SL Tribune: “Maybe Mormons aren’t ALL bad”

[Just_A_Guy]

(The above is, of course, a paraphrase.  Still, a surprising tone from our hometown nemesis.)

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/10/14/historian-digs-into-the-hidden-world-of-mormon-finances-shows-how-church-went-from-losing-money-to-making-money-lots-of-it/

[Jeremy A]

I feel the church has two sides: religious and business. The money to build that mall in Salt Lake City did not come from tithing or any other money from the religious side. That's the distinction that people are missing.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Jeremy A said:

I feel the church has two sides: religious and business. The money to build that mall in Salt Lake City did not come from tithing or any other money from the religious side. That's the distinction that people are missing.

It's not just your feeling: church businesses are literally split into two different categories; business (taxable) and ecclesiastical.  Like the church own's Dessert Book: that's a taxable business.  What happens in a chapel, not.   

Edited October 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[laronius]

I have always been fascinated by the business branch of the Church. The Lord is not just setting up a Church but a kingdom on earth, which in my opinion encompasses all things both temporal and spiritual. I think those who criticize the Church for its business ventures are those who have compartmentalized their religious beliefs from their so called non-religious beliefs and interests. To them religion is a Sunday thing or perhaps a while you are at church thing. But the Lord doesn't see it that way. He has given us a temporal existence to help us work out our salvation and his Church helps to facilitate that "working out" both temporally and spiritually.

[prisonchaplain]

Is the Salt Lake City Tribune perceived as antagonistic to the church by most members, or is it more that the paper leans left, and runs the occasional anti-church business piece? (I'm Seattle, so I really don't know).

[NeuroTypical]

I don't think the Trib is thought of as having much of a political bias.

Fun story - my dad worked for both newspapers as a proofreader in the '70's and into the '80's.  Back then, both papers came off the same printing press, and shared much content.   My dad, always the a-religious church critic, showed me his "proof" that the church ran Deseret news.   He bought home three pages of tomorrow's paper.  The first two pages, one from the Desnews, one from the Trib, both had the same article from the same writer, about Utah's little-known homemade beer industry.  Both papers went to press with those pages.  The third page, was a revised edition from the Desnews, where they had stopped printing, revised something, and started printing again.    On this the third page, the beer article had been replaced with an article about some old ladies knitting circle doing charity work for starving people somewhere in Africa. 

According to him, "the Brethren" had seen the first printing, were shocked at the article on beer, and had the Desnews remove the article from the Lord's paper.  (As years went on, I pressed my dad for details, and he finally admitted that he didn't actually know what happened, but he figured his guess was still the most likely explanation.)

So there you have it, prisonchaplain.  Desnews is obviously the source of good news about good people doing good things, and the godless heathen Tribune is full of winos talking about drinking beer.  

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Is the Salt Lake City Tribune perceived as antagonistic to the church by most members, or is it more that the paper leans left, and runs the occasional anti-church business piece? (I'm Seattle, so I really don't know).

I looked it up just to make sure I remembered right.  The SLC Tribune has a long tradition of being a little antagonistic to the church.  It's founding was originally be individuals were were excommunicated/former members of the LDS church.  They were not exactly happy with many of the doings of the LDS church.  The paper has continued much of this tradition throughout the decades (and over a century) of it's printing. 

Obviously it employs members of the LDS church at times, and so it's antagonism at times is muted, but at other times it is quite prevalent.  A reading of the comments section of the SLC Trib online at times have brought out some of the most vile commentary you'll ever read in relation to the LDS church.  In some ways, it is also the readership the continues this tradition.

In some ways having opposite points of view can be useful (which is probably part of the historian in me coming out).  That way you don't see it from one extreme or the other (and I feel you are correct, the Tribune tends to lean more liberal than other media from Utah at times, which provides an acutely needed counterpoint to the happenings in Utah).  I tend to read the news from two or three different sources normally to try to get a more full view of the story and what actually occurred if possible.  Hence, I have read the SLC tribune often after reading the same story elsewhere.

From what I've read recently, it appears it was purchased by the Huntsman family, or they were seeking to purchase it.  I don't think that has affected the readership thus far, but perhaps over time it may affect how certain stories are written.

[Guest MormonGator]

52 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In some ways having opposite points of view can be useful (which is probably part of the historian in me coming out).  That way you don't see it from one extreme or the other

Agree totally

 

53 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

  I tend to read the news from two or three different sources normally to try to get a more full view of the story and what actually occurred if possible

Agree again, though you and I are in the minority. Most people of all political stripes from left-right don't read anything that they don't already agree with. They don't want to be challenged, they just want confirmation of their already held beliefs.  

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The SLC Tribune has a long tradition of being a little antagonistic to the church.

