The Church and Business

[Guest mormonmusic]

I have a question here. I have a home teaching family. The father is finally opening up to me about his concerns about the Church (he's less-active). His concern is how much it felt like a business corporation when he was a high councilor years ago. The emphasis on tithing (the only sit-down accountability meeting we have dedicated to a single commandment, as he put it), the fact that only a a small percent of total donations from a Ward actually goes to fund Ward programs, and also, the way he feels the Church tends to behave like most other temporal organizations bothers him, he says. He raised the Church's decision to invest vast sums of money in revitalizing a mall near the SLC temple as well, when he sees all kinds of local needs and programs that could do so much better with more funding.

But he did say this -- given the fact that that most of his family (wife, and three out of four children) are rather active, he's willing to try to change this belief he has about the Church. He does claim he has a bit of a testimony, but says the whole corporate-like feeling of the Church bothers him and still makes it hard to believe. He doesn't pay tithing, he said, partly because of this.

But now, the speck of hope in this. He said he was open to a discussion where we talk about the reasons he should NOT expect the Church to behave differently than any other corporation, notwisthstanding its firm claims to a divine commission, direct leadership by the Savior through the First Pres and Q12, etcetera. He seems to think that because we claim to have such divine direction and connectedness to Christ and God, that we should somehow be different than other organizations, even the non-profit ones. More generous with our funds, less investment in land holdings, malls, and other business interests, with greater Ward budgets, better programs, and expanded access to services like LDS Social services, for example -- to bless the lives of the members.

So, do you have any ideas about what to share in my upcoming visit with him on this subject?

Why shouldn't the Church behave differently than other temporal organizations on matters of money? What reasons can I give that can help him see that it's OK for the Church to have the same kinds of temporal concerns as other temporal organizations, even though it has strong claims to divine influence?

Edited May 3, 2011 by mormonmusic

[applepansy]

I believe the Church does act differently. I also understand the reason for the business interests. Businesses provide jobs for members and non-members, and a source of income for the church independent of donations, which in turn allows more money to be used in charitable pursuits. There is a book published at the end of every year and I can't remember the name of it. It lists all the things the church did in that year. It is amazing to read through.

Why wouldn't a loving Heavenly Father use temporal means to achieve some of the good works the church does? "Even though it has strong claims to divine influence" can't that divine influence extend to temporal affairs?...shouldn't it?

[Guest]

He has been reading too much anti-Mormon propaganda.

FACT:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has a commercial arm completely separate from the Church.

BYU among others is in this arm. Just to give you an example.

Tithing money goes to the Church - NOT its commercial arm.

Tithing money is not just for Ward money. Tithing money is CHURCH money. For examples of where tithing goes - just go take a look at the Temple closest to you or talk to your missionaries whose missionary program is supported by tithing money and get a free copy of the Book of Mormon from them while you're at it.

If that's hard to understand - think of Tithing money as Federal Taxes. They are not for the States, although the States get some of it as members of the Federal Union. Federal Taxes go to Federal budget. Make sense?

Okay, as far as that big mall in Salt Lake City that is now reported to cost about $4B and that hotel in Hawaii... Those are NOT tithing money. That is from the commercial arm of the Church. That arm is composed of FOR-PROFIT, Federal and State Tax Paying ventures. They are INVESTMENTS just like any other business venture. Sinking $4B in a business venture is not "taking away from the poor and needy"... unless the CEO of the company was a stupid idiot who doesn't know what he is doing and doesn't know if he is going to get a Return on that Investment.

The Church is separatate from its commercial interests and works through the principles of Service. That's why they don't pay their bishops unlike most Evangelist churches and their bishops don't rely on church money for their sustenance like the Catholic church. They behave very differently.

The commercial arm - is just like any other commercial arm. They are there to invest money to gain a profit. You all need to understand the difference.

Give to Cesar what is Cesar's, give to God what is God's.

[Just_A_Guy]

His concern is how much it felt like a business corporation when he was a high councilor years ago.

It's a top-down, hierarchal organization that manages a significant amount of assets. Of course it's going to feel corporate!

The emphasis on tithing (the only sit-down accountability meeting we have dedicated to a single commandment, as he put it),

It's a pity a high councilor does not understand that the accountability interview of tithing settlement is two-way.

