8 ms·

> when Jesus was not very fond of amassing money I'm guessing you're talking about the moneychangers being thrown out of the temple? There are examples record

> when Jesus was not very fond of amassing money I'm guessing you're talking about the moneychangers being thrown out of the temple? There are examples recorded in the scriptures of tithes and offerings, and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc). There are multiple levels of preparedness taught in the LDS church. The lowest, the family, being to only have necessary debt (e.g. university or a house) and to have 3 days of storage for in case of emergencies for your own family (or individual self), or to help others. Then in some areas you have Bishop storehouses. It goes up and up. > I get why the churches do it (of course they don't believe in Christ) Why does the LDS church do it?

pqla1 7y ago
> Why does the LDS church do it? To go into detail would probably be outside the scope of HN, but if this is a serious question, Richard Dawkins is a good source on how the LDS church was founded.
- dorian-graph 7y ago
  Yup, it was a serious question, because it's quite an accusation. Richard Dawkins is a proliferate man, anything in particular to look up? I know he's said things about the church being fake, but what has he said about why the LDS church has amassed money and resources?
darkerside 7y ago
The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't acquire wealth.
- darksaints 7y ago
  The Mormon church tried for years to pretend that their leaders don't make money from the church. That too was confirmed as a lie not too long ago.
  - sturgill 7y ago
    Find me the executive team of a multimillion person company with hundreds of billions of assets making the living stipend of the (relatively few) ecclesiastical leaders of the Church and your argument will have more weight. IIRC, the living stipend for members of the Twelve was around $100k? Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
    - darksaints 7y ago
      What you need to understand is that Thomas Monson, who was an employee of the church (notorious for their extremely low pay) for his entire career, had an estimated net worth of $14m. That is excluding the church owned property that he gets to use free of charge, including private jets, cars, and homes. This is excluding free income sources such as free university for all family and extended family members. Outside of nearly every aspect of his life that was paid for, he was paid a parsonage stipend...untaxed by the IRS. He was no Jeff Bezos, but that is still miles away from being modestly compensated, as they like to pretend is happening. And remember, they're only admitting to being modestly compensated after a century and a half of pretending they weren't being compensated at all...a lie exposed by leaks, not the mormon church. They haven't been upfront about compensation, and they never will unless they are forced to.
      - sturgill 7y ago
        I’ve never found that number substantiated anywhere. But we agree that the Church is tight with its money. I just argue that’s a good thing...
        darksaints 7y ago
        We only agree that the church is tight with its money with respect to how that money is used to benefit members and the unfortunate that should probably be the beneficiaries of good old christian charity. But tight with its money amongst those that control it? Neither of us know...because it is a secret. A secrecy that has no benefit but to protect those who control it from scrutiny. I don't know how you could view either of those things as a "good thing" in the traditional christian understanding of good.
- prepend 7y ago
  I would imagine that the moneychangers were paying some amount to the church. I think the issue was that the church was being used as a place for worldly pursuits.
  - darkerside 7y ago
    Here's how I've always understood it. People used to make sacrifices to compensate for their sins. The merchants at the temple were selling offerings to be sacrificed, which was problematic for a couple of reasons. They were profiting off of the guilt and shame of others, they created a system that implied you could straightforwardly pay for the right to sin, and they made a mockery of the system of sacrifice for sin in the first place.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  In addition to the money changers (who exchanged local currency for Roman gold or silver), the dove sellers were also expelled. Doves were the cheapest sacrificial creature, and they were gouging poor widows. The whole point is that the temple authorities were part of and profiting from what was happening. Jesus was dead with 10 days of this event. There is a lot of depth here and it’s a genuinely fascinating story whether you ascribe to religious belief or not.
