Talking around the issues

[Hagoth]

All of a sudden, for some reason, the church is really interested in talking about finances and their wise use of sacred funds:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... t-finances
But they never address the actual issue behind this PR tidal wave.

This is the common pattern: A problem is revealed. The PR machine goes into action talking about other things that sound like they are addressing the issue, but hey do everything to avoid speaking about the actual problem (e.g. look at all the churches and temples we're building. Ensign Peak? Never heard of it). Members are comforted that the right people are doing the right things, so they don't have to open that cognitive dissonance door in their own heads.

We have seen this avoidance pattern over and over again. "We're going to address a lot of tough questions today," but then they only pick the ones that they can spin in the most positive light.

It's interesting that one of their examples of the wise uses of funds is "The Church supports a global missionary program," even as they are raising the monthly fee a family must pay to support their child on a mission," and despite the fact that the church could actually fully finance a global missionary fund as a legitimate non-profit expense while barely skimming the thinnest upper layer of the billions that they are accumulating annually.

[2bizE]

All of a sudden, for some reason, the church is really interested in talking about finances and their wise use of sacred funds:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... t-finances
But they never address the actual issue behind this PR tidal wave.

This is the common pattern: A problem is revealed. The PR machine goes into action talking about other things that sound like they are addressing the issue, but hey do everything to avoid speaking about the actual problem (e.g. look at all the churches and temples we're building. Ensign Peak? Never heard of it). Members are comforted that the right people are doing the right things, so they don't have to open that cognitive dissonance door in their own heads.

We have seen this avoidance pattern over and over again. "We're going to address a lot of tough questions today," but then they only pick the ones that they can spin in the most positive light.

It's interesting that one of their examples of the wise uses of funds is "The Church supports a global missionary program," even as they are raising the monthly fee a family must pay to support their child on a mission," and despite the fact that the church could actually fully finance a global missionary fund as a legitimate non-profit expense while barely skimming the thinnest upper layer of the billions that they are accumulating annually.

Well....any rational person or organization would think this way, but a corporation solely concerned with stockpiling wealth thinks irrationally.

[Thoughtful]

I'm in a conversation on a friend's wall. I was told by one of her friends is that the problem is we must disagree about the mission of the church being spiritual not temporal. I said nah. We disagree about whether men who claim falibility while leading should have any accountability, or that any failsafe procedures should be in place, such as transparency and diversity of choices at the table. She hasn't responded.

[wtfluff]

It's interesting that one of their examples of the wise uses of funds is "The Church supports a global missionary program," even as they are raising the monthly fee a family must pay to support their child on a mission," and despite the fact that the church could actually fully finance a global missionary fund as a legitimate non-profit expense while barely skimming the thinnest upper layer of the billions that they are accumulating annually.

A "funny" thing that has popped up on that ex-mormon message board "over there" amidst all the memes in the last week has been a string of photos of the basic squalor that many of us lived in while "serving" as salespeople for LD$, Inc. in third-world countries. (And likely many people suffered "serving" in non third-world countries.)

The "funny" thing that happened to me while reminiscing about such living conditions is, I started thinking: I'm pretty sure that in most, if not all Fortune-500 companies, their sales-force is treated pretty well: Decent compensation for what they do, and most of them have VERY large expense accounts to wine and dine sales prospects.

Whereas we have LD$, Inc. sitting on their giant pile of cash, and their sales-force pays the corporation for the opportunity to sell the corporation's "intangible" (useless) product, and that same sales-force is basically treated like sh!t, completely ignored when it comes to their physical and mental health, and as documented on reddit, many are forced to live in squalor, some dealing with hunger due to lack of funds. It's actually quite shocking when you think about it / compare it to other sales-type positions...

[Fifi de la Vergne]

I attended SM yesterday with my family (one of a couple of times a year when I still go). It was interesting that when one of the bishopric made his closing comments after the Christmas program, he spent some time addressing his gratitude for being able to come to a place where he felt supported and nurtured instead of attacked and belittled. He didn't, of course, mention the reason for feeling under attack, but I assumed it was related to the EPA story. It was very oblique, and it was the only reference I heard to it.

