Is BYU at Risk of Budget Cuts?

Madoff, Bernie Madoff wrote:

blamb61 wrote:

Hahahahaha. The article you posted says mostly based on anecdotal evidence on the cover page. You haters are

unreal!

Hahahaha, The article states that it used to be based on anecdotal evidence until a massive amount of proof showed that the anecdotes are true. I'm really beginning to think that you are mentally challenged and have a difficult time reading, or that you don't have the attention span to read beyond the first sentence. (Not that there is anything wrong with being dimwitted.) You people with bias blinders are unreal. Defending fraud is despicable, even if you have been taught to do that from infancy. Defending fraud perpetrated against the people whom you claim to minister to is beyond despicable. Con artists love people like you, and apparently you embrace them back.

I try not to belittle people because it's not a nice thing to do. You seems to have no restraints there. You really think those companies moving to Utah are comming with intent to defraud the people of Utah? Where is the reason in that. I didn't read the whole article but appearantly you didn't read what I posted either. A state that is thriving and where big business likes to move to is not like you are trying to get people to believe. I'm sure there are problems with Utah that need fixing but overall it's a great place unlike you try to make every believe.

Since you post anonymously I can't tell if the same person keeps throwing this garbage out or not.

Do you save for a rainy day? I hope you do. I don't think the numbers you quote are accurate. They don't incident a lot if other catagories of giving and service as previously explained. Don't care about people? That is a flat out lie. I've served many, many hours to help others and other members have done likewise. You are not honest in your characterizations of us! Money doesn't line old men's pockets. You flat out lie about things or are greatly miss informed.

I never said my father in law missed one month of paying his tithing. I never said he only owed a few hundred in tithing. I never even implied that my primary concern was my father in law on my wedding day. I also never asked for compassion. Those are all things that you made up.

The Mormon won’t allow anyone into the temple if they don’t pay their tithing (even if their daughter is the bride). I really don’t care if you choose not to believe my story. The Mormon church’s tithing policy speaks for itself.

You’re taking the easy way out by calling me dishonest. It’s easier for your brain to not deal with the actual issues and just discount me as dishonest. You can continue to do so, but most people with a rational mind will be able to see what you are doing.

No, I'm calling you dishonest because it's so obvious. You claim to be a returned missionary and bishopric member. If that's true, you know how things actually work. And what you keep saying is nowhere close to the truth. You just keep throwing out allegations you would know are false in the hope of smearing the church with something.

And you don't actually care about any of it. You don't care about tithing, or LBGTQ teens, or African-Americans, or anything else. You use them as objects for your own ends. If you actually cared about anyone or anything and had some kind of commitment to fact and truth, we could hold a rational discussion even about topics we disagree about. But you stand for nothing and believe in nothing. So if one false claim gets swatted down, you're on to the next smear, whatever is easiest for you to cook up. If someone points out that no, that's not actually what we teach, you immediately discount it as coming from a Mormon source.

This is a running-related message board. There is no reason at all for you to start this thread on LRC. And you want to be taken seriously? You're pathetically obsessed. Move on with your life. You don't have to spend the rest of your life as the living confirmation of every stereotype church members hold about ex-Mormons.

When small businesses hit tough patches, they can take out loans. If it's a small amount, your father in law could have floated it on his credit card. Are you sure your father in law is telling you the real reason he couldn't enter the temple, instead of something that sounded good to his nosy son-in-law? Cutting people's hours when the work isn't there isn't cruel; it's just business. If he couldn't do that, he wasn't ready to be in business for himself. No shame in that; most small businesses eventually go broke. But your story about the 100% devout businessman who just couldn't pay tithing for a little while isn't adding up. You've given yourself all the heroic roles in the story and cast the Mormons as nothing but villains, and that doesn't even make for interesting fiction.

My father in law wasn’t allowed to see his only daughter get married because he was behind on paying tithing. So far the Mormon response has been: You are lying, maybe your father in law was lying about why he wasn’t allowed in the temple, you could have changed the date of the wedding and waited until he paid his tithing, or he could’ve gone into debt to pay his tithing.

I hope someday you’ll realize how brainwashed you sound.

Show me the proof that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever payed any tithes. There is not even the tiniest atom shred of evidence that they did. Complete and total hypocritical swindlers.

Swindlers wrote:

Show me the proof that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever payed any tithes. There is not even the tiniest atom shred of evidence that they did. Complete and total hypocritical swindlers.

Those grifters never gave even a penny let alone 10% from the vast fortunes they stole, you can bank on that.