akira2501 7y ago
> and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc). Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear. > being to only have necessary debt (e.g. university or a house) I work for a Mormon owned company, this ideology even extends there. It's completely ignorant of why debt exists and how it can be used to offset inflation and improve capital expense flows. As a 'doctrine' it's misplaced at best. > Why does the LDS church do it? They cite the parable of the three talents, but I think they've gravely misunderstood that passage. The point wasn't for the servants to make money for themselves, it was to share their efforts and work with the world around them in order to improve it for everyone. God had given them these gifts and they weren't to waste them, not hoard them for themselves.
- umvi 7y ago
  > Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear. Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person. Jesus praised the widow for paying a 100% tithe into organizational coffers.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person. That's awfully spun. Organizations don't have brains either. They don't "decide" to do anything with that money, people do. Those people do so on the basis of some kind of self-interest. And in practice (I'm sure in this case too, though I don't have LDS-specific numbers to back it up) the people who make decisions for "organizations" tend themselves to be either very wealthy or live very wealthy lives based on that influence. I mean... I'm an atheist. But if I weren't, and I were hanging my appraisal of my chances at eternal salvation on the fact that technically I run an LLC and that money isn't mine... Yeah, St. Peter doesn't seem likely to buy that excuse.
lcall 7y ago
I am just me, not a Church leader, but I think it is for several reasons: 1) prophetically-encouraged preparedness, like in the days of Noah (food storage, avoiding debt, save for a rainy day, etc), 2) to best be able, long-term, to fulfill the divinely appointed mission of the Church to spread the teachings and voluntary systems that bring peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come. I have collected a bunch of links (official and not) w/ further info, at my personal site, such as at: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854578831.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854578831.html and http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854589754.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854589754.html and my own thoughts on this and various subjects at http://lukecall.net http://lukecall.net , such as http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587122.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587122.html . ps: It strikes me after many years of general reading & observation that economic up/down cycles would be very reduced or different if we used savings instead of debt, more. And, being in debt leaves one under the control of others, to some degree, reducing independence of planning and action. I'm not saying it is never appropriate, but it also has some somewhat predictable effects. Edit: I see that others have also posted these links that give some official responses: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church#question2 https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-fina... https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-statement-church-finances https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presi...
- lcall 7y ago
  For what it may be worth, there has been another, longer official response, w/ more good info: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/use-of-the-lords-sacred-funds https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/use-of-the-... . (It links to reports froml interviews. One of the above links also itself links to other further info.)

