bytebear

Heaven forbid an organization has a rainy day fund, combined with investments in the future.  I personally believe there will be a time when certain countries become open to the gospel, and we will have a massive influx of new members, and the infrastructure to maintain such an influx would be colossal.  Not really sure who said the money was being saved for the second coming, but they are right, if not totally distorting the reasoning (but what else is new?).
 

I do find this "scandal" a bit over stated.  The church takes in 7B, and spends 6B, and has 100B in savings.  Now, let's put that into household expenses.  Say I make 70K a year and my expenses are 60K, and I have 1 million in a 401K.  Sounds about right for a 100+ year old institution.  In fact, I would call it slim.

I want to point out one distinction here that the article and most people don't understand.  The church has two distinct streams of donations. Tithes and offerings.  Tithes are used for operating expenses.  Offerings are spent on welfare and humanitarian aid, which is why you never see a high number in the Tithes column.  And likely that 4% you mention is probably due to infrastructure costs, and not straight donations.  No, that's where your fast offerings, missionary funds, Deseret Industry, etc all comes from. Most of those funds are handled locally, and never even reach the central church, but are redistributed through the bishop at his discretion.  This is not part of the billions in the article.  And virtually every penny goes to charity, since we know bishops are unpaid, and many of the labor in making and distributing food is done by volunteers.  So, don't make the mistake of thinking the church is stingy on humanitarian efforts. They are simply not reporting that... and I believe are doing so deceptively.

A few thoughts.

I find it funny the people who want to take your money and spend it "the right way" or the way they want are also the ones who have racked up trillions in debt.  Heaven forbid an organization have a surplus.
I also found it interesting that in the article on WaPo, it mentioned that there is a "finders fee" for those who report tax fraud.  Seems like this guy has a chip in his shoulder, and is also trying to cash in.

I do find this "scandal" a bit over stated.  The church takes in 7B, and spends 6B, and has 100B in savings.  Now, let's put that into household expenses.  Say I make 70K a year and my expenses are 60K, and I have 1 million in a 401K.  Sounds about right for a 100+ year old institution.  In fact, I would call it slim.

A few thoughts.

I find it funny the people who want to take your money and spend it "the right way" or the way they want are also the ones who have racked up trillions in debt.  Heaven forbid an organization have a surplus.
I also found it interesting that in the article on WaPo, it mentioned that there is a "finders fee" for those who report tax fraud.  Seems like this guy has a chip in his shoulder, and is also trying to cash in.

So if my math is right, you’re saying the Church should be carrying a debt of at least $670 billion in order to be as well-run as the federal government is.  

I do find this "scandal" a bit over stated.  The church takes in 7B, and spends 6B, and has 100B in savings.  Now, let's put that into household expenses.  Say I make 70K a year and my expenses are 60K, and I have 1 million in a 401K.  Sounds about right for a 100+ year old institution.  In fact, I would call it slim.

I want to point out one distinction here that the article and most people don't understand.  The church has two distinct streams of donations. Tithes and offerings.  Tithes are used for operating expenses.  Offerings are spent on welfare and humanitarian aid, which is why you never see a high number in the Tithes column.  And likely that 4% you mention is probably due to infrastructure costs, and not straight donations.  No, that's where your fast offerings, missionary funds, Deseret Industry, etc all comes from. Most of those funds are handled locally, and never even reach the central church, but are redistributed through the bishop at his discretion.  This is not part of the billions in the article.  And virtually every penny goes to charity, since we know bishops are unpaid, and many of the labor in making and distributing food is done by volunteers.  So, don't make the mistake of thinking the church is stingy on humanitarian efforts. They are simply not reporting that... and I believe are doing so deceptively.

Tax law isn’t really my thing (@JohnsonJones, aren’t you a lawyer too?). There’s an LDS lawyer named Sam Brunson who blogs at By Common Consent (about the only redeeming feature of that cesspool), and his take is that we are sort of in a murky area of law.  In theory a not-for-profit subsidiary asset holding fund of a nonprofit is supposed to occasionally make donations to its parent nonprofit that are “commensurate” in size of the subsidiary.  But there’s a question about whether that “commensurate” standard applies at all; and my own take is that even if it does, the question is “commensurate to what”?  If the Church says (for example) “the fund needs to be commensurate to the work the economic/social reconstruction the Church anticipates being called to do once the White Horse prophecy has been fulfilled”—does the IRS have the constitutional right to say “the White Horse Prophecy is will never come to pass and you have no theological right to plan for it”?
Furthermore, I would submit that propping up a life insurance company in the middle of the 2009 financial crisis so that it could pay its employees and policy holders, is very “humanitarian”; as is urban redevelopment at City Creek.  It maybe too white-collar for the tastes of some progressives; but it very much provided a social and charitable benefit to the local community—believers and unbelievers alike.  

I do find this "scandal" a bit over stated.  The church takes in 7B, and spends 6B, and has 100B in savings.  Now, let's put that into household expenses.  Say I make 70K a year and my expenses are 60K, and I have 1 million in a 401K.  Sounds about right for a 100+ year old institution.  In fact, I would call it slim.

Doctor Nelson didn't make enough money from his time as a world-renowned heart surgeon, you see. So now he has a sweet gig where, at 95 years old, he spends 80 hours per week traveling around from meetinghouse to meetinghouse helping people, and for this life of luxury he receives the exorbitant sum of around $120,000 per year. If only he could have made that kind of coin during his surgery days! Maybe he could have afforded to retire instead of working hard into his tenth decade.