Yes; I declare whether my payment was full or part.

But the bishop is also accounting to me as to which of my payments to him have been duly passed on to the Church. Tithing settlement is my opportunity to review the Church's books for erroneous or missing payments made in my name.

. . . the fact that only a a small percent of total donations from a Ward actually goes to fund Ward programs, and also, the way he feels the Church tends to behave like most other temporal organizations bothers him, he says. He raised the Church's decision to invest vast sums of money in revitalizing a mall near the SLC temple as well, when he sees all kinds of local needs and programs that could do so much better with more funding.

Maybe you should point out the irony in his complaining about the rich wards subsidizing the poor ones while demanding that the Church be more "charitable". Maybe you should suggest he go do a few assignments at his local cannery/storehouse or DI, consider his fast-offering contributions over the past five years, try to come up with a monthly amount of fast offering income by the Church as a whole (bearing in mind that only 1/3 of the Church is active and many of them don't pay fast offerings), and then ask himself whether that amount would really be enough to pay for the entire network of such facilities that the Church operates.

Maybe you should also point out to him where the money from the City Creek investment ultimately goes--into the pockets of thousands of blue-collar workers across the state (and, sometimes, the nation) whose chosen industry right now is in a state of severe recession.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the Church's two-billion-dollar investment in Salt Lake City isn't doing any more good than would a two-billion-dollar contribution to the Utah Food Bank. Either way, the people on the receiving end of those dollars wind up with money--and means to feed their families--that they wouldn't otherwise have.

It's just that the Church is doing its good in such a way as to also allow it to strengthen its own infrastructure. If the Church hadn't started doing that fifty years ago, it would not now be in a position to make the outright charitable (i.e. zero return-on-investment) contributions that it dos make.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

I have a question here. I have a home teaching family. The father is finally opening up to me about his concerns about the Church (he's less-active). His concern is how much it felt like a business corporation when he was a high councilor years ago.

A lot of this will vary from leader to leader. With my current bishop, it hardly feels corporate, and he tries hard for it not to feel corporate. If his first counselor were the bishop, it would be corporatism all the way. This depends very much on leadership style. And I think the Church is trying to get away from the corporate feel because it clearly interferes with the ministry (at least so I've observed).

The emphasis on tithing (the only sit-down accountability meeting we have dedicated to a single commandment, as he put it),

As JAG pointed out, this is two way accountability. It's also a throwback to the days when the law of consecration was more directly managed by dual contracts between the Church. It was originally intended to be a time for the bishop and a family to reconcile what they had, what they needed, and what the bishop could count on the family to provide if another family was in need. We seem to have lost some of that utility in our end of year tithing settlements.

the fact that only a a small percent of total donations from a Ward actually goes to fund Ward programs,

I kind of agree with him here. On average, my ward gets about $32 per person per year for budget allocation. It's hard to manage that. We could manage a lot better and do some significantly better program for the members if that were upped to even $35, but I'd really like to see a $5 increase.

At the same time though, tithing helps pay for temples, utilities (local units don't pay utilities, and they're expensive), and subsidizing books and curriculum. That doesn't account for all the money, but keep in mind that entire congregations in Kyiv, Ukraine would collect the amount of tithing in a month that I pay by myself. We are very much subsidizing the Church in poorer areas of the world.

and also, the way he feels the Church tends to behave like most other temporal organizations bothers him, he says.

In many ways, the Church is a temporal organization. It's inevitable. The nature of groups of people requires it. And we often try to teach our leaders to lead congregations and groups in a way that suits our best knowledge about how to make organizations productive. For instance, the leadership was encouraged to be much more hierarchical in the past. But if you read the new handbooks, they lean more toward a style of leadership that was pioneered by women executives and eventually became the model we think of as 'cloud computing.' In many areas, information sharing has become the standard over information reporting.

He raised the Church's decision to invest vast sums of money in revitalizing a mall near the SLC temple as well, when he sees all kinds of local needs and programs that could do so much better with more funding.

