The Wealth of the Church

[_Pa Pa]

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~

There is a reason why, when church buildings are built there is no debt. Most churches have to enter into debt to build...the church invests it's money to avoid such things. Have you ever read the "parable of the talents"? We are required to be good stewards. Why does everyone seem to think that the church is obligated to make public it's finances when it is a private orginatization? If it does not bother you, way rail against it?

[_guy sajer]

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!

And you know how the church is investing the money to build the kingdom because . . . . ?

(Aside from the temples and chapel and billion dollar real estate ventures you can see going up.)

[_rcrocket]

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.

Yours is a New Age neoplatonic version of Jesus by somebody who doesn't read her Bible.

Jesus used sarcasm and wit to eviscerate both the rich and the weak. In one famous example, a non-Jew came to Jesus to have her daughter healed, and He called her a dog and initially refused to help (but then after she demonstrated her faith, healed her). Matt 15:22.

Jesus was intolerant of sexual misconduct, condemning even the very thought of it. He advocated killing child molsters. (Matt 18:6.)

Jesus' favorite venue for preaching was the "Temple," an edifice that took the equivalent of a couple of current billions of dollars to build; according to Biblical scholars such as Erhman, he held the Temple in high esteem and his ministry continued the Temple tradition; after his death his followers continued to meet in the Temple. (Acts 2:45 "continuing daily with one accord in the temple").

The Temple took huge amounts of money to maintain. Jesus's sermons continued to imply the need to provide financial support (the "widow's mite") for the Temple. Why would he be appreciating the widow's mite (which only went to support the Temple) if He didn't understand the need for it?

He was not, like John the Baptist, ascetic. His critics thought He should have been, and condemned Him as a winebibber. Asceticism is a Platonic notion, not a Christian notion. The apostles were charged with accumulating money for the Kingdom and those who lied about their contributions to the Kingdom would be punished. (Acts 5:1-11)

He told his followers to take money with them, and buy a sword if they didn't hve one. (Luke 22:36.) His ministry and message would be a hardship to pregnant or nursing women. (Matt 24.)

He said that his message would divide and disrupt families. He said his message would not bring peace, but war to world; peace, yes, to the believers. But they would be persecuted and ridiculed. (Hmm. Which side of this equation are you on? The persecuted or the persecutor?)

rcrocket

[_guy sajer]

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.

Yours is a New Age neoplatonic version of Jesus by somebody who doesn't read her Bible.

Jesus used sarcasm and wit to eviscerate both the rich and the weak. In one famous example, a non-Jew came to Jesus to have her daughter healed, and He called her a dog and initially refused to help (but then after she demonstrated her faith, healed her). Matt 15:22.

Jesus was intolerant of sexual misconduct, condemning even the very thought of it. He advocated killing child molsters. (Matt 18:6.)

Jesus' favorite venue for preaching was the "Temple," an edifice that took the equivalent of a couple of current billions of dollars to build; according to Biblical scholars such as Erhman, he held the Temple in high esteem and his ministry continued the Temple tradition; after his death his followers continued to meet in the Temple. (Acts 2:45 "continuing daily with one accord in the temple").

The Temple took huge amounts of money to maintain. Jesus's sermons continued to imply the need to provide financial support (the "widow's mite") for the Temple. Why would he be appreciating the widow's mite (which only went to support the Temple) if He didn't understand the need for it?

He was not, like John the Baptist, ascetic. His critics thought He should have been, and condemned Him as a winebibber. Asceticism is a Platonic notion, not a Christian notion. The apostles were charged with accumulating money for the Kingdom and those who lied about their contributions to the Kingdom would be punished. (Acts 5:1-11)

He told his followers to take money with them, and buy a sword if they didn't hve one. (Luke 22:36.) His ministry and message would be a hardship to pregnant or nursing women. (Matt 24.)

He said that his message would divide and disrupt families. He said his message would not bring peace, but war to world; peace, yes, to the believers. But they would be persecuted and ridiculed. (Hmm. Which side of this equation are you on? The persecuted or the persecutor?)

rcrocket

Thanks for clarifying what should be obvious to anyone--that the Bible has enough ambiguity in it to please just about anyone with just about any different set of beliefs.

Perhaps another reason why we shouldn't take the Jesus mythology too seriously.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Bob,

Yeah, I'm convinced the Bible can be used to justify pretty much anything and everything. :-(

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God and fully admit that I embrace as true certain teachings and not others. I actually think there are mistakes in the Bible. (smile)

(For example, I'm not much for destroying whole communities, slaughtering children and babies, agreeing to stab ones child to death etc, etc).

