Mormon Church has $100 BILLION

[JesusKnowsYou]

You probably missed my parenthetical. If you have a good reason to accumulate wealth (retirement, college for the kids, weathering unforseen events, etc), that's fine. If you are doing it just because you can, that at least borders on immoral.

I cannot agree with this. People can do whatever they want with their wealth.

As far as the Church is concerned - I believe that God asked me to pay my tithes.

He did not say that I should pay tithes only when I know exactly what the Church is doing with it or if they are doing only what I want them to do with it.

He just asked me to pay.

You have every right to tell me that I could be doing more. I have every right to ignore you. And we both have the right to say anything we want about the church.

Why are you talking about "rights"?

All I said was that I did not like that argument.

You have every right to say what you want about me or the Church.

I just think that the whole "you can do better" argument is stupid.

100B is a LOT of money.

Yeah - but considering that it took almost two centuries to accumulate - I'm not too impressed.

Is it more than is needed? I don't know.

So - are you claiming that that figure is immoral or not?

I'm starting to think that you believe that all the funds the Church accumulates should go directly to charity.

The Lord may not want that to happen.

Just the interest off of it could allow them to quintuple the charitible giving they do each year though.

You're sounding like Judas Iscariot in John 12.

I'm not convinced that charity work is an appendage.

Ok. We disagree.

I would say it should be a primary purpose of the church. See James 1:27.

Visiting people costs zero dollars.

Do you equate the worth of charity to the size of a check?

 

[Watchmen]

What's a TBM?

I never said that the Church could do no wrong. When they do something wrong - I will oppose it.

I just haven't convinced me that accumulating wealth is immoral.

Perchance - are you a Bernie supporter?

I never said accumulating wealth by itself is immoral.

No. I’m not a Bernie supporter. I’m a registered republican with moderate views.

Is taking from the destitute for your own gain when you already have $100BILLION immoral?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said accumulating wealth by itself is immoral.

No. I’m not a Bernie supporter. I’m a registered republican with moderate views.

Is taking from the destitute for your own gain when you already have $100BILLION immoral?

What do you mean "for your own gain?"

It doesn't sound as if the Quorum of the Twelve are using this money to live high on the hog or anything like that. AFAICT, it's all tied up in investments. I don't think anyone's enriching themselves with the money.

 

[Watchmen]

What do you mean "for your own gain?"

It doesn't sound as if the Quorum of the Twelve are using this money to live high on the hog or anything like that. AFAICT, it's all tied up in investments. I don't think anyone's enriching themselves with the money.

The organization is enriching itself by taking from the destitute (among others), and compelling them to give by fear of withholding blessing. An LDS member is not permitted to enter the temple and participate in the most sacred sacraments/ordinances without being a “full tithe payer.”

 

[SoyLeche]

I cannot agree with this. People can do whatever they want with their wealth.

As far as the Church is concerned - I believe that God asked me to pay my tithes.

He did not say that I should pay tithes only when I know exactly what the Church is doing with it or if they are doing only what I want them to do with it.

He just asked me to pay.

I'm on record in the thread saying that I have no problem with the idea of tithing. Raising money is not the primary purpose of tithing.

I wouldn't mind seeing the "full tithe payer" requirement for a temple recommend and tithing settlement going away though.

I'm not saying the "problem" (insofar as there is one) is one of raising too much money. It's in spending too little on worthy causes.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yeah - but considering that it took almost two centuries to accumulate - I'm not too impressed.

The church was in the red as late as 1959 (the last time they opened their books publicly). So it's really been more like 50-60 years.[/QUOTE]

 

[SoyLeche]

So - are you claiming that that figure is immoral or not?

I'm starting to think that you believe that all the funds the Church accumulates should go directly to charity.

The Lord may not want that to happen.

I don't know. Could be.

Not all of the funds. I said earlier - just the interest on the 100B could likley quintuple their charitible giving. And they'd still have 100B next year to do the same thing with.

 

[SoyLeche]

Visiting people costs zero dollars.

Do you equate the worth of charity to the size of a check?