These investments were made out of the Church's business proceeds. It was done to a) provide employment, and b) give the Church the ability to have some say in what businesses appeared around Temple Square, which is a world wide show case for the Church. Yes, in great measure, it was about image. But they didn't use tithing to do it and they aren't neglecting charity and teaching self reliance to do it. They have plenty of money to spread around to take care of many various needs, and they do it very well.

But he did say this -- given the fact that that most of his family (wife, and three out of four children) are rather active, he's willing to try to change this belief he has about the Church. He does claim he has a bit of a testimony, but says the whole corporate-like feeling of the Church bothers him and still makes it hard to believe. He doesn't pay tithing, he said, partly because of this.

But now, the speck of hope in this. He said he was open to a discussion where we talk about the reasons he should NOT expect the Church to behave differently than any other corporation, notwisthstanding its firm claims to a divine commission, direct leadership by the Savior through the First Pres and Q12, etcetera. He seems to think that because we claim to have such divine direction and connectedness to Christ and God, that we should somehow be different than other organizations, even the non-profit ones.

Well, it does in a lot of ways behave differently. It behaves the same in a lot of ways. The issue I see here is that he's seeing behaviors within the Church that remind him of things in corporatism that he doesn't like. My guess is that he doesn't like the heavy emphasis on accounting. For this, all I can say is that the money has to be accounted for. It helps keep people honest and make sure the money is put to the purposes it is intended for. I will stand with him, however, in saying that I wish the Church's financial practices were more transparent to the general membership.

More generous with our funds, less investment in land holdings, malls, and other business interests, with greater Ward budgets, better programs, and expanded access to services like LDS Social services, for example -- to bless the lives of the members.

Again, I agree. I'd like to see larger ward budgets. He has a good point there. I'd also like to see better manual production, and some way to make it more fluid and a up to date. Fortunately, we are see expanded access to LDS Social Services. But that takes time because to support that program requires time and investment in building infrastructure. It's getting better, but not nearly as fast as we need it to.

So, do you have any ideas about what to share in my upcoming visit with him on this subject?

Why shouldn't the Church behave differently than other temporal organizations on matters of money? What reasons can I give that can help him see that it's OK for the Church to have the same kinds of temporal concerns as other temporal organizations, even though it has strong claims to divine influence?

I think it should behave differently. It should leave the majority of discretion at the local level (actually, the Church is fairly good at this) and provide better resources for the bishops. Again, this is getting better. What needs to change (and is getting better) is stake presidents and area presidencies need to spend less time telling bishops and other ward leaders what to do and more time training them and providing them with the resources needed to fulfill the needs and actions they find through inspiration.

[seeking_peace]

My ex-husband used to be employed by the church and he used to complain about the the same kind of office politics that you would see in any business. We had many discussions about the differences between the evangelical (Gospel) side of the church and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the business side).

The spiritual/ evangelical side is the side that is run by revelation and inspiration. The Corporation of the President is run by men making business decisions. Sadly, in many ways it is very much like other businesses. Anyone that works for the church needs to have a clear delineation in their minds and see them as two separate entities. A very strong testimony of the Gospel is needed in anyone who works for the church. Otherwise they focus on the mistakes and personalities of men and attribute them to “the church.”

[skippy740]

Why We Do Some of the Things We Do - Ensign Nov. 1999

Now, the next question: “Why is the Church in business?”

We have a few business interests. Not many. Most of these were begun in very early days when the Church was the only organization that could provide the capital that was needed to start certain business interests designed to serve the people in this remote area. We have divested ourselves long since of some of these where it was felt there was no longer a need. Included in these divestitures, for instance, was the old Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company, which did well in the days of wagons and horse-drawn farm machinery. The company outlived its usefulness.

The Church sold the banks which it once held. As good banking services developed in the community, there was no longer any need for Church-owned banks.

Some of these business interests directly serve the needs of the Church. For instance, our business is communication. We must speak with people across the world. We must speak at home to let our stand be known, and abroad to acquaint others with our work. And so we own a newspaper, the Deseret News, the oldest business institution in Utah.

We likewise own television and radio stations. These provide a voice in the communities which they serve. I may add that we are sometimes embarrassed by network television presentations. Our people do the best they can to minimize the impact of these.

