- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On the one hand, $120K a year is a LOT. When you’re asking people to pay tithing, when their kids go hungry, or they can’t afford to pay rent on their broken apartment… it just doesn’t seem right. When my dad got called as a Stake President, one of the General Authorities who selected him was a currently acting CEO of some bigshot company (I forget which, but I want to say it was DeWalt or some other name-brand tool company). Point is, a lot of GAs bring in a LOT of money from outside sources. Most of them were top in their careers, and brought it top income for it. I’m sure to most, a $120k salary is paltry, to keep up with the lifestyles they live. On the other hand, I wish our congress were only taking a $120k salary. It’s ridiculous how disconnected they are between their job performance and their compensation. I understand, you have to work hard to be successful. 3x the average American’s salary seems fair.
On the third hand, I don’t like when I feel like I’m being decieved or lied to. We only know they take $120k, because a Church employee broke protocol and release those numbers to the public.
Given the change in retail models, a shopping mall is a bad investment! However, that’s not all doom and gloom in that article.
There is something troubling to me about a church having so many different for-profit enterprises. I don’t know why, but it just bugs. I guess I’d rather see the church building children’s hospitals or being funding humanitarian enterprises that members could be a part of, like medical or social mission trips. All these ranches, real estate ventures, and shopping centers just seems to be focusing on the wrong things. I mean it’s good to be financially stable and all, but how much corporate is too much?
I hate to be that guy …again… but one reading of that article is: 1) The church was struggling financially.
2) They made tithing a temple requirement. An admittedly uncharitable way of looking at this is, if you want to be saved and if you want to be able to perform the ordinances that will save your deceased family you’ll pay tithing. Of course there are other ways of looking at this.
3) The church starts to get on more stable ground financially. In time they amass a sizeable pile of cash.
4) They started spending like a kid in a candy shop.
4) They brought in some businessmen that knew how to budget and forecast and they went back to amassing a sizeable pile of assets.
In short, making tithing a requirement to enter the temple and learning how to budget made all the difference.
Unfair comparison time. Everyone took issue with Martin Shkreli raising the price of life saving medication by 4000% but he could do it because he had people over a barrel. Some people don’t like tying tithing to the temple because the temple has soul saving ordinances. People may feel like they are “over the barrel” to comply with paying tithing.
I did say it was an unfair comparison. I don’t envision church leaders jacking up the percentage of tithing in a get rich quick scheme. Plus the church needed to do something to survive financially.
SD created a thread with a good question which I’ll butcher in an attempt to paraphrase. Does the church become wealthy enough where it can sustain itself without tithing revenues, or self-sustaining enough to redefine tithing where the church isn’t taking in as much but it places less of a burden on the members? Or does it horde and horde and horde until they have so much money that they don’t know what to do with it all so they start buying up assets that they expect to earn them a ROI and horde and horde and horde some more?
What’s the end game with the church’s wealth?
nibbler wrote:
What’s the end game with the church’s wealth?
To me, that is the question. Aside from the good that can be purchased with money, I feel that people look to the church as a pattern to base their lives on.
I was just about to comment wondering “when is enough enough?” I worry that the temptation to gather ever more money and the “prestige” this brings the the church that nobody will be willing to stop. What if we start approaching the wealth of the Catholic church. Do we back off as “we have enough”, or do we “keep going and surpass them to make it clear God is with the LDS church and save more souls?” In reading Gregory Prince’s book on David O McKay, even with essentially the current tithing, the church nearly went broke by expanding buildings like crazy under the premise of “build the chapels world-wide and that will give the church the respectability to pull in more members.” Kind of an “investment”. I think since then and with Elder Tanner’s guidance, the church can be a penny pincher in many (most) areas. Quinn’s book is highlighting how much the church invests in (“props up”) the church in other countries.
LookingHard wrote:
I was just about to comment wondering “when is enough enough?” I worry that the temptation to gather ever more money and the “prestige” this brings the the church that nobody will be willing to stop.I don’t see the church leaders looking at the accmulation of wealth as a source of prestige. If anything, a wealthy service organization is a target for criticism. That addresses the first part of the second sentence above.
Regarding the second part — not being willing to stop — yes!!! I see that as a problem. They have a system in place that works. They have essentially tied salvation to the payment of money. Not guaranteed salvation (as in the sale of indulgences), but at least a shot at salvation if you pay money. Even then it’s not guaranteed though.
That system works. How can they alter it to make it easier on the members, and more fiar? Their best bet is to:
a) increase local ward budgets
b) continue subsidizing quality education at BYU
c) give to humanitarian efforts
d) subsidize items formerly paid for by members, such as local building funds, missions, etcetera.
e) expand access to social services.