Lawnorder wrote:

This outfit is no different than ISIS, Scientology, Jim and Tammy Faye, Jimmy Swaggart.

So true. And BYU is where they hatch the snakes.

joseph smith's 27 preteen wives wrote:

Parley pratts wife wrote:

Mormons don't believe in hell.

They get a good dose of belief after they die and get their first glimpse of that red hot pit.

Nice. No matter what they get away with now, in the depths of their little pre-evolutionary lizard brains they know this is coming.

Harambe wrote:

I'm glad that the church has brought you good things. A $100 billion slush fund is not a "little thing." The only company with more cash reserves is Microsoft. I don't understand why any church member would tolerate such an excess of wealth. What multiple is that over the church's yearly budget?

With that much cash they could have made a big difference in a lot more families' lives, no?

I believe the $100 billion dollar figure is only speculation because the investments of the church are not public. Regardless, whatever the amount may be $50 billion or $150 billion I can conjecture many plausible reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with greed.

First off the church was not established for the sole purpose of eradicating hunger or want. When Christ told his disciples to "feed my sheep" he did not send them with ever multiplying loaves of bread and fishes to eradicate hunger the world over. One could make the argument that Jesus was extremely selfish, if Jesus had such great power why didn't he use more of it to eradicate hunger and disease. Heck, he could of just waved his hands and cured the world of it's fallen state. So wrong, so selfish. But they would obviously be misguided in making such statements, Christ's purpose in telling his disciples to "feed my sheep" was to spread his teachings, something far more important and of an eternal nature. The church's commission is the same to spread the gospel to all the world.

Here is a list of plausible reasons. Note i'm not talking as someone who knows or is an authority on the subject. These are purely conjecture.

1. Taking the gospel to all the world. There are many populations/countries in the world where the average income isn't measured in dollars an hour, but rather dollars a day. Example Sub-Saharan Africa - roughly $5.60 a day. If the gospel is to come to such countries and people, then there is going to be a cost in providing chapels, and temples to said people. A cost over and above the tithing funds from the people in the region. The church has an interest in providing great quality facilities for members. I can't imagine very many countries where the cost of operation is offset by tithing contributions, in fact the U.S may be one of the few. If the church intends to keep spreading throughout the world then it needs to be prepared to absorb costs.

2. Be Prepared. When Joseph of Egypt stored and hoarded an over abundance of food for seven years it wasn't because he was being greedy or because he was being too excessive. Though it may have seemed that way at the time. He knew he had to be prepared for what was to come. And he was. There's not telling what will happen in the future, yes we have all experienced a period prosperity. Great health, Economic expansion coupled with no major world wars etc.. Who's to say what the future holds. World wars could devastate wealth and economies.. Introduce disease, nuclear devastation etc.. It's hard to be a number on that. As a church with a commission to go to all nations. It makes sense to be as prepared as possible.

Lastly, who's to say that the investments of the church aren't doing good. If some of the money is invested in the stock market that money is providing jobs, spurring innovation and economic growth. The lands and farms the church owns are producing goods and and providing jobs in addition to supplies of food storage in case of rough times.

How much investment is too much for the church? Who knows. But I don't think any of you are qualified to make such a determination.

nofacetimber wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I'm glad that the church has brought you good things. A $100 billion slush fund is not a "little thing." The only company with more cash reserves is Microsoft. I don't understand why any church member would tolerate such an excess of wealth. What multiple is that over the church's yearly budget?

With that much cash they could have made a big difference in a lot more families' lives, no?

How much investment is too much for the church? Who knows. But I don't think any of you are qualified to make such a determination.

First of all it isn't an investment, it is giving from the heart to charity. Since they give a paltry amount, it reveals that they have a paltry and stingy heart. No amount is too much. They should give till it hurts just the same as they require of their contributors. In fact, they should give every cent of that $100 billion, and they won't miss it all because they rake in $7 billion more every year which they also don't use to help the needy. Unbridled greed.

Every year, they send thousands of marketers into dirt-poor countries with the goal of signing up more people who can be fooled into donating. And one of the most ironic aspects of this is, they don't pay the missionaries, they don't give the missionaries a commission, they con the missionaries into paying hundreds of dollars every month out of pocket. They are sitting on $100 billion and they charge the idiots who bring in more and more cash to do it. That's pretty much the definition of a pyramid scam.

Look, it ain't a church. It is a money making enterprise for the benefit of a few dozen ancient geezers in charge. And they are extremely good at it.

Brigham likes em young wrote:

Swindlers wrote:

Show me the proof that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever payed any tithes. There is not even the tiniest atom shred of evidence that they did. Complete and total hypocritical swindlers.

