Fast Offerings

[Fiyero]

TB is clearly connecting Rambam to a former poster on CG. Rambam has refused to confirm the connection and has expressed his desire to remain anonymous on this board. As a matter of privacy, I think we should respect that wish.

Finally, someone here gets it.

[TripletDaddy]

Actually, I think they need $185 million to do that. With $190 million they could also come up with an anti-cancer vaccine.

They lowered the price down to $180M the day after Thanksgiving. Black Friday.

[myboynoah]

This isn't fair to Rambam. Of course there is going to be speculation about the hard numbers, because the church doesn't make those public. Why not? Perhaps to avoid this kind of criticism? But that doesn't stop REASONABLE people from using REASONABLE speculation to discuss MORAL/ETHICAL issues (which don't hinge on the hard numbers).

Rambam has some good ideas, worth consideration. His ideas deserve more than to be swept off the table because there was some speculation about numbers made necessary by the church's secrecy about its finances.

For that matter, why does the church hide its financials? I would think the world would stand to learn quite a bit from how the Lord's church handles money.

Who decides what's fair here? I don't find Rambam's speculation all that reasonable. TB has pointed out significant areas where he undercounts The Church's assistance. Also, why is human capital given the toss in this discussion?

Lest we forget, Rambam began his contribution to this thread with a spurious claim that FO funds were being used to pay mcmansion mortgages in the south valley, noting some third hand report he heard. Those here engaged in dispersing such funds have debunked this as not even close to a common practice.

[RobinFinderson]

Who decides what's fair here? I don't find Rambam's speculation all that reasonable. TB has pointed out significant areas where he undercounts The Church's assistance. Also, why is human capital given the toss in this discussion?

Lest we forget, Rambam began his contribution to this thread with a spurious claim that FO funds were being used to pay mcmansion mortgages in the south valley, noting some third hand report he heard. Those here engaged in dispersing such funds have debunked this as not even close to a common practice.

I think fairness is a pretty objective matter.

Rambam shared an anecdotal story from a class at BYU that he used rhetorically to tee up the question, "Does the American Church consume too much of the fast offering pie?" His only truth claim in the anecdote was that this was discussed in a NT class at BYU. He didn't build his case on this issue. Instead he compared the real estate development of SLC to the humanitarian efforts of the church. The real estate development was a good choice, because the cost is part of the public record. We know that the church is in for billions, and that the church, by its own claims, is not going into debt for this. On the other hand, you and TB fault Rambam for speculating about the overall cost of the church's humanitarian efforts. But then Tooblue goes on to speculate about some money that Rambam left off the table in his estimate (past and future contributions in a given situation). All of this, on both sides of the argument is SPECULATION. Rambam speculates, then Tooblue speculates. Of course Tooblue and Rambam's speculation is only necessary because the church conceals its finances from the public.

So Rambam made a good guess about the cost of these projects, and then Tooblue made a fine case that there might be some costs that Rambam left out, and at the end of it all we can all probably agree that the church invests MILLIONS into humanitarian efforts. Rambam wishes the church would spearhead more of these humanitarian efforts, rather than continually contributing to other people's programs. Others are fine with the way things are run.

Rambam then asked a simple question about the moral implications of the church's financial priorities. We are comparing known BILLIONS in commercial real estate investments to speculated MILLIONS in humanitarian aid. We can't pin down exact numbers, but for a moral discussion, we know enough to address the question.

But people are stalling. Why? It's a simple question. Do billions in commercial real estate investments vs. millions in aid reflect the values one would expect from Christ's church?

[il Padrino Ute]

But people are stalling. Why? It's a simple question. Do billions in commercial real estate investments vs. millions in aid reflect the values one would expect from Christ's church?

As others have said here, I trust that the Brethren are doing the right thing. I have no problem with how the money in the Church is being used.

Rambam seems to be demanding that the LDS Church do things Rambam's way, rather than thinking that perhaps the Brethren are actually doing things the Lord's way.

