Fast Offerings

[smokymountainrain]

What the hell does that mean?

Just a guess, but I think he's trying to say that if somebody says something on this board, we shouldn't hesitate to call them out on it for fear that they might leave the board.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just a guess, but I think he's trying to say that if somebody says something on this board, we shouldn't hesitate to call them out on it for fear that they might leave the board.

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with making personal attacks or divulging private information.

[smokymountainrain]

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with making personal attacks or divulging private information.

I guess I missed the personal attacks and his having divulged private information.

[tooblue]

You are making it too complicated. The institutional Church is sitting on many billions of dollars in liquid wealth. What are they doing with it.

Proof or link?

Mostly reinvesting it in more profiting making ventures--it seems that the huge sums they are hoarding are not enough and they want to see more zeros.

You are making hollow accusations masked as judgment.

I am here pointing out that just comparing the cash spent on charitable ventures vs. the cash spend on the commercial development of downtown reveals an obvious value judgment.

Ignorance is not an excuse for defamatory commentary.

The fact I am answering you all should answer your last question.

[RobinFinderson]

I guess I missed the personal attacks and his having divulged private information.

Tooblue called Rambam 'stupid' and referred to a profession that Rambam has never mentioned on this board, inferring that s/he is someone else from CG whose identity was once known, and against whom real-world threats were once made.

In fewer than forty posts, Rambam has made an enormous contribution to the overall quality of this board. It would be a travesty if s/he were chased away.

[smokymountainrain]

In fewer than forty posts, Rambam has made an enormous contribution to the overall quality of this board. It would be a travesty if he were chased away.

I couldn't agree more.

But it would equally sad if RamBam allowed himself chased away by something as elementary as being called 'stupid' or somebody referring to him as a "supposed politician". My third grade daughter is tougher than that and she's a drama queen for crying out loud.

[The Rambam]

It is always amazing when discussing the moral values shown by the institutional Church's spending people try to retreat into a position of denying that the Church has great wealth at its discretion.

1. The Church has repeatedly emphasized that they have no debt. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...____&hideNav=1

2. The Church is investing over $2 billion in City Creek Center (not including the cost of the condo tower), building a new church history archive and building two new massive beautiful temples all in Salt Lake County. For the city creek center see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Creek_Center

3. In 1997 Time magazine reported that the Church ranch in Florida (owned debt free) alone was worth $858 million (so it would now be worth over $1 billion itself). Time reported that in 1996 $5.2 billion in tithing alone flowed into SLC. "TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church's nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million." http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml And remember these numbers are all from 1997.

Now, tooblue, do you really want to argue that we have no knowledge that the Church has great investment wealth? Do you really think the discussion is worthless because we don't have the balance sheet in front of us. I wish we did.

But taking Bishop Burton's talk, the maximum amount spent by the Church on charitable projects that year was under $30 million (an probably a lot less). This is 5% of the investment income earned by the Church in 1997 (setting aside tithing and fast offering money). That does not trouble you?

Even if the Time figures are wildly wrong by a factor of 100% and the church gave out 10% of the investment income of a decade ago to humanitarian projects while stuffing the rest back into moneymaking ventures--is that morally justifiable for a tax-exempt entity? For the Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth?

I admit that it is possible that there are huge charitable donations that the Church makes that Bishop Burton want's to keep secret. I find this doubtful as LDS Charities doesn't burp toward a Third World country or a natural disaster without a press release (it's good PR for the image and most people don't see behind the charade). But I admit its possible.

Bottom line, I might be wrong and am humble enough to admit it. But from the data we have, it seems pretty convincing that the Church does have enormous wealth, is spending enormous sums in commercial investment, and is giving a relatively small amount out in humanitarian aid while seeking maximum press exposure for these charitable contributions.

I find it troubling. I think pretending the Church doesn't have the wealth silly and ignorant.

[PaloAltoCougar]

First off, why when I read RamBam's posts do I always think "RamBam, thank you, ma'am"? I'm not sure if it's a function of an oafish approach to intimacy, or simply an expression of my gratitude for RamBam's provocative posts.

In any case, I confess I'm not nearly as troubled by the Church's fiscal management as others might be. When I was a wee lad, the Church went through some serious financial straits and, with the help of N. Eldon Tanner and others, righted the fiscal ship and became very stable. Given the Church's troubled economic past, not to mention the unprecedented worldwide financial turmoil currently, I understand if those who hold the purse strings favor strengthening the bottom line over short-term relief.

I expect there are lively discussions among the brethren about the allocation of resources, but I am not privy to those discussions and don't wish to be. I'm certain of two things: (i) the brethren do what they believe is best for the long-term building up of thd kingdom (at no personal gain to them), and (ii) they will make decisions with which good and reasonable people will disagree. I'll leave it to others to steady the ark.

