Fast Offerings

[Sleeping in EQ]

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.

While I think that your two "certainties" are reasonable assumptions today, the exploitation of Church funds by General Authorities in earlier times (and especially at the turn of the 20th century) is well documented.

[tooblue]

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.

I want you to back up your 'assertions' with actual data and not supposition based upon what you or others 'believe' is true? No one is pretending the church doesn't have great wealth but you ARE pretending that the church does not already use that great wealth wisely by ignoring my contention ...

You have yet to answer my questions concerning aide that precedes and follows the specific instances you site. Let me spell it out for you: in other words your estimated $30 million spent by the church is in ADDITION to what has already been spent and what will be spent. Where is the evidence for such a suggestion ... the existing infrastructure used to apply the ADDITIONAL 30 million you site.

You have made this too complicated.

[tooblue]

I want you to back up your 'assertions' with actual data and not supposition based upon what you or others 'believe' is true? No one is pretending the church doesn't have great wealth but you ARE pretending that the church does not already use that great wealth wisely by ignoring my contention ...

You have yet to answer my questions concerning aide that precedes and follows the specific instances you site. Let me spell it out for you: in other words your estimated $30 million spent by the church is in ADDITION to what has already been spent and what will be spent. Where is the evidence for such a suggestion ... the existing infrastructure used to apply the ADDITIONAL 30 million you site.

You have made this too complicated.

An organization can't just throw 30 million dollars at something and hope it sticks! There must be existing infrastructure to be able to use the ADDITIONAL funds effectively for relief above and beyond the relief already provided.

[tooblue]

An organization can't just throw 30 million dollars at something and hope it sticks! There must be existing infrastructure to be able to use the ADDITIONAL funds effectively for relief above and beyond the relief already provided.

Furthermore, you have craftily ignored the fact I presented that the church as a denomination is not welcome in many countries and must partner, often in silence, with existing organizations in order to supply aide. Also, you fail to examine why this is a wise course of action.

[tooblue]

Are you kidding?
Accountable to whom?
Exactly what do you KNOW about RamBam and what he's said or done?

No, I am not kidding. we all should be accountable for what we say and do. It is a general statement that applies to each and every participant of this board. What EXACTLY do you KNOW about me and what I've said or done ... upon what basis do you address me?

[tooblue]

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

None of that was done. But, if we don't want our actual name associated with what we write, why write it? I'm prepared to stand up and be accountable for what I say and do.

[tooblue]

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.

How many inferences have been made to you here ... or me ... or any other poster for that matter. You cannot parse this board from the other -- the two are blood relatives.

[Sleeping in EQ]

TB: Can you please dial it back a little?

[tooblue]

No, I am not kidding. we all should be accountable for what we say and do. It is a general statement that applies to each and every participant of this board. What EXACTLY do you KNOW about me and what I've said or done ... upon what basis do you address me?

So, it's OK to call out tooblue, but not OK to call out Rambam ... I don't quite understand the double standard.

Many things that might pertain to me and my style of posting have already been used in discussions in threads?

[tooblue]

TB: Can you please dial it back a little?

Yes, so long as the rest of the board is willing to admit to the currently employed double standard.

[myboynoah]

I think TB is right, there is a double standard. If we can endure "Rambam thank you Ma'am's" lengthy posts, we can certainly survive TB's retorts. Indeed, it's just starting to get interesting.

[Goatnapper'96]

TB: Can you please dial it back a little?

Read the thread good brother, it is called "passion!"

[TripletDaddy]

I didnt know that we could submit riders as pre-conditions to our posting here.

Levin submitted a rider, but his was rejected. I guess rambam has more clout here than Levin.

I need to start working on mine and see if anyone humors me. I think I will ask for green m&ms, crushed ice (not cubed), white couches and votive candles, and brown sugar cinnamon pop tarts.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think TB is right, there is a double standard. If we can endure "Rambam thank you Ma'am's" lengthy posts, we can certainly survive TB's retorts. Indeed, it's just starting to get interesting.

Double standard? Please.

As for the personal attack thing, that is just a suggestion. You and TB can feel free to ignore it. But when TB says:

"I can't fathom bambams stupidity."

I have a tough time taking him very seriously. He would be more effective if he attacked Rambam's data and arguments.

As for divulging information, I was referring to this comment:

You supposedly are a politician, yet your understanding of these matters is severely immature. Seriously, how can you put out such ignorant nonsense? I realize you are a Democrat and this is how they think but it is also the difference between Satan's plan and God's plan.

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.

I also take issue with this statement:

We should all be prepared to be held accountable for the things we say or do.

Given the connection TB attempted to make, this statement could reasonably be viewed as a threat. Perhaps I completely misunderstood. If so, I welcome a clarification from TB.

Carry on.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Yes, so long as the rest of the board is willing to admit to the currently employed double standard.

Going back to CG, I have occasionally asked a few people to "dial it back" a little. I don't do this systematically or with any malice.

I have received such advice from others from time to time, too.