Hopefully, that is an acceptable answer to your question.

[The Rambam]

I think fairness is a pretty objective matter.

Rambam shared an anecdotal story from a class at BYU that he used rhetorically to tee up the question, "Does the American Church consume too much of the fast offering pie?" His only truth claim in the anecdote was that this was discussed in a NT class at BYU. He didn't build his case on this issue. Instead he compared the real estate development of SLC to the humanitarian efforts of the church. The real estate development was a good choice, because the cost is part of the public record. We know that the church is in for billions, and that the church, by its own claims, is not going into debt for this. On the other hand, you and TB fault Rambam for speculating about the overall cost of the church's humanitarian efforts. But then Tooblue goes on to speculate about some money that Rambam left off the table in his estimate (past and future contributions in a given situation). All of this, on both sides of the argument is SPECULATION. Rambam speculates, then Tooblue speculates. Of course Tooblue and Rambam's speculation is only necessary because the church conceals its finances from the public.

So Rambam made a good guess about the cost of these projects, and then Tooblue made a fine case that there might be some costs that Rambam left out, and at the end of it all we can all probably agree that the church invests MILLIONS into humanitarian efforts. Rambam wishes the church would spearhead more of these humanitarian efforts, rather than continually contributing to other people's programs. Others are fine with the way things are run.

Rambam then asked a simple question about the moral implications of the church's financial priorities. We are comparing known BILLIONS in commercial real estate investments to speculated MILLIONS in humanitarian aid. We can't pin down exact numbers, but for a moral discussion, we know enough to address the question.

But people are stalling. Why? It's a simple question. Do billions in commercial real estate investments vs. millions in aid reflect the values one would expect from Christ's church?

Brilliant and honest summary. Thank you very much.

With one very minor quibble. I have no problem with the Church partnering with other aid groups--no where did I fault them for that. In fact, I believe it is probably the smartest thing to do most of the time.

I did point out that Bishop Burton in the talk cited refers to the total aid given in these shared situations as simply humanitarian aid given by the Church without divulging that the Church was only one of multiple actors in a number of the instances of aid he cites.

My point isn't that the Church shouldn't partner, it is that Bishop Burton shouldn't mislead members about the charity performed in partnership (in contrast to Burton's talk, the LDS Newsroom press releases do a great job of being honest about collaboration).

And my larger point is, as you state, that we can take the know millions of aid and contrast them with the known billions of for-profit investment and ask value questions about the moral judgments thus expressed.

[RobinFinderson]

With one very minor quibble. I have no problem with the Church partnering with other aid groups--no where did I fault them for that. In fact, I believe it is probably the smartest thing to do most of the time.

Yes, I must have been projecting my own feelings onto you there. I wish the church would be more entrepreneurial about its humanitarian effort than it is with its commercial real estate development.

[tooblue]

Yes, I must have been projecting my own feelings onto you there. I wish the church would be more entrepreneurial about its humanitarian effort than it is with its commercial real estate development.

For me the moral question is answered succinctly by the reality that infrastructure is required in order to be able to react to situations with additional funds. That infrastructure is paid for by the 'estimated' monies spoken of here. Otherwise according to the logic set forward by robin or Rambam the church would have to have billions in addition to the billions!

IMO any further discussion about the moral implications is a fishing expedition into the desert. A crafty means of disguising a ruse. The ruse is the hope that an agenda can be advanced. And that agenda has nothing to do with morality.

Bishop Burton has not mislead anyone and to suggest otherwise is defamatory. I am an average member. I am not mislead by his comments. I would also suggest that the many posters here who are average members are also not mislead.

[LA Ute]

Bishop Burton has not mislead anyone and to suggest otherwise is defamatory. I am an average member. I am not mislead by his comments. I would also suggest that the many posters here who are average members are also not mislead.

I do not feel mislead at all and think this discussion has reached the end of any possibility for productive or useful thought. But that's just me.