[il Padrino Ute]

First off, why when I read RamBam's posts do I always think "RamBam, thank you, ma'am"? I'm not sure if it's a function of an oafish approach to intimacy, or simply an expression of my gratitude for RamBam's provocative posts.

In any case, I confess I'm not nearly as troubled by the Church's fiscal management as others might be. When I was a wee lad, the Church went through some serious financial straits and, with the help of N. Eldon Tanner and others, righted the fiscal ship and became very stable. Given the Church's troubled economic past, not to mention the unprecedented worldwide financial turmoil currently, I understand if those who hold the purse strings favor strengthening the bottom line over short-term relief.

I expect there are lively discussions among the brethren about the allocation of resources, but I am not privy to those discussions and don't wish to be. I'm certain of two things: (i) the brethren do what they believe is best for the long-term building up of thd kingdom (at no personal gain to them), and (ii) they will make decisions with which good and reasonable people will disagree. I'll leave it to others to steady the ark.

Well said, PAC and I am in the same camp.

[Gocougs]

I heard on Mormon stories a while back that the net flow of church fast offering funds is INTO the United States, i.e. US members use more fast offering funds than they donate. Can anyone confirm this?

confirmed.

[Gocougs]

I am personally actively involved in third world education efforts. I also pay tithing which subsidizes The Roof Restaurant and the Temple Square lights and the entire downtown SLC revitalization project. I also pay fast offerings which subsidizes the mortgages on many McMansions. Unfortunately none of my tithing or fast offerings goes to the Perpetual Education Fund--I have to donate separately for that.

And why are you trying to link The Rambam to some long dead Adam? There is no link. And any attempts to uncover the modern personification of The Rambam will result in The Rambam's immediate death. So kill him if you wish. Or choose to focus on the issues de jour.

Let me help you. The issue of this thread is set forth in the title of the founding post: "Fast Offerings". Specificly the possibility that the American Church consumes a disproportionate share of the fast offering pie. Any opinion on the subject?

Your tithing does NOT support revitalization, Roof Restaurant, etc. I did business with the church and they keep the business funds aside from the tithing funds. They have enough business income to fund all that stuff and much, much, much, much, ....... much more.

[il Padrino Ute]

Your tithing does NOT support revitalization, Roof Restaurant, etc. I did business with the church and they keep the business funds aside from the tithing funds. They have enough business income to fund all that stuff and much, much, much, much, ....... much more.

Thanks for that info. It's good to hear that the Brethren know what they're doing.

[The Rambam]

First off, why when I read RamBam's posts do I always think "RamBam, thank you, ma'am"? I'm not sure if it's a function of an oafish approach to intimacy, or simply an expression of my gratitude for RamBam's provocative posts.

In any case, I confess I'm not nearly as troubled by the Church's fiscal management as others might be. When I was a wee lad, the Church went through some serious financial straits and, with the help of N. Eldon Tanner and others, righted the fiscal ship and became very stable. Given the Church's troubled economic past, not to mention the unprecedented worldwide financial turmoil currently, I understand if those who hold the purse strings favor strengthening the bottom line over short-term relief.

I expect there are lively discussions among the brethren about the allocation of resources, but I am not privy to those discussions and don't wish to be. I'm certain of two things: (i) the brethren do what they believe is best for the long-term building up of thd kingdom (at no personal gain to them), and (ii) they will make decisions with which good and reasonable people will disagree. I'll leave it to others to steady the ark.

I don't think anyone has figured out where Rambam actually cones from. Without using Google, anyone know?

I agree completely that the brethren are looking after the long-term financial health of the institutional Church without thoughts of personal gain. To your second point, I'm not arguing about decisions specifically.

I am troubled by the goal of strengthening the institutional church at the cost of assisting the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho. My question is a fundamental and foundational one. When it comes to financial matters, the Church is primarily concerned with ensuring its fiscal health no matter what. This takes priority over all human suffering and human need.

[The Rambam]

Your tithing does NOT support revitalization, Roof Restaurant, etc. I did business with the church and they keep the business funds aside from the tithing funds. They have enough business income to fund all that stuff and much, much, much, much, ....... much more.

It is silly.

All the Mormon business ventures trace their start to tithing contributions. And all income from business ventures invested in other business ventures is money not spent in humanitarian or religious causes.

Basically, my position is that all funds under the authority of the Prophet are funds available to do any good work the Prophet wanted to engage in. Mostly the good work engaged in is reinvestment into other profit making ventures.

Put your shoulder to the wheel, indeed!

[il Padrino Ute]

Not sure where you came up with Rambam, but it sounds like something Jewish or Muslim from the medieval times.