pqla1 7y ago

> Why does the LDS church do it? To go into detail would probably be outside the scope of HN, but if this is a serious question, Richard Dawkins is a good source on how the LDS church was founded.

dorian-graph 7y ago
Yup, it was a serious question, because it's quite an accusation. Richard Dawkins is a proliferate man, anything in particular to look up? I know he's said things about the church being fake, but what has he said about why the LDS church has amassed money and resources?

darkerside 7y ago

The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't acquire wealth.

darksaints 7y ago
The Mormon church tried for years to pretend that their leaders don't make money from the church. That too was confirmed as a lie not too long ago.
- sturgill 7y ago
  Find me the executive team of a multimillion person company with hundreds of billions of assets making the living stipend of the (relatively few) ecclesiastical leaders of the Church and your argument will have more weight. IIRC, the living stipend for members of the Twelve was around $100k? Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
  - darksaints 7y ago
    What you need to understand is that Thomas Monson, who was an employee of the church (notorious for their extremely low pay) for his entire career, had an estimated net worth of $14m. That is excluding the church owned property that he gets to use free of charge, including private jets, cars, and homes. This is excluding free income sources such as free university for all family and extended family members. Outside of nearly every aspect of his life that was paid for, he was paid a parsonage stipend...untaxed by the IRS. He was no Jeff Bezos, but that is still miles away from being modestly compensated, as they like to pretend is happening. And remember, they're only admitting to being modestly compensated after a century and a half of pretending they weren't being compensated at all...a lie exposed by leaks, not the mormon church. They haven't been upfront about compensation, and they never will unless they are forced to.
    - sturgill 7y ago
      I’ve never found that number substantiated anywhere. But we agree that the Church is tight with its money. I just argue that’s a good thing...
      - darksaints 7y ago
        We only agree that the church is tight with its money with respect to how that money is used to benefit members and the unfortunate that should probably be the beneficiaries of good old christian charity. But tight with its money amongst those that control it? Neither of us know...because it is a secret. A secrecy that has no benefit but to protect those who control it from scrutiny. I don't know how you could view either of those things as a "good thing" in the traditional christian understanding of good.
prepend 7y ago
I would imagine that the moneychangers were paying some amount to the church. I think the issue was that the church was being used as a place for worldly pursuits.
- darkerside 7y ago
  Here's how I've always understood it. People used to make sacrifices to compensate for their sins. The merchants at the temple were selling offerings to be sacrificed, which was problematic for a couple of reasons. They were profiting off of the guilt and shame of others, they created a system that implied you could straightforwardly pay for the right to sin, and they made a mockery of the system of sacrifice for sin in the first place.
Spooky23 7y ago
In addition to the money changers (who exchanged local currency for Roman gold or silver), the dove sellers were also expelled. Doves were the cheapest sacrificial creature, and they were gouging poor widows. The whole point is that the temple authorities were part of and profiting from what was happening. Jesus was dead with 10 days of this event. There is a lot of depth here and it’s a genuinely fascinating story whether you ascribe to religious belief or not.

akira2501 7y ago

> and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc). Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear. > being to only have necessary debt (e.g. university or a house) I work for a Mormon owned company, this ideology even extends there. It's completely ignorant of why debt exists and how it can be used to offset inflation and improve capital expense flows. As a 'doctrine' it's misplaced at best. > Why does the LDS church do it? They cite the parable of the three talents, but I think they've gravely misunderstood that passage. The point wasn't for the servants to make money for themselves, it was to share their efforts and work with the world around them in order to improve it for everyone. God had given them these gifts and they weren't to waste them, not hoard them for themselves.

umvi 7y ago
> Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear. Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person. Jesus praised the widow for paying a 100% tithe into organizational coffers.
- ajross 7y ago
  > Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person. That's awfully spun. Organizations don't have brains either. They don't "decide" to do anything with that money, people do. Those people do so on the basis of some kind of self-interest. And in practice (I'm sure in this case too, though I don't have LDS-specific numbers to back it up) the people who make decisions for "organizations" tend themselves to be either very wealthy or live very wealthy lives based on that influence. I mean... I'm an atheist. But if I weren't, and I were hanging my appraisal of my chances at eternal salvation on the fact that technically I run an LLC and that money isn't mine... Yeah, St. Peter doesn't seem likely to buy that excuse.

lcall 7y ago

I am just me, not a Church leader, but I think it is for several reasons: 1) prophetically-encouraged preparedness, like in the days of Noah (food storage, avoiding debt, save for a rainy day, etc), 2) to best be able, long-term, to fulfill the divinely appointed mission of the Church to spread the teachings and voluntary systems that bring peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come. I have collected a bunch of links (official and not) w/ further info, at my personal site, such as at: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854578831.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854578831.html and http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854589754.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854589754.html and my own thoughts on this and various subjects at http://lukecall.net http://lukecall.net , such as http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587122.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587122.html . ps: It strikes me after many years of general reading & observation that economic up/down cycles would be very reduced or different if we used savings instead of debt, more. And, being in debt leaves one under the control of others, to some degree, reducing independence of planning and action. I'm not saying it is never appropriate, but it also has some somewhat predictable effects. Edit: I see that others have also posted these links that give some official responses: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church#question2 https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-fina... https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-statement-church-finances https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presi...

lcall 7y ago
For what it may be worth, there has been another, longer official response, w/ more good info: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/use-of-the-lords-sacred-funds https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/use-of-the-... . (It links to reports froml interviews. One of the above links also itself links to other further info.)