The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church • Hacker News Board

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#191

Post by abnry » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #180

abnry wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tiresome argument is that "organization I don't like has a lot of money... they should stop having a lot of money!" There may be a plethora of valid reasons to dislike the organization, but it doesn't follow that they shouldn't have a lot of money unless you think nobody should have a lot of money. And if that is your argument, you should also consider if that includes the US government. We are talking about orga…

Are you responding to my comment? I don't see the connection. If I'm mistaken, could you expand a little bit?

I am responding primarily to "Churches should go back to being churches. No reason a religious organization needs a 100 billion warchest."

Presumably, the person who wrote this is against religion/mormonism/christianity. If that is they case, they are an outsider and don't really have a valid say in what an organized religion should want. So it comes off as what I wrote in my comment, which is backed up by what they wrote in their next sentence, which is in essence, "organization I don't like has a lot of money, and I think they shouldn't have a lot of money."

Your criticisms about how the Mormon church spends its money is irrelevant to how much money they have (and the $100B figure in the article). Your criticisms about how they got the money are relevant though. Although I can't really judge how much of an issue manipulation is, as it is both subjective and rampant in the almost any exchange of money (sales, advertising, and arguably taxes), and as you also mentioned people freely give to the Mormon church.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#192

Post by prepend » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #156

tomrod wrote: post #9

That is just what is uncovered in the investment market with one subsidiary. They also own 2% of Florida[0], huge land tracts in Argentina, Oklahoma and elsewhere, and attractive urban real estate in most major metropolises including apartment complexes in PA. They centralize donation collection of tithes and good will offerings such that about 8% stays back at congregations (based on personal observation as the fina…

> It's an organization which does not allow you to leave with your dignity intact. This is definitely not true. It may have been the case for you, but my dad and brother/wife all left years ago without any problems at all. We are still on great terms.

“ dad and brother/wife”

Is this a reference that your dad and another man were married to the same person. I’ve heard sister/wife used before but never brother/wife.

It is it your dad, your dad’s brother, and your dad’s brother’s wife?

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#193

Post by jquery » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

So the Mormon Church has created an endowment instead of corruptly spending the tithes on trifles and graft for their leaders, in preparation to help their members when needed and continue their operations in times of scarcity. I see this as a very smart thing, not nefarious. Not any more “scandalous” or hidden than the Harvard endowment.

Mormons are well aware the Church uses its tithes to invest. Much of this thread’s comments are little more than ignorant and bigoted attacks on Mormons and Christians.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#194

Post by dannypgh » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #11

Churches should go back to being churches. No reason a religious organization needs a 100 billion warchest. What they are planning to eventually do with it? Buy off my local pol? Buy Utah and secede? Never mind the advantageous tax treatment enjoyed. This disturbs me.

"Go back to?"

I don't know what period you're longing for, but it sounds like an outlier. The church history I'm familiar with is one where the Pope had power at least on par with the head of any government or military near their sphere of influence. Also, crusades.

Churches amassing massive wealth is far from new. Nor do I suspect the LDS has even a small fraction of the Roman Catholic Church's wealth.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#195

Post by maverick2007 » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #192

umvi wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an organization which does not allow you to leave with your dignity intact. This is definitely not true. It may have been the case for you, but my dad and brother/wife all left years ago without any problems at all. We are still on great terms.

“ dad and brother/wife” Is this a reference that your dad and another man were married to the same person. I’ve heard sister/wife used before but never brother/wife. It is it your dad, your dad’s brother, and your dad’s brother’s wife?

That almost certainly means OP's brother and OP's brother's wife

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#196

Post by innocentoldguy » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #112

annoyingnoob wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think having your members tithe is a big part of it. I know some wealthy mormons that have always given their 10%, at least that's what they tell me. I also know a couple of really large mormon families, like 12 kids large - they all tithe.

> at least that's what they tell me. Assuming the countless anecdotes on /r/exmormon are to be believed, nobody really gets a choice. Your local leaders will browbeat you and try to look over your financials if they don’t feel you are tithing appropriately.

That has never been true in my experience. I’ve been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for most of my life and I have always struggled with tithing and offerings and nobody has ever said much to me about it.