In the same sense that smallpox has a long tradition of being somewhat uncomfortable for human beings.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Dessert Book

Sweet!

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

the Tribune tends to lean more liberal than other media from Utah at times, which provides an acutely needed counterpoint to the happenings in Utah

Yes, exactly the same as Boston and the, um...well, as New York City and, uh...I mean, as Los Angeles and the, you know...that is, Seattle and...

Wait a minute. Conservative papers in big city markets don't exist! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you! When did this happen?

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

.Wait a minute. Conservative papers in big city markets don't exist! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you! When did this happen?

Washington Times

Washington Examiner

New York Post

... they are an extreme minority, but I am guessing there are close to a dozen right-leaning newspapers from big-ish cities around the nation.  Perhaps my examples are the exceptions that prove the rule, though.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Washington Times

Washington Examiner

New York Post

... they are an extreme minority, but I am guessing there are close to a dozen right-leaning newspapers from big-ish cities around the nation.  Perhaps my examples are the exceptions that prove the rule, though.

You are absolutely right @prisonchaplain. 99% of newspapers lean left. The WSJ, New York Post  and Washington Times are exceptions to the rule. 

Virtually no one under 40 reads newspapers. They are losing their power at an astounding rate. Sales and circulation are plummeting. Conservatives need not fear anymore about the "liberal media". It's a dinosaur. It'll die off on it's own in a generation or so. 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Yes, exactly the same as Boston and the, um...well, as New York City and, uh...I mean, as Los Angeles and the, you know...that is, Seattle and...

Wait a minute. Conservative papers in big city markets don't exist! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you! When did this happen?

 

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Washington Times

Washington Examiner

New York Post

... they are an extreme minority, but I am guessing there are close to a dozen right-leaning newspapers from big-ish cities around the nation.  Perhaps my examples are the exceptions that prove the rule, though.

This is not quite accurate.

Right-leaning news is Brietbart.  Daily Caller.  Inforwars.  And the extreme right Daily Stormer.  They are not centuries old news agencies so they're viewed in the newfangled internet way of news and not through flipping paper pages with the comics and Lifestyle sections and such.  They mostly concentrate on socio-political newscasting and commentary.

Washington Times and Examiner and the NYP are very well established traditional news that ran before the internet, so they're "papers" with all the things papers have to offer but they're not necessarily right-leaning.  They're not left-leaning either.  That's the interesting thing about this.  If they're not Democratic Party hacks, they're considered right-leaning.

As far as the left-leaning news... there's really not that many of them.  They're just the oldest, historically prominent news sources.  New York Times is the biggest one.  The problem is, all other news sources, especially the smaller newspapers like the Tribulation, and even more especially the international ones, use NYT as their source so the left-leaning spin to the news propagates all over the planet.

[prisonchaplain]

@anatess2 I was responding narrowly to the claim that there were no big-city newspapers . . .  @MormonGator I'm pretty embarrassed I missed the one with the most influence--the Wall Street Journal.  Yikes on me!

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@anatess2 I was responding narrowly to the claim that there were no big-city newspapers 

Same thing.  I don't consider NYP, Wash Post, WSJ, etc.,  right-leaning.  They're simply not left-leaning.  Just because you don't lean left doesn't mean you lean right.  And that's why I mentioned Breitbart.  THAT's right leaning.  NYP can't be compared to Breitbart.  By a mile.

Edited October 16, 2017 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

I graded on a curve. 

[Blueskye2]

On 10/15/2017 at 2:33 PM, Jane_Doe said:

It's not just your feeling: church businesses are literally split into two different categories; business (taxable) and ecclesiastical.  Like the church own's Dessert Book: that's a taxable business.  What happens in a chapel, not.   

But neither exists without the other. I worked for DB many years ago. It is wholly owned by The Corporation of the First Presidency, whose board members are all, in the LDS First Presiddency and LDS apostles. The appointment of CEO is determined by Deseret Management , the corporation that has all the LDS for profit businesses under it. There is nothing that happens in the for-profits that is not approved by the boards of the two corporations.  Not saying that is a bad thing, just pointing out that the “split” is more of an accounting thing.

At the time I worked for DB, Marvin J Ashton was the Chairman of the Board, of DB. With tax law changes, how DB reports to the non-profit side had to be revised and the board was rebuilt with no Apostles on it. With the DB board reporting to the two boards above it.

 BTW, I loved Elder Ashton and was sorry to see him go from DB and sad when he died. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Blueskye2

[pwrfrk]

What's wrong with a church running a business?  Remember that not only can the shopping mall not be built using tithing, nor could titihing pay for the international disaster relief the LDS provides.  So long as they obey the law and pay the fees, taxes, and tithing, who cares?

Edited October 22, 2017 by pwrfrk