[iwanttotalk]

I dont know. Im happy they have a war chest. Being poor doesnt make one virtious and when you are competing agaisnt empires of evil it helps to have boatloads of money.

Id take LDS inc over Disney or Google anyday.

[Hagoth]

I dont know. Im happy they have a war chest. Being poor doesnt make one virtious and when you are competing agaisnt empires of evil it helps to have boatloads of money.

Id take LDS inc over Disney or Google anyday.

I don't have a problem with them having money as much as I do with hiding it illegally as a tax dodge and overtly lying about it to claim their books show losses in the millions, when if fact they are gaining billions while bailing out their own for-profit businesses and giving NONE of their charity money to charities. Poverty isn't a virtue but I can't imagine how anyone could believe that this behavior is virtuous. They are actually taking food from people's mouths to build their stockpile. Imagine how things would blow up for Google or Disney if they were caught running a tax-exempt charity that behaved this way.

[iwanttotalk]

I dont know. Im happy they have a war chest. Being poor doesnt make one virtious and when you are competing agaisnt empires of evil it helps to have boatloads of money.

Id take LDS inc over Disney or Google anyday.

I don't have a problem with them having money as much as I do with hiding it illegally as a tax dodge and overtly lying about it to claim their books show losses in the millions, when if fact they are gaining billions while bailing out their own for-profit businesses and giving NONE of their charity money to charities. Poverty isn't a virtue but I can't imagine how anyone could believe that this behavior is virtuous. They are actually taking food from people's mouths to build their stockpile. Imagine how things would blow up for Google or Disney if they were caught running a tax-exempt charity that behaved this way.

I hate that kind of ‘thinking’. Do you have a house? A car? More than one pair of clothes? A cell phone? Do you take vacations!

Well then sir there is a whole continent of people you could give everything you have to! How dare you not give everything to someone else!!!
Let a homeless person into your home!

Its a non-argument. No matter what they do it will never be enough.

Money isnt good or evil. It doesnt produce more. If the church spent all its money to help the poor the only thing it would accomplish is raising prices.

Money is also action. It is the ability for better or worse to shape the world.

You say in order to be “good” or “virtuous” the church must render itself both impoverished and inert. What good would that accomplish.

I understand not wanting to give the church money. I, to the extent possible dont give google or disney money, but even i who hold them to be wholy evil and think they should be shut down, dont think the requirment of their virtue is to give away everything they have. Nor do i consider it a requirment of your virtue.

[Hagoth]

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

[wtfluff]

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

Oh don't worry Tapir Rider, you're not the only one.

[Palerider]

I dont know. Im happy they have a war chest. Being poor doesnt make one virtious and when you are competing agaisnt empires of evil it helps to have boatloads of money.

Id take LDS inc over Disney or Google anyday.

Just the fact that the comparison is being made between a supposed church and two other large commercial corporations says a lot.

I think I might take something like Methodism or the Salvation Army over LDS Inc. At least they're open and honest.

[Reuben]

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

Oh don't worry Tapir Rider, you're not the only one.

Yeah, I didn't actually read it, either. Uh...

Anyway, as with any divisive issue, it seems like only some people take an extreme position, but most people expect everyone on the other side to take an extreme position. It's frustrating to watch.

Side A thinks the church should do more to help the poor, especially given the size of the investments. Most of Side A take no position on whether there should be investments. Some in Side A say the church could or should spend everything extra on the poor, with a few meaning it literally and the rest saying it as a rhetorical device.

Side B thinks it's great to have a rainy day fund, especially given the tribulations many of them expect. A few are clued into expected decreasing tithing revenue. Most of Side B would say the church does enough to help the poor, with most of them saying it because they haven't compared the numbers (yes, spin, etc.), some because they know they don't know enough (yes, closed books, etc.), and I would bet most because they don't think it's their place (yes, indoctrination, etc.). Some take no position for political or moral reasons.

Even with the nuance that most people on each side maintain, as well as all the minority positions out there, the "conversation" ends up going like this.

Side A: What about all that money? What about the poor?

Side B: What about long-term survival?