In my now 50+ year experience, the ONLY time tithing has ever been brought up is at the end of the year when the bishop asks if I’ve been a full tithe payer. I say “No,” and he writes that down on the little paper and then we’re done. I’ve never been browbeaten or had anybody look over my financials. I’ve never been extorted or ridiculed. I’m not saying that some misguided bishop somewhere hasn’t done that to members of his congregation. I just know it isn’t church policy and isn’t something I’ve ever experienced.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#197

Post by knicholes » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #156

tomrod wrote: post #9

That is just what is uncovered in the investment market with one subsidiary. They also own 2% of Florida[0], huge land tracts in Argentina, Oklahoma and elsewhere, and attractive urban real estate in most major metropolises including apartment complexes in PA. They centralize donation collection of tithes and good will offerings such that about 8% stays back at congregations (based on personal observation as the fina…

> It's an organization which does not allow you to leave with your dignity intact. This is definitely not true. It may have been the case for you, but my dad and brother/wife all left years ago without any problems at all. We are still on great terms.

I dunno. One has to deal with the random crying, the questions of "Why haven't you baptized your children? I want to spend eternity with my grandbabies!", "They need primary!", etc. Then there's the endless gossip at family activities when you're absent about how you're leading your family to hell.

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#198

Post by daveFNbuck » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

zmix wrote: post #153

One of my favorite passages from the New Testament is this: Matthew 19:16-30 New International Version (NIV)[1] The Rich and the Kingdom of God 16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” he inquired.…

This also says that you should leave your family. Do you think of this when you hear about people who call themselves Christians but love their family?

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#199

Post by rrss » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #109

rrss wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clay Christensen was referring to one of the Ten Commandments - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." I don't think many religions count churches not paying taxes as sins. Incidentally, Christensen almost certainly contributed a rather significant amount of money to this sum, and likely would have said it would be a sin not to have done so. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have w…

Note the irony that the scripture you quote was given to the priests, who were benefiting from the tithes and offerings of the nation [akin to the Mormon church giving luxurious homes to their General Authorities and plum book deals through Deseret Book], not the people themselves. Tithing got re-defined over the years. Consider: https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too...

FWIW, I quoted that verse because that's the default scripture Mormons quote when you ask why they pay tithing, in my experience, and so I took the liberty of assuming that's probably what Christensen would say.

But now you have me interested, so:

> When you read the previous chapters and verses you will see that Malachi, as God's mouthpiece, is accusing the Church leaders of embezzling

Given that this statement is based on the author's interpretation of 17th century english (KJV) translated from Hebrew, I'm a bit surprised by the confidence here (and the confidence with which you repeat it).

I'm no biblical scholar, but I just read Malachi 2 and 3, and came away with the same impression as before, that the bit about tithes was addressed to all of the nation of israel.

The author of that post seems to be primarily drawing the conclusion from their interpretation here:

> "Will a man rob God? Well You have robbed me, even this whole nation!" In other words, the priest class had been robbing the whole nation

Many other translations do not permit this interpretation, which is possible due to the ambiguity in the KJV of whether "even this whole nation" modifies "you" or "me".

NIV: "You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me."

NABRE: "You are indeed accursed, for you, the whole nation, rob me."

NET: "You are bound for judgment because you are robbing me—this whole nation is guilty."

NRSV: "You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me—the whole nation of you!"

CSB: "You are suffering under a curse, yet you—the whole nation—are still robbing me."

So maybe it is directed at the priests, maybe it isn't, but the understanding that it is directed at the priests isn't unique to the LDS church, as that post seems to suggest ("testament to our willingness for self-indoctrination that so many Latter-day Saints constantly...").

Re: The vast but little-known fund of the Mormon Church

#200

Post by api » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #181

gherkinnn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find a lot of people invoke Christ, but have little to do with his teachings. Amusingly, his ideas align more with beliefs held by “the young left” than by “the old right”. (Yesyes, bad terms but you know what I mean) And yet the real-world allegiances are inverted.

Many "Christians" follow more Moses than Jesus - and ignor Jesus teachings - and would better be called Mosians. Though amassing gold was also not Mosianic.

I see more parallels between pop Christianity in the USA and Mithraism or the Roman imperial cult. It was shocking years ago to read the gospels and realize they are not following the actual teachings of Christ at all. In some cases those teachings are radically different and opposed to what most American Christians seem to advocate, especially on things like economics and militarism.

The parallels are particularly strong with the Roman imperial cult now that so many seem to want to worship a Caesar. I see this trend as independent of Trump per se. I saw it around Bush II, but IMHO it didn't take there because Bush did not want to be emperor. I get the impression that Bush actively rejected that role, especially seeing the quiet life of apparent personal recovery he has pursued after the presidency.