I am however pretty into the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and some other teachings that feel holy to me.

AGAIN, I'm not saying I am right, just sharing what I believe. I in no way am suggesting that my interpretation of the teachings of Jesus are correct, only that as I read and prayed for understanding I received a personal "revelation" about certain things. That's all.

Having said this, could you show me scriptures that demonstrate Christ started a enormously wealthy church that owned all sorts of successful business, land holdings, and was run by numerous lawyers? OF course churches own their buildings and as I said earlier, museums, ancient documents etc. etc. seem in keeping with most religious groups.

And again, to my point, are other churches owners of enormous amounts of land and huge (non-religious) businesses?

~dancer~

Edit, Bob, which part of my previous post do you believe does NOT represent Jesus?

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.

[_truth dancer]

There is a reason why, when church buildings are built there is no debt. Most churches have to enter into debt to build...the church invests it's money to avoid such things. Have you ever read the "parable of the talents"? We are required to be good stewards.

I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, however I have read the parable of the talents and agree we should be good stewards.

Why does everyone seem to think that the church is obligated to make public it's finances when it is a private orginatization?

While I have not specifically discussed this issue, I suppose it is because there is usually something nefarious going on when an organization doesn't disclose its finances to those who donate money?

If it does not bother you, way rail against it?

I have never "railed" against it. I am asking a question here... do other churches own vast amounts of land, successful businesses, and numerous money making ventures?

~dancer~

[_TAK]

Crockett:

Why would he be appreciating the widow's mite (which only went to support the Temple) if He didn't understand the need for it?

The parable appreciates the sacrifice not the need. Quite the opposite, I think the New Testament Christ would be appalled to know the mite was going to be used to build a 2 billion plus shopping mall whose main purpose is to support a sagging real estate values..

[_Mercury]

I don't believe in a divine Jesus, but if he were real, I have a very, very hard time imagining that he would create a large, bureaucratic structure, driven corporate values, that spend a teeny, tiny portion of its vast wealth on the needy, while investing billions in real estate, and while spending more money on helping the dead than the living.

By the way I have a real problem with your comments that the Church wastes money on the dead. You see this is simply your subjective opinion based on your disbelief. However, for those controlling the money, they believe the dead are very much real and alive. They believe that the work in temples is essential for the dead persons eternal well being. Thus based on this it is vital and crucial use of resources and not a waste at all. In many ways, due to the belief structure, it can be considered one of the best uses of the assets of the Church.

It doesn't waste money on the dead. It creates wealth through real estate (a.k.a. temples) and then uses these assets to bump up the corporations credit rating.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Yes I know you don't believe is so I understand. But those who do believe it do not view it as wasteful. Now, if they do not believe it and spend them money on it for other reasons then perhaps it is fair to impose your views on them. But for the LDS leaders that honestly believe the work of the temple is a vital and meaningful mission of the Church it is not wasteful and goes towards one of the reasons the Church exists.

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.

Yes I know you don't care what they believe. So give your money to a group that believes along what you do. But my argument is compelling at least as far as logically looking at how an organization spends its money and whether they should be penalized because they do not do another thing. For the LDS Church doing work for the dead is as important as feeding the hungry. Whether that is right or wrong can be debated but it certainly is not unreasonable in light of their mission.

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).

When I have some time I will work up some numbers. But as noted the Church must spend at least a billion a year from fast offering dontations that is given directly to assist members, and at times, non members. I do not think that factors into the other humitarian aid figures.

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.

Yes, yes and I wish it were different.

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

That is ok. It is interesting to discuss.

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

Oh not at all. I quite like you from what I see from you here.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi TD, a most interesting topic--finances--right up there with religion, sex and politics. :-) And, most timely--mortgage foreclosures, job losses, poor-getting-poorer, and rich-getting-richer...

As for other Churches. I don't think there is any question that on the whole--not per capita--Roman Catholicism wealth would out-shine LDSism's paultry billions :-) World wide over centuries in countries and cities RC's real estate holdings--Cathedrals, Monestaries, Universities... YIKES!

OTOH, small local Sect members sacrifice dearly to pay-off mortgages. Many Pastors have "day-jobs", much as LDS, without the financial backing that Momma Mormon provides its fledglings...

However, IAM with You re the Mammon Church, whatever its Sect. Not Christian by principle if the essence of Jesusism is taken seriously. Which of course it is not, nor ever has been, by Institutionalized, Bureaucratic Sectarianism, generally speaking...

But, you know, times they are a-changing. A Black Man will be President. One by one people are turning from the ignorance of their fathers to grant justice that has here-to-fore been denied. The World IS getting better. In time.... Warm regards, Roger