Side A: What about all that money? What about the poor?

Side B: What about long-term survival?

Things that are easy to forget (and to be clear, I don't think Hagoth has forgotten most of them):

- There's tension between charitable work and investment. It's evident from how each side in the "conversation" picks up the tug-of-war rope on one end and pulls.

- The tension's resolution is a judgment call. The church has been making that call internally. The IRS is now being brought in to scrutinize it.

- EPA is one of many corporations under the church's huge umbrella. Whether the IRS will include charitable spending and activities from other corporations in their scrutiny is unknown. Whether the spending and activities would be enough is unknown.

- A lot of people in Side B regard proselytizing and saving the dead to be charitable work. I don't think the IRS would, but I'm sure this informs the moral judgments of many people on Side B.

Anyway, there's no need for anyone here to argue against straw men, intentionally or unintentionally. We can handle nuance.

[Reuben]

Back to the original topic: I think church leaders' lack of spoken nuance goes a long way toward setting the divisive tone of the "conversation." Of all the parties involved, as the recognized top authorities for most of Side B, they have the best chance of setting a civil tone. (Side A has no top authorities.) Instead, they only sound civil while they hand out one-sided talking points without context, should members ever need them to defend the faith.

("Us, divisive?" they would say, incredulous. "But we said it all so calmly! We were nice!")

But they're at war with an army of darkness and can't be seen to have done wrong. What else could they do?

[Hagoth]

- There's tension between charitable work and investment.

Right. I'm just trying to point out that those are and should be two different things, not one thing pretending to be the other. I have no problem with an institution saving as much rainy day money as they want, as long as they do it legally and honestly and their donors are willingly and knowingly participating.

But we should we look the other way when they lie about its purpose, subvert tax codes, and use those funds only for things that are in opposition to law they hide behind to avoid paying taxes? Doubly so if that institution is proclaiming loudly out of the other side of their mouth that they are the only true representatives of Jesus Christ and the arbiters of all things good and noble. Some people don't see that kind of deception as noteworthy as long as you slap a Jesus-Made-Me-Do-It label on it. I just happen to think that makes it all the more reprehensible.

[Hagoth]

("Us, divisive?" they would say, incredulous. "But we said it all so calmly! We were nice!")

But they're at war with an army of darkness and can't be seen to have done wrong. What else could they do?

Good point. And the opposition, no matter how calmly and nicely they say it, are always represented as angry trouble-makers with an ax to grind.

Years ago I had a TBM friend who was always talking in bitter terms about angry atheists and the name Richard Dawkins kept coming up. I didn't know anything about Dawkins at the time, but the way my friend talked about him I, being a TBM myself, took extra effort to avoid this angry, evil Dawkins character. Then one day I listened to a debate between Dawkins and an evangelical. To my amazement Dawkins was soft spoken, very reasonable, and for the most part quite friendly to his opponent. It's just that he stuck to his guns and didn't back down when challenged. The Christian debater, on the other hand, was raising his voice, making ad-hominem attacks, and casting judgement at every opportunity. But to Christians commenting about the debate Dawkins came out as the angry, arrogant one.

In the same way I was shocked to hear Sandra Tanner at Sunstone. Wait a minute. This is little lady is Enemy Number One who has been at war with the church's legal army?

And then you read reddit/exmo and it appears that the church is run by a dark counsel of James Bond Villains who are sacrificing babies on the altar of the temple, and you see that the pendulum swings both ways.

Personally, I just think they don't know what the hell they're doing and they are mostly just pursuing a not-on-my-watch policy, protecting their own asses and artificially inflated egos, and saying whatever it takes to maintain the status quo and keep the membership from getting a glimpse of how truly clueless they are.

[Reuben]

- There's tension between charitable work and investment.

Right. I'm just trying to point out that those are and should be two different things, not one thing pretending to be the other. I have no problem with an institution saving as much rainy day money as they want, as long as they do it legally and honestly and their donors are willingly and knowingly participating.