Those grifters never gave even a penny let alone 10% from the vast fortunes they stole, you can bank on that.

But they drink and have sex with the best of them.

Bring ‘em Young wrote:

My father in law wasn’t allowed to see his only daughter get married because he was behind on paying tithing. So far the Mormon response has been: You are lying, maybe your father in law was lying about why he wasn’t allowed in the temple, you could have changed the date of the wedding and waited until he paid his tithing, or he could’ve gone into debt to pay his tithing.

I hope someday you’ll realize how brainwashed you sound.

Your father in law knew the rules, and chose his employees over his daughter. You may not like it, but they were a higher priority for him. What does your devout father in law think of you now that you make a hobby of slandering his church on the Internet?

Assuming he's real, of course. Nothing I've seen from you gives me any reason to assume what you say is true. Look at the people you surround yourself with - comparing the church to ISIS and worse. They don't care about truth or understanding. I hope you're happy with your new friends.

Oh, but hey, here's a finance writer on Forbes who thinks there's no chance the IRS has anything to worry about in this case, so I guess BYU XC will be fine after all.

People with a rational mind will see all you want to do is bash the church. Priests were not allowed to enter Old Testamant temples without purification. There were requirements to go in. Same with our modern day temples.

You lie about lining pockets.

You are clueless or just like to lie.

Whistleblower Schmooshleblower wrote:

That 4$ dollar number is disingenuous, Latter-day Saint Charities reported in its 2018 annual report that the charity has provided more than $2.2 billion, or an average of $64.7 million a year, in 197 countries since its creation in 1985. Church membership was under 6 million in 1985. Consider that number includes inactive members, non working children, and stay at home moms. The number of tithe payers would be much less.

Let me get this straight .....you are defending the Mormon church by claiming they give $10 a year per member....not $4

That would make total sense if the average Mormon made $100 a year.

joseph smith's 27 preteen wives wrote:

First of all it isn't an investment, it is giving from the heart to charity.

I can't make much sense of what you are trying to say here, the capital being discussed here is invested. So it's an investment.

As far as the rest, you feel entitled to place yourself as arbiter and judge over how the funds should be used. You have no understanding of the church and it's goals or apparent desire to do so. So you, in your wisdom can only conclude greed.

joseph smith's 27 preteen wives wrote:

Since they give a paltry amount, it reveals that they have a paltry and stingy heart.

Paltry is a relative term, the church is involved with a lot of initiatives around the globe to improve the well being of mankind. And because they do so wisely and prudently the impact cannot gauged by a mere financial number.

Here's some projects highlight from the 2018 LDS charities annual report detailing projects the charity was involved with:

.

latterdaysaintcharities.org

/bc/content/ldscharities/annual-report/2018/LDS_Charities_2018_English.pdf?lang=eng

( don't want a big potential link in the forum but combine rows if you wish to see it )

2018:

Clean water and sanitation systems brought to 657,500 people in 28 countries

Immunizations: 7 campaigns benefiting 7 countries

Wheel Chairs: 53,800 people helped in 40 countries

Refuge Response: 371 projects in 56 countries

International Community Projects: 853 projects in 104 countries

U.S and Canada Community Projects: 43 states and provinces

Emergency Response: 155 projects in 50 countries during 2018

Food Security: 311,700 people in 16 countries, 51 scholarships awarded to scholars in 11 countries

Vision: 309,800 people helped in 35 countries during 2018

Maternal and Newborn Care: 53,800 trained caregivers in 39 countries

Alright lets play a game, say you have 60 billion dollars today with the goal to provide charity throughout the world. Lets say you aim to have the same impact as LDS charities in 2018 using your massive amount of funds. Where would you start? The communication network and administrative costs to coordinate, determine need, and plan all these endeavorers in a variety of different countries and language barriers would be massive. Not to mention all the trained professionals it would require including doctors. At a minimum you are relying on volunteers to put their heart and soul into these efforts without pay. Unless your volunteers are financially independent you would need to pay for their travel materials and lodging. As you gave money towards community projects and endeavors you would also have to worry about corruption and misuse of funds. Creating even more oversight and administration costs. I don't think you would be able to keep the train rolling along very long with 60 billion dollars having to fund all of this year after year. You would be relying on volunteers to offset your costs.

The reality is, the majority of the value in the church's charity efforts doesn't come from the funds. It comes from the vast network of charitable volunteers they leverage to make a difference all over the world. You can't put a price on that.

The charity impact and outreach looks to be expanding and improving year by year. It's certainly not a "paltry" contribution.