We have a real estate arm designed primarily to ensure the viability and the attractiveness of properties surrounding Temple Square. The core of many cities has deteriorated terribly. This cannot be said of Salt Lake City, although you may disagree as you try to get to the Tabernacle these days. We have tried to see that this part of the community is kept attractive and viable. With the beautiful grounds of Temple Square and the adjoining block to the east, we maintain gardens the equal of any in the world. This area will become even more attractive when the facility now being constructed on Main Street is completed and the large Conference Center to the north is finished.

Are these businesses operated for profit? Of course they are. They operate in a competitive world. They pay taxes. They are important citizens of this community. And they produce a profit, and from that profit comes the money which is used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation to help with charitable and worthwhile causes in this community and abroad and, more particularly, to assist in the great humanitarian efforts of the Church.

These businesses contribute one-tenth of their profit to the Foundation. The Foundation cannot give to itself or to other Church entities, but it can use its resources to assist other causes, which it does so generously. Millions of dollars have been so distributed. Thousands upon thousands have been fed. They have been supplied with medicine. They have been supplied with clothing and shelter in times of great emergency and terrible distress. How grateful I feel for the beneficence of this great Foundation which derives its resources from the business interests of the Church.

Edited May 3, 2011 by skippy740

[sixpacktr]

You have an interesting quandary. You home teach someone that has lost his testimony and has decided that it is because of the 'corporate feel' in the church. It could just as easily been the prohibition on coffee or that people gossip too much or that his Bishop is just one mean SOB and how could the Lord put someone like him in.

I think you are going about this wrong. You can't explain to him how it ISN'T a corporation. The office of Bishop is accountable to the Lord for the finances and records of his ward. It is part of his stewardship. The Lord's kingdom is one of order. We can't just be touchy feely and expect everything to work out. And most leaders in the church work in offices, and we learn some good administrative techniques in those jobs, both in managing resources and inspiring people.

And given that we don't have 1/100th part of a clue of how the church operates as a whole, to condemn the church for doing this, that or the other thing with the money is a bit immature in my opinion. Kind of like the gossip that flies around wards. People with no clue of what is actually going on still will pass along tales thinking they know best and know the whole issue. I have had some of it in our ward come back to me and I'm amazed at how completely inaccurate the stories are. To me, the same goes with this Brother.

So, Home Teacher, your real challenge is this: why did he lose his testimony and what is he doing to get it back? Because even if you could convince him that it isn't as he thinks, he'll find something else to find wrong. It all comes back to this: either it is true or it isn't. If it is, then get your behind in gear and help it move along. If it isn't, then why waste your time anymore, or anybody else's, for that matter, in having them tell you why it is?

[Wingnut]

LDS.org - Ensign Article "Why We Do Some Of The Things We Do"

Your link is broken.

You have an interesting quandary. You home teach someone that has lost his testimony and has decided that it is because of the 'corporate feel' in the church. It could just as easily been the prohibition on coffee or that people gossip too much or that his Bishop is just one mean SOB and how could the Lord put someone like him in.

I think you are going about this wrong. You can't explain to him how it ISN'T a corporation. The office of Bishop is accountable to the Lord for the finances and records of his ward. It is part of his stewardship. The Lord's kingdom is one of order. We can't just be touchy feely and expect everything to work out. And most leaders in the church work in offices, and we learn some good administrative techniques in those jobs, both in managing resources and inspiring people.

And given that we don't have 1/100th part of a clue of how the church operates as a whole, to condemn the church for doing this, that or the other thing with the money is a bit immature in my opinion. Kind of like the gossip that flies around wards. People with no clue of what is actually going on still will pass along tales thinking they know best and know the whole issue. I have had some of it in our ward come back to me and I'm amazed at how completely inaccurate the stories are. To me, the same goes with this Brother.

So, Home Teacher, your real challenge is this: why did he lose his testimony and what is he doing to get it back? Because even if you could convince him that it isn't as he thinks, he'll find something else to find wrong. It all comes back to this: either it is true or it isn't. If it is, then get your behind in gear and help it move along. If it isn't, then why waste your time anymore, or anybody else's, for that matter, in having them tell you why it is?