I would be in favor of keeping the current system provided I saw the surpluses went to further the mission of the church. They are on the right track with BYU etcetera.
AmyJ wrote:
nibbler wrote:
What’s the end game with the church’s wealth?
To me, that is the question. Aside from the good that can be purchased with money, I feel that people look to the church as a pattern to base their lives on.
Quite far off. Most of Africa and Asia is fairly untouched territory for the LDS. It can spend a lot of that money there.
It would be nice to see if each area could become self-sustaining rather than just kicking up to SLC.
Despite all its issues, I think the LDS is better run than some countries. I am thinking particularly of Argentina which should be very rich but has been badly managed. Or Russia. Or Greece.
nibbler wrote:
What’s the end game with the church’s wealth?
I am a VERY frugal person. I am a bit of a hoarder financially. I do not know specifically what I am saving for. Retirement? Children’s educations? Rainy day fund? Life is a funny thing. Do we tighten our belts and save our resources for tomorrow’s need that may never come? Or do we make the best use of our resources today only to find tomorrow that those funds are critically needed? I personally would rather suffer self imposed restraint today than externally forced destitution and penury tomorrow.
In our scriptures we have the tale of Joseph of Egypt. There were 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. I am sure during the 7 years of plenty some people may have been wondering “What is the end game with all this hoarding?” The answer is that it sure makes sense if you expect 7 years of famine.
Finally, I believe that the church is using some of its wealth to fund projects that it feels are important. You may hate the city creek mall or the condos around the Ogden temple. However, the areas around both of these temples were becoming somewhat run down. The church is trying to protect the look and feel of the areas around the temples. Sure the church wants to make a return off the investment but they are also seeking to revitalize areas immediately around these iconic temples.
Roy wrote:
I am a VERY frugal person. I am a bit of a hoarder financially. I do not know specifically what I am saving for. Retirement? Children’s educations? Rainy day fund? Life is a funny thing. Do we tighten our belts and save our resources for tomorrow’s need that may never come? Or do we make the best use of our resources today only to find tomorrow that those funds are critically needed? I personally would rather suffer self imposed restraint today than externally forced destitution and penury tomorrow.In our scriptures we have the tale of Joseph of Egypt. There were 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. I am sure during the 7 years of plenty some people may have been wondering “What is the end game with all this hoarding?” The answer is that it sure makes sense if you expect 7 years of famine.
I’m similar to you in that regard, point well taken. Perhaps these are the 7 decades of plenty for the 7 decades of famine.
Roy wrote:
Finally, I believe that the church is using some of its wealth to fund projects that it feels are important. You may hate the city creek mall or the condos around the Ogden temple. However, the areas around both of these temples were becoming somewhat run down. The church is trying to protect the look and feel of the areas around the temples. Sure the church wants to make a return off the investment but they are also seeking to revitalize areas immediately around these iconic temples.
That raises another… concern it so harsh, whatever is less than a concern. Does it seem right that the state of Utah gets to be beautified through funds raised worldwide? Unfair comparison time, almost like a state income tax that extends to all the world. There’s the apartment complex in Philadelphia, the city they’re planning on building in Florida?, maybe some other stuff but I guess it’s nice to be in the state where the church HQ happens to be.
Meh, gotta build apartments somewhere. First the large and opulent apartment complexes where the member concentration is the highest, then much smaller utilitarian apartment complexes around the world so the saints don’t have to travel too far to get to them.
:angel: :angel: nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
Finally, I believe that the church is using some of its wealth to fund projects that it feels are important. You may hate the city creek mall or the condos around the Ogden temple. However, the areas around both of these temples were becoming somewhat run down. The church is trying to protect the look and feel of the areas around the temples. Sure the church wants to make a return off the investment but they are also seeking to revitalize areas immediately around these iconic temples.
That raises another… concern it so harsh, whatever is less than a concern. Does it seem right that the state of Utah gets to be beautified through funds raised worldwide? Unfair comparison time, almost like a state income tax that extends to all the world. There’s the apartment complex in Philadelphia, the city they’re planning on building in Florida?, maybe some other stuff but I guess it’s nice to be in the state where the church HQ happens to be.
Meh, gotta build apartments somewhere. First the large and opulent apartment complexes where the member concentration is the highest, then much smaller utilitarian apartment complexes around the world so the saints don’t have to travel too far to get to them.
:angel: :angel:
I’m not usually one to defend this behavior on the part of the church. I usually think that church is far to Utah-centric, especially when it comes to political issues. I am also of the belief that the church couls and should spend more on humanitarian needs (like drilling wells in Africa). But, I will throw in here that the church did spend money on the city of Philadelphia when building the temple there. There were some beautification and other projects in the area of the temple while it was under construction, including a high rise apartment building constructed by the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.