But we should we look the other way when they lie about its purpose, subvert tax codes, and use those funds only for things that are in opposition to law they hide behind to avoid paying taxes? Doubly so if that institution is proclaiming loudly out of the other side of their mouth that they are the only true representatives of Jesus Christ and the arbiters of all things good and noble. Some people don't see that kind of deception as noteworthy as long as you slap a Jesus-Made-Me-Do-It label on it. I just happen to think that makes it all the more reprehensible.

FWIW, I'm with you on Side A. I think its charitable work is so paltry in comparison to its income and capital that it can't possibly lay a sound moral claim to being a charity, or even a nonprofit. I also think its persistent spin and paltering counts strongly against any moral claim.

But I have no idea about its legal claim. I don't think anyone does at this point.

For now, the most I can say is that it's a terrible donation recipient because it'll mostly waste your money on growing itself and on secret ceremonies for dead people. Oh, and it'll tell you it's the most deserving of your money, and if you're a member, God said you have to. It's kind of amazing how from the outside the bargain looks kooky, wasteful and exploitive, but from the inside it looks like the most important thing you could ever do.

[Hagoth]

It's kind of amazing how from the outside the bargain looks kooky, wasteful and exploitive, but from the inside it looks like the most important thing you could ever do.

I have asked some mild rhetorical questions about tithing vs. charity in the past on faithful forums and the immediate response was always, "It's God's money and He can do whatever He wants with it. If you think you are entitled to an opinion then you need to repent."

[moksha]

For most religions, the accumulation of wealth is not an end unto itself. Jesus urged helping the poor and destitute. Helping the poor and destitute has traditionally been considered to be "a good work". The LDS Church has turned this around a bit by using Jesus' own parable of the Widow's Mite to encourage the poor and destitute to tithe so that this too can be invested toward the goal of accumulating wealth.

[alas]

For most religions, the accumulation of wealth is not an end unto itself. Jesus urged helping the poor and destitute. Helping the poor and destitute has traditionally been considered to be "a good work". The LDS Church has turned this around a bit by using Jesus' own parable of the Widow's Mite to encourage the poor and destitute to tithe so that this too can be invested toward the goal of accumulating wealth.

This.

[Emower]

- There's tension between charitable work and investment.

Right. I'm just trying to point out that those are and should be two different things, not one thing pretending to be the other. I have no problem with an institution saving as much rainy day money as they want, as long as they do it legally and honestly and their donors are willingly and knowingly participating.

But we should we look the other way when they lie about its purpose, subvert tax codes, and use those funds only for things that are in opposition to law they hide behind to avoid paying taxes? Doubly so if that institution is proclaiming loudly out of the other side of their mouth that they are the only true representatives of Jesus Christ and the arbiters of all things good and noble. Some people don't see that kind of deception as noteworthy as long as you slap a Jesus-Made-Me-Do-It label on it. I just happen to think that makes it all the more reprehensible.

FWIW, I'm with you on Side A. I think its charitable work is so paltry in comparison to its income and capital that it can't possibly lay a sound moral claim to being a charity, or even a nonprofit. I also think its persistent spin and paltering counts strongly against any moral claim.

But I have no idea about its legal claim. I don't think anyone does at this point.

For now, the most I can say is that it's a terrible donation recipient because it'll mostly waste your money on growing itself and on secret ceremonies for dead people. Oh, and it'll tell you it's the most deserving of your money, and if you're a member, God said you have to. It's kind of amazing how from the outside the bargain looks kooky, wasteful and exploitive, but from the inside it looks like the most important thing you could ever do.

After talking to people about this, reading articles tbms are sharing, and ponderizing a little bit, I think what we have here is America is a system tweaked for 200 years by unscrupulous people who have made it possible for organizations to exploit it to their benefit. Because we have this amazingly strong religious freedom fervor, churches are in an amazing position to take advantage. Many cannot because they have not found the perfect balance between faith and demands. The Mormons have, as has Joel Osteen, Scientology, and several others. Did the church do anything illegal? After some research I don't think so. Is it following the spirit of the tax code? Depends on the mission of the church. Are they following the mission of the church? Many think yes! That's crazy to me! Many don't seem to think of the church as a charity in the same way they view the salvation army. How else would you classify Christianity if not the salvation army?