing leftover.

So a person called to be a General Authority shouldn't be able to have a home, or any property?

Not when the people who are paying the tithes don't own homes or property... BECAUSE they are paying their tithes to the church for the building up of the Kingdom, not some GA's porfolio!

In Packer's situation, that stipend was enough that it built a million dollar estate.

"Million-dollar estate" sounds a whole lot more spectacular than it really is, when one realizes that the estate consists essentially of land, purchased in a semi-rural area half a century ago that has now become suburban/urban.

Harmony simply won't acknowledge this, because her hatred of President Packer and of the Brethren is too blindingly intense to permit her to do so.

Acquit me; my beef is with Packer, not the Brethren (except in their culpability in allowing Packer to maintain his conflict of interest via the pulpit in general conference).

I don't care how much it's appreciated in 50 years

Sigh.

And yet I am quite fond of you. Still. Even though we disagree.

Get rich off the tithes of the poor and widowed: follow Packer's lead!

Appalling.

And I'm not talking about President Packer.

See above.

Only the most frugal lifestyle should be maintained using tithing; a million dollar estate . . . is a disgrace for a man who is paid with tithes.

I'm "paid with tithes" every bit as much as President Packer is. So is the non-LDS professor of French and associate dean with whom I had dinner on Tuesday night.

Am I morally bound not to invest my surplus earnings? Should I have none? Should I return everything that I make over and above what it takes to keep my wife and me in basic beans and rice? Should my kids not have had bicycles? Should their clothing all have come from Deseret Industries? Was it wrong to take them to the movies?

Do you really want to go there?

Why does a church... God's own true church... need to own companies? The church should NOT own companies;

Why should it not invest its surplus, wisely managed, to provide it income?

Because it's a church! God's money! Feed the people! Help the poor! Take care of the widowed! Nowhere does it say to buy up businesses and build a portfolio!

This is simple financial prudence.

This is simple financial greed.

I'm delighted that the Church has the financial resources to build chapels and temples around the world, to fund seminaries and institutes and colleges, to maintain welfare farms and deploy humanitarian aid.

Me too. Valid expenditures of tithing. Well, except for the colleges.

the church's money (or rather, God's money) should be used to further God's Kingdom, NOT to own businesses!

It's extraordinarily simplistic to assume that the two are inevitably opposed. To me, the extra income from prudent investments multiplies the Church's capacity to further God's kingdom.

Find me the scriptures that say this is God's church's task.

When I was a bishop, ladling out financial and other assistance to needy people in sometimes fairly alarming quantities, I was very happy to know that the Church could back me up in such cases.

Rabbit hole.

[_Pahoran]

I think that it's probably impossible to have a rational and even-handed discussion

For you, it obviously is.

Regards,
Pahoran