I think you're being awfully harsh. The home teachee has some legitimate concerns, and it's not your place to tell him that his concerns are stupid. The OP never said that his teachee "lost his testimony." In fact, the OP stated the opposite -- that the man does have a bit of a testimony. He just has concerns about how things are run. To him, church doesn't feel like church. Explaining and understanding background can help allay those concerns. At the very least, it's not a waste of time, especially where the man is showing willingness to understand and return.

[sixpacktr]

I think you're being awfully harsh. The home teachee has some legitimate concerns, and it's not your place to tell him that his concerns are stupid. The OP never said that his teachee "lost his testimony." In fact, the OP stated the opposite -- that the man does have a bit of a testimony. He just has concerns about how things are run. To him, church doesn't feel like church. Explaining and understanding background can help allay those concerns. At the very least, it's not a waste of time, especially where the man is showing willingness to understand and return.

And what would those legitimate concerns be? That the church is run too worldly? If you read it carefully instead of bristling at how harsh I was, he said that he claimed to have a 'bit of a testimony'. What the heck is a 'bit'? For someone that was brand new to the church, I can understand a 'bit' as we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. This Brother was a High Councilor. He was a High Priest. He was a worthy temple recommend holder and the held an office much like the Quorum of the Twelve do over the whole church, but in his Stake. So yes, I stick by my feeling that he has lost his testimony. And he is looking for an excuse to have lost it.

The duty of a Home Teacher is to teach, expound and exhort. It isn't to make someone feel justified for their ill feelings towards the church. Of course, I believe that MormonMusic will do this in love, as all things should be. But this is not the reason this brother lost his testimony. He had to have brought forth much faith and good works to have been advanced to the office of High Priest, and again to have been made a High Councilor.

So while it is fashionable to feel that I'm just too harsh, finding the real reason for his disaffection and not mucking around with excuses will do this brother much more good than making him feel warm and fuzzy. Making him understand his office as Patriarch in the home and helping him find his testimony again will do more than trying to explain the financial decisions the church makes. Because he DOESN'T want to understand those. He will find fault anyway.

[Wingnut]

And what would those legitimate concerns be? That the church is run too worldly? If you read it carefully instead of bristling at how harsh I was, he said that he claimed to have a 'bit of a testimony'. What the heck is a 'bit'? For someone that was brand new to the church, I can understand a 'bit' as we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. This Brother was a High Councilor. He was a High Priest. He was a worthy temple recommend holder and the held an office much like the Quorum of the Twelve do over the whole church, but in his Stake. So yes, I stick by my feeling that he has lost his testimony. And he is looking for an excuse to have lost it.

He may well have lost his testimony, but it doesn't diminish his other concerns. You remind me of a counselor in my bishopric, who, when a women told him she was feeling overwhelmed in her calling (though didn't explicitly ask to be released), he tried to talk her out of her feelings. In other words, he invalidated her feelings and tried to tell her she was wrong to feel them.

The duty of a Home Teacher is to teach, expound and exhort. It isn't to make someone feel justified for their ill feelings towards the church. Of course, I believe that MormonMusic will do this in love, as all things should be. But this is not the reason this brother lost his testimony. He had to have brought forth much faith and good works to have been advanced to the office of High Priest, and again to have been made a High Councilor.

I don't think MM is at all trying to help this brother feel justified. The brother is asking for help understanding, and MM is trying to accomplish that. He's in fact trying to draw the brother away from the dissatisfaction, not dig him deeper into it.

So while it is fashionable to feel that I'm just too harsh, finding the real reason for his disaffection and not mucking around with excuses will do this brother much more good than making him feel warm and fuzzy. Making him understand his office as Patriarch in the home and helping him find his testimony again will do more than trying to explain the financial decisions the church makes. Because he DOESN'T want to understand those. He will find fault anyway.

Yes, I'm just being fashionable. Because that's what I'm all about. No one can make him understand his role in the family. And you don't know that he doesn't want to understand things or that he will find fault anyway. Sorry but I trust the OP who actually knows him over someone who is also -- by the way -- only trying to find fault.

[Suzie]

He has been reading too much anti-Mormon propaganda

And you know this because...?