For an individual, no. For an organization, pretty much. Especially one that is as vocal about how much it spends on charity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The organization is enriching itself by taking from the destitute (among others), and compelling them to give by fear of withholding blessing. An LDS member is not permitted to enter the temple and participate in the most sacred sacraments/ordinances without being a “full tithe payer.”

They're compelling them in all sorts of ways. I'm not sure why I should see more injustice in the fact that they try to withhold blessings from the poor than from the fact that they do the same thing with, say, LGBT people.

The LDS Church's policies are discriminatory and hateful. We knew this long before everyone realized how much their investments are worth.

 

[SoyLeche]

The organization is enriching itself by taking from the destitute (among others), and compelling them to give by fear of withholding blessing. An LDS member is not permitted to enter the temple and participate in the most sacred sacraments/ordinances without being a “full tithe payer.”

If a bishop is doing his job right, nobody should be choosing between feeding their kids and paying tithing.

 

[Watchmen]

If a bishop is doing his job right, nobody should be choosing between feeding their kids and paying tithing.

If only it was that simple.

 

[SoyLeche]

If only it was that simple.

That’s why my statement included an “if”.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I never said accumulating wealth by itself is immoral.

No. I’m not a Bernie supporter. I’m a registered republican with moderate views.

Is taking from the destitute for your own gain when you already have $100BILLION immoral?

What "gain" are you talking about?

You understand that the Church has no paid clergy.

Also - why do you conflate voluntary donations with "taking"?

Are you unfamiliar with the idea that there is benefit with giving?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'm on record in the thread saying that I have no problem with the idea of tithing. Raising money is not the primary purpose of tithing.

I wouldn't mind seeing the "full tithe payer" requirement for a temple recommend and tithing settlement going away though.

I'm not saying the "problem" (insofar as there is one) is one of raising too much money. It's in spending too little on worthy causes.

Why not just remove all requirements for a Temple recommend while you're at it?

You believe that you know what is or is not required for a person to be Temple worthy?

What do you consider to be a "worthy cause"? Why do you believe you are qualified to make such a distinction?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The church was in the red as late as 1959 (the last time they opened their books publicly). So it's really been more like 50-60 years.

Now I am even more impressed with the efforts of the Church.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I don't know. Could be.

Not all of the funds. I said earlier - just the interest on the 100B could likley quintuple their charitible giving. And they'd still have 100B next year to do the same thing with.

The Church's doors - along with its charitable aid - is open to anyone who wants them.

All they have to do is schedule an appointment with their local bishop.

Perhaps the Church - like God - wants people to ask for help - rather than wait to receive it with no effort on their part?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

For an individual, no. For an organization, pretty much. Especially one that is as vocal about how much it spends on charity.

I cannot agree with this.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The organization is enriching itself by taking from the destitute (among others), and compelling them to give by fear of withholding blessing. An LDS member is not permitted to enter the temple and participate in the most sacred sacraments/ordinances without being a “full tithe payer.”

The Church does not bestow any blessings.

No one needs to pay tithing in order to partake of the Sacrament.

No one needs to pay tithing in order to be baptized.

No one needs to pay tithing in order to be saved.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

They're compelling them in all sorts of ways. I'm not sure why I should see more injustice in the fact that they try to withhold blessings from the poor than from the fact that they do the same thing with, say, LGBT people.

The LDS Church's policies are discriminatory and hateful. We knew this long before everyone realized how much their investments are worth.

The Church cannot bestow or withhold blessings of any kind.

All people are invited to worship Christ with us. Even LGBT people.

I have yet to see any hateful or discriminatory policies in the Church.

 

[Watchmen]

What "gain" are you talking about?

You understand that the Church has no paid clergy.

Also - why do you conflate voluntary donations with "taking"?

Are you unfamiliar with the idea that there is benefit with giving?

What gain? $7 billion in annual tithing.

General authorities receive housing and stipends. I wouldn’t call them “unpaid.”

The “voluntary” donations are made under threat of lost blessings. Doesn’t seem very voluntary.

Of course there can be a benefit to giving. I myself give freely of my time, talents, and money and do so out of sense of community; Not because I want access to secret rituals and blessings that will be withheld from me if I don’t pay.