I think LDS folks don't mind not being considered "orthodox" or not sharing a common baptism.  For example, the church will never accept the baptism from another church, simply based on the doctrine of authority.   But, where feathers are ruffled, is in the accusation that the LDS Jesus is different, or insufficient, or even evil.    We fully accept your belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, and encourage it.  So, no, I think the common ground is in the belief in Jesus Christ.  Beyond that, we can be different.

I think LDS folks don't mind not being considered "orthodox" or not sharing a common baptism.  For example, the church will never accept the baptism from another church, simply based on the doctrine of authority.   But, where feathers are ruffled, is in the accusation that the LDS Jesus is different, or insufficient, or even evil.    We fully accept your belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, and encourage it.  So, no, I think the common ground is in the belief in Jesus Christ.  Beyond that, we can be different.

I think LDS folks don't mind not being considered "orthodox" or not sharing a common baptism.  For example, the church will never accept the baptism from another church, simply based on the doctrine of authority.   But, where feathers are ruffled, is in the accusation that the LDS Jesus is different, or insufficient, or even evil.    We fully accept your belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, and encourage it.  So, no, I think the common ground is in the belief in Jesus Christ.  Beyond that, we can be different.

I think LDS folks don't mind not being considered "orthodox" or not sharing a common baptism.  For example, the church will never accept the baptism from another church, simply based on the doctrine of authority.   But, where feathers are ruffled, is in the accusation that the LDS Jesus is different, or insufficient, or even evil.    We fully accept your belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, and encourage it.  So, no, I think the common ground is in the belief in Jesus Christ.  Beyond that, we can be different.

Groundhog day style?  I never thought of it like that.   That said, wouldn't living a new round of mortality be a double blessing in the sense that you would not only have another chance, but would also have the veil of forgetfulness that would mask the memory of your sins and disobedience from your previous life from your mind?
If we were to tread down the path and assume plausibility of repeat chances, once we also take into account Alma's teaching that our spirit carries forward it's stature, then couldn't it just get harder and harder every time you don't make it?  Would you get unlimited chances until you either become a Son of Perdition or you make it or something?
All too speculative for me.  Personally, I don't find the idea of progression between kingdoms, or multiple opportunities at mortality to be palatable.  Seems too 'eat drink and be merry' to me.

If you keep reliving the same life, and are never able to make the commitment to achieve Celestial worthiness, isn't it the same thing, whether it happens once or a thousand times, the outcome is the same.

Everything you described about the nature of the Godhead, I agree with. I think the difference is we accept that God the Father and Jesus are corporeal beings, although exalted and perfect.  And the notion that God is of the same species as Man.  The nature of the unity of the Godhead/Trinity is really not of a concern to me, because I think we basically agree, they are separate persons, but also unified beyond just a committee in a way we cannot comprehend.

Everything you described about the nature of the Godhead, I agree with. I think the difference is we accept that God the Father and Jesus are corporeal beings, although exalted and perfect.  And the notion that God is of the same species as Man.  The nature of the unity of the Godhead/Trinity is really not of a concern to me, because I think we basically agree, they are separate persons, but also unified beyond just a committee in a way we cannot comprehend.

Thing is, LDS teachings are Biblical, and quite plain, if you understand them through modern revelation.   The King Follett sermon is a prime example.  The introduction to the sermon by Joseph Smith says:
The teaching of Joseph Smith are as plain in the Bible as any traditional belief, if understood through revelation.  Smith didn't teach three heavens from the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants, but from 1 Corinthians 15, but with a revealed understanding.  The nature of the spirit world is from 2 Peter.  Eternal marriage and temple ordinances from Genesis, etc. etc.  Some "plain and precious" truths were lost over time, but I believe Smith fully believed in the truthfulness of the Bible, and that our "odd" teachings are plainly taught there. 

I am of the opinion that many understand the fullness of the gospel as a fullness of doctrine - I believe the fullness of the gospel has more to do with the right, powers, covenants and keys of the priesthood than doctrine.  Isaiah taught that man separates themselves (or draws near to G-d) not by doctrine but by the Law, the Ordinances and the Everlasting Covenant.  These things are brought to man through the priesthood of Christ.  The purpose of scripture is so that we can come unto Christ and be saved through his Law, Ordinances and Everlasting Covenant.
 
The Traveler

Thing is, LDS teachings are Biblical, and quite plain, if you understand them through modern revelation.   The King Follett sermon is a prime example.  The introduction to the sermon by Joseph Smith says:
The teaching of Joseph Smith are as plain in the Bible as any traditional belief, if understood through revelation.  Smith didn't teach three heavens from the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants, but from 1 Corinthians 15, but with a revealed understanding.  The nature of the spirit world is from 2 Peter.  Eternal marriage and temple ordinances from Genesis, etc. etc.  Some "plain and precious" truths were lost over time, but I believe Smith fully believed in the truthfulness of the Bible, and that our "odd" teachings are plainly taught there. 

I would (and still occasionally) have Jehovah Witnesses come by as there is a church just up the road.  One time they came with a message about Adam and Eve, and the creation story.  I listened and we chatted about it quite a while, and I gave my understanding, which was of course the LDS viewpoint, and one woman was just fascinated by my understanding and interpretation.   She asked "How did you figure all of this out?" and I said, "oh, I believe in modern day prophets who give more light to the topic."
 

This is so important. For traditional Christians, like myself, the idea of Jesus being a literal offspring of the Father seems to mean Jesus had a start--that He was created. Of course, this is not the LDS teaching or meaning. Interfaith discussions about the nature of Jesus--especially in relation to the Father--almost have to include the LDS teaching that we are all eternal beings. Pre-mortal existence is not traditional Christian teaching, and I suspect there is a lot of misunderstanding that never gets sorted out, as a result of the two teachings not being tied together.