[Suzie]

Mormonmusic, this is a tough one because I believe this brother has some valid concerns. Depending on the area and the local leadership, Church can become a "business-like experience". I worked for the Church for many years and yes, it's run like a business and unfortunately many of the people who work there also have callings in the Church and they don't seem to know how to separate the business aspect from the spiritual aspect. One of my pet peeves.

I would suggest that you can help him focus on the Scriptures and his personal relationship with Christ.

[skippy740]

LDS.org - Ensign Article____

[skippy740]

Fixed the link.

Why We Do Some of the Things We Do - Ensign Nov. 1999

[mordorbund]

I just recently read in Gospel Doctrine (Joseph F. Smith's sermons) that if anyone has a question on how their tithing money is spent, they can go to Church HQ and ask to see the ledger. I'm curious as to what's the practice today (100 years later) - maybe you get the report via the Church Almanac or something?

[Guest]

And you know this because...?

Because... there have been a lot of publications the Church released on the City Creek Mall. All explaining why the $4B or so was spent on it.

But for all of those publications there are 10 anti-mormon publications taking the opportunity to lambast the Church on how we are spending $4B on a mall and spent less than half that amount to feed the poor in the entire world and how a "True" Church doesn't do that. (Of course, you won't hear this from Catholics).

[gruden]

I have a question here. I have a home teaching family. The father is finally opening up to me about his concerns about the Church (he's less-active). His concern is how much it felt like a business corporation when he was a high councilor years ago. The emphasis on tithing (the only sit-down accountability meeting we have dedicated to a single commandment, as he put it), the fact that only a a small percent of total donations from a Ward actually goes to fund Ward programs, and also, the way he feels the Church tends to behave like most other temporal organizations bothers him, he says. He raised the Church's decision to invest vast sums of money in revitalizing a mall near the SLC temple as well, when he sees all kinds of local needs and programs that could do so much better with more funding.

But he did say this -- given the fact that that most of his family (wife, and three out of four children) are rather active, he's willing to try to change this belief he has about the Church. He does claim he has a bit of a testimony, but says the whole corporate-like feeling of the Church bothers him and still makes it hard to believe. He doesn't pay tithing, he said, partly because of this.

But now, the speck of hope in this. He said he was open to a discussion where we talk about the reasons he should NOT expect the Church to behave differently than any other corporation, notwisthstanding its firm claims to a divine commission, direct leadership by the Savior through the First Pres and Q12, etcetera. He seems to think that because we claim to have such divine direction and connectedness to Christ and God, that we should somehow be different than other organizations, even the non-profit ones. More generous with our funds, less investment in land holdings, malls, and other business interests, with greater Ward budgets, better programs, and expanded access to services like LDS Social services, for example -- to bless the lives of the members.

So, do you have any ideas about what to share in my upcoming visit with him on this subject?

Why shouldn't the Church behave differently than other temporal organizations on matters of money? What reasons can I give that can help him see that it's OK for the Church to have the same kinds of temporal concerns as other temporal organizations, even though it has strong claims to divine influence?

He has some valid concerns that do concern me.

For me, I never go to tithing settlement. The question is covered in the temple interview and that's good enough for me. People who don't pay their tithing usually don't go anyway.

A lot of people have used the pat answer that the mall project doesn't use tithing money for the project, which is technically true, yet doesn't cover many financial realities, such as how the Church has raised money (ie. gotten loans) in the past and how it guarantees any loans it may currently get. The point is, at some time along the way, the Church has had to use church property (including temples) as collateral for business loans.

And the fact is, there are serious questions in my mind why the church - even its business arm - would invest such incredible sums of money in a confined project which does little good for church members. The lasting impact is merely a relatively small number of retail jobs which don't pay the best. Can a man support his family solely from a job selling shoes at Nordstroms? In the past the Church has used its funds to by lands for raising food to feed its members via welfare. This project benefits relatively few - major construction firms, bankers, and the investor(s). If this project goes sour, where does the money come from to pay for it? Many didn't notice that one of the Church's insurance companies had to cover a major loss of $500M last year. How many times can it afford to do that? More importantly, what happens if it no longer can? Meanwhile our ward budget gets cut every year.

