4 ms·

Before I even clicked to see the comments I knew this sentiment would be here. Why is it that anytime a news article is published about some org having a lot o

by mattrp 7y ago

Before I even clicked to see the comments I knew this sentiment would be here. Why is it that anytime a news article is published about some org having a lot of money someone has to say something like this? They have a lot of money. So what? I’m also under the understanding everyone of their members has a years worth of food too. Kind of prescient with cironavirus running around? Full disclosure - I’m not a Mormon.

mythrwy 7y ago
Of course the sentiment is here! Because it's reasonable! Look, I got no problem with what people believe or how they pray. But 100 billion isn't needed for that so the purpose is??? Will it involve me? And the tax treatment complaint is also perfectly reasonable. None of this is hatred for private property nor religion.
- mattrp 7y ago
  In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount? I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free. At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them. Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Let's leave off the hostilities and spurious accusations please. Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point. I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives. Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.
    - mattrp 7y ago
      Fair enough I enjoy my relative anonymity here too. The whistleblowers do allege that the profits from investing have not been charitably distributed. But the issue in my meager understanding is not the amounts, it’s whether lds is acting charitably in its totality and I believe that’s fairly undeniable even considering the other controversies mentioned above. But let’s see...
tomrod 7y ago
> So what? It's how they got the money (typically manipulation[0][1] and free-will donations) and how they spend the money (politics, for-profit ventures) [2][3]. [0] http://johnlarsen.org/mormon-expression/ http://johnlarsen.org/mormon-expression/ Episode 250 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/7p09zl/today_i_learned_that_the_church_actually_produced/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/7p09zl/today_i_le... LDS Philanthropies produced a video encouraging wealthy people to leave inheritance with the LDS church to keep their kids in line. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Book_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Book_Company
- abnry 7y ago
  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 organizations in this instance, not people. What I would prefer to see is at least some honest respect for one's enemies. "They are my enemy, but they at least have the same rights as anyone else."
  - tomrod 7y ago
    Are you responding to my comment? I don't see the connection. If I'm mistaken, could you expand a little bit?
    - abnry 7y ago
      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.

by mattrp 7y ago

mythrwy 7y ago

Of course the sentiment is here! Because it's reasonable! Look, I got no problem with what people believe or how they pray. But 100 billion isn't needed for that so the purpose is??? Will it involve me? And the tax treatment complaint is also perfectly reasonable. None of this is hatred for private property nor religion.

mattrp 7y ago
In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount? I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free. At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them. Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Let's leave off the hostilities and spurious accusations please. Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point. I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives. Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.
  - mattrp 7y ago
    Fair enough I enjoy my relative anonymity here too. The whistleblowers do allege that the profits from investing have not been charitably distributed. But the issue in my meager understanding is not the amounts, it’s whether lds is acting charitably in its totality and I believe that’s fairly undeniable even considering the other controversies mentioned above. But let’s see...

tomrod 7y ago

> So what? It's how they got the money (typically manipulation[0][1] and free-will donations) and how they spend the money (politics, for-profit ventures) [2][3]. [0] http://johnlarsen.org/mormon-expression/ http://johnlarsen.org/mormon-expression/ Episode 250 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/7p09zl/today_i_learned_that_the_church_actually_produced/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/7p09zl/today_i_le... LDS Philanthropies produced a video encouraging wealthy people to leave inheritance with the LDS church to keep their kids in line. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Book_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Book_Company

abnry 7y ago
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 organizations in this instance, not people. What I would prefer to see is at least some honest respect for one's enemies. "They are my enemy, but they at least have the same rights as anyone else."
- tomrod 7y ago
  Are you responding to my comment? I don't see the connection. If I'm mistaken, could you expand a little bit?
  - abnry 7y ago
    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.