[FMCoug]

Some of you are aware that I am in a position to know more about the inner workings of the Church than the so-called "average member", whatever that means.

Tithing funds are not used for for-profit ventures, downtown revitalisation, etc. They just aren't. The firewalls in place between entities, etc. are significant.

It is my understanding that there is a general policy that fast offering funds are not to be used for mortgages. I'm sure there are exceptions for the short-term but in general this is the case.

The last point I would make on this is that this concept of "hoarding" is very in keeping with LDS doctrine. What happens if fast offerings and tithing completely dry up because nobody has jobs? I would hope the Church is being wise with its funds so that the humanitarian aid so needed then will be available.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Bishop Burton has not mislead anyone and to suggest otherwise is defamatory. I am an average member. I am not mislead by his comments. I would also suggest that the many posters here who are average members are also not mislead.

Here's the thing I have noticed about this discussion. For some people, just the act of discussing whether or not the funds could be used more productively or whether or not Bishop Burton's report is misleading is a form of blasphemy and brings about emotional responses. I.e., just the notion that our leaders could perhaps do better with these resources is offensive. That is unfortunate.

I have no idea if Rambam's numbers are correct. But I have always wondered what happens to the wealth accumulated by the church. The real unfortunate thing (IMO) is that church finance numbers are not made public. For a church operating with donated funds, I just don't understand the need for secrecy. Oh well.

[myboynoah]

Here's the thing I have noticed about this discussion. For some people, just the act of discussing whether or not the funds could be used more productively or whether or not Bishop Burton's report is misleading is a form of blasphemy and brings about emotional responses. I.e., just the notion that our leaders could perhaps do better with these resources is offensive. That is unfortunate.

I have no idea if Rambam's numbers are correct. But I have always wondered what happens to the wealth accumulated by the church. The real unfortunate thing (IMO) is that church finance numbers are not made public. For a church operating with donated funds, I just don't understand the need for secrecy. Oh well.

I think the tenor, overreaching, and subject changes of Rambam's posts and approach have more to do with emotional responses than the subject being discussed. I wonder if he doesn't enjoy the hubbub his sophistry brings.

[RobinFinderson]

I think the tenor, overreaching, and subject changes of Rambam's posts and approach have more to do with emotional responses than the subject being discussed. I wonder if he doesn't enjoy the hubbub his sophistry brings.

I don't know, MBN, but it sounds to me like you just called a lot of people on this board emotional pansies. Like, OOooohhh, his 'tenor and overreaching and subject changes' are just too much! I can't even think straight, I'm so 'emotional' about his 'sophistry!'

I can't speak for the others, but I'll bet some of them, Tooblue at the very least, don't appreciate you calling them wimps.

[YOhio]

And my larger point is, as you state, that we can take the know millions of aid and contrast them with the known billions of for-profit investment and ask value questions about the moral judgments thus expressed.

I think this is a good discussion to have, but it should first go to the question of whether or not the church should even have a for-profit subsidiary.

If the answer is yes, then it's a question of business judgment. How should a CEO of a for-profit enterprise owned by the church treat his/her fiduciary responsibility to the corporation? Should they reinvest profits? What portion? How, when and how often is that determined? How should the subsidiary act in relation to the 3-fold mission of the church?

If the answer is no, then the question of sustainability arises. How can the church expand if tithing dollars aren't sufficient? Can the church meet the members needs on donations alone?

It's an interesting discussion, but I think it needs to go much deeper.

[myboynoah]

I don't know, MBN, but it sounds to me like you just called a lot of people on this board emotional pansies. Like, OOooohhh, his 'tenor and overreaching and subject changes' are just too much! I can't even think straight, I'm so 'emotional' about his 'sophistry!'

I can't speak for the others, but I'll bet some of them, Tooblue at the very least, don't appreciate you calling them wimps.

Serenity now, serenity now, serenity now . . .