So, I have similar concerns, yet I still believe and remain active. The simple answer is that my faith neither depends on what the church does nor what its members do. My faith comes from a testimony that Jesus lives, that Joseph Smith restored His gospel, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Christian record, and that the ordinances performed in this church are necessary for the salvation of all people. That's it.

The church is a vehicle for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, organizing the practice of important ordinances for the living and dead, and providing service opportunities. If one focuses on Christ, he can take all the strange and nonsensical things that happen in stride. I have striven to make my testimony completely independent of any human. Christ is the foundation. If the Church chooses to act increasingly like a corporation, it still doesn't affect my ability to grow closer to God, nor your friend. Tell him to get going and focus on what's important!

Edited May 4, 2011 by gruden

[Suzie]

Because... there have been a lot of publications the Church released on the City Creek Mall. All explaining why the $4B or so was spent on it.

You would agree with me that just because the Church gave an explanation, it doesn't mean some people agree or are satisfied with the explanation (including members).

But for all of those publications there are 10 anti-mormon publications taking the opportunity to lambast the Church on how we are spending $4B on a mall and spent less than half that amount to feed the poor in the entire world and how a "True" Church doesn't do that. (Of course, you won't hear this from Catholics).

I think sometimes we use the word criticism and anti-mormonism as mutually inclusive (another pet peeve of mine). I think that's wrong. It's funny you mentioned the mall because I absolutely disagree with the idea and I didn't like it from day one (but that's for another thread).

I just wanted to say that stating he has been reading anti-Mormon material is silly because unless you know this guy personally, there is no way you know that.

[Suzie]

I just recently read in Gospel Doctrine (Joseph F. Smith's sermons) that if anyone has a question on how their tithing money is spent, they can go to Church HQ and ask to see the ledger. I'm curious as to what's the practice today (100 years later) - maybe you get the report via the Church Almanac or something?

No, you don't get a detailed report.

[bytebear]

On the one hand, critics say the church is a poor steward of it's finances,. On the other, it is criticized for being the one of the most wealthy organizations in the world. You just can't win.

[gruden]

On the one hand, critics say the church is a poor steward of it's finances,. On the other, it is criticized for being the one of the most wealthy organizations in the world. You just can't win.

What's to win? The church's purpose is to guide souls back to Christ. What else matters?

[Guest]

You would agree with me that just because the Church gave an explanation, it doesn't mean some people agree or are satisfied with the explanation (including members).

I think sometimes we use the word criticism and anti-mormonism as mutually inclusive (another pet peeve of mine). I think that's wrong. It's funny you mentioned the mall because I absolutely disagree with the idea and I didn't like it from day one (but that's for another thread).

I just wanted to say that stating he has been reading anti-Mormon material is silly because unless you know this guy personally, there is no way you know that.

Suzie... you are familiar with You Must Be A Redneck If... statements right? You didn't get that tone from my opening statement?

But regardless of how you took the tone of the statement, the fact of the matter is - Anti-Mormons got a field day from the mall. It's all over the internet!

And whatever you felt about the mall - it obviously didn't affect your testimony. "You must be reading anti-mormon propaganda" is a safe enough bet.

And no - I didn't bring up the mall. The OP did.

[Suzie]

"You must be reading anti-mormon propaganda" is a safe enough bet.

You said "He has been reading too much anti-Mormon propaganda" which is a statement of fact. Now, I'm usually not this fussy about words but I thought it was an unfair statement to make because you don't know the guy therefore there is no way you know this. Often times I see members saying exactly the same thing every time another member has a serious concern about the Church or is critical in some sort of aspect. I find it unfair.

I can give a whole list of things I am critical about the Church and I never read anti-mormon material. Making assumptions is never a safe enough bet.

IMO.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Suzie

[Guest]

You said "He has been reading too much anti-Mormon propaganda" which is a statement of fact. Now, I'm usually not this fussy about words but I thought it was an unfair statement to make because you don't know the guy and often times I see members saying exactly the same thing every time another member has a serious concern about the Church or is critical in some sort of aspect.

No, that's not a statement of fact. That's a statement of opinion.... and in LDS.net, most everybody doesn't know anybody. Doesn't prevent anybody from any such similar statements. And it's not just limited to Advice Forum either.