I would argue with the fact that we are somehow at the end of the glory days, facing increasing financial pressures in the future. I don’t think anything has changed from pioneer days. The humble convert, and their faithful children, grandchildren, and beyond prosper.

By the way, in the past year, the Church purchased a ranch in Nebraska. I don’t know what the price per acre was, but it WAS 88,000 acres.

David: It may be that the shift of funding into YSA programs is based on an shrewd understanding of where the Church is most likely to get the greatest increased activity levels bang for its buck rather than out of a desire to simply spend excess church funds.

However, the financial situation of the Church has never been better. For example, just last year the Church instituted a program to increase budget funds for Youth and YSA (and Primary) among all wards and stakes in the Church. If you believe for a moment that someone who is as fiscally conservative as President Hinckley would make a committment to increase the funding without being sure that the Church would be able to sustain that funding in the long term, you don’t understand President Hinckley.

Second, because single major expenditure for the Church is for buildings, I don’t know whether you understand the cash flow implications of a slight slow down in the pace of new buildings. It is enormous.

Third, the economic advance of Church members in the developing world is proceeding apace. As they serve missions, gain an education and get better jobs, the Church will be blessed with a rising generation of more economically active people.

I don’t think we need to worry about the Church. The Lord will provide a way for us to accomplish His purposes.

It would be interesting to see some demographic evidence to show what happens to the poor who are baptized, whether in Bushwick or Buenos Aires. After controlling for activity rates, what is the “effect” of conversion and church activity on economic class? At times it appears that the Lord’s statement about having the poor with us always is surely fulfilled in some parts of the city, but there seem to be two types of out-migration occurring: first, there are those who, though baptized, soon cease to have any meaningful relationship with the church, and second, there are those who remain active but generally don’t remain in the poor neighborhoods where they were baptized. We’ve seen that pattern for a quarter century in Brooklyn. I’d be interested in seeing some data to show whether that is in fact true generally across the church. (Was Pres. Benson right when he said that the Lord removed the slums from people’s hearts, and they they moved themselves out of the slums? [pardon the lousy paraphrase])

Another bit of anecdotal data: it took four generations in my family to move from abject poverty (probably made worse by emigration from England to the deserts of the Great Basin and later eastern Arizona) to embarrassing wealth. If someone from a poor barrio in Buenos Aires is baptized, can the church not afford to wait four generations for that person’s descendants to hit the upper registers of the economic scale?

You are definitely right about the long-term trends whereby the ever-increasing percentage of the Church members in poor countries will present an ever-increasing strain on the Church’s financial resources. These trends will be further exacerbated by two other factors: (1) even in the U.S. a large number of converts come from lower socio-economic groups, and (2) the ongoing debtor status of the U.S. suggests that the current decline in the dollar’s value may be a permanent long-term phenomenon which will negatively impact the Church since most of its assets and income are in US dollars.

However, I am curious about your observation that Wasatch Front Mormons are myopically triumphalist in their assumptions about the Church’s wealth and influence. While I have certainly seen the provincial attitude you are describing in some individual Church members, do you think it manifests itself in any significant way on a macro-scale? Can you cite examples of how it affects Church policies, the behavior of large groups of LDS, serious LDS scholarship, or global LDS society? Or are you just commenting on the narrow perspectives of some local yokels who don’t realize that there is a world beyond the tops of the everlasting mountains?

It is interesting logic to say that because the church is converting mostly poor people, then it must somehow be losing money. Or because they asked to help out in the building of the temple that they must be going broke. Im sorry to tell you that is false. Tithing is just 1 way that the church gets money. Tithing alone brings is billions and billions yearly. Not to mention the fact that the church owns multi billion dollar buisnesses,has billions invested and probably 1 of the only instutions in the world where their is no fraude when dealing with money. I think we can safely say that you can believe the hype, the church is extremely wealthy and contunies to become more wealthy every year.

Why then did they ask to help in the building of the temple? Seems pretty logical to me. As members we are required to give %10. This however is all we are required to do. Very few people cannot afford to do much much more. When we understand the plan of salvation, and we are “truely converted” then we know that material wealth means nothing. Everything we have should be given to God if he asks. The Church is frugal, it is an incredible well run buisness in a way, because God is at its head. If a wealthy community can pay for its temple by itself, then that is 1 more temple that can be put up in a poor community. Does it mean that the church is in financial trouble because it does this? Absolutely not. The Church does not waste money, it does not assume that because it is great finacial shape now, that it will always be. The Church is always prepared for a crisis.

I hope this does not come off like im talking down to anyone, because im not. I just wanted ya’ll to rethink some of this logic that im hearing. The truth is, if the Church had 20 trillion dollars in the bank, they would still be very tight with their money, they would still ask members to pay extra for things now and then. It is as much for your benifit as the Church when they do this. Money is the hardest thing to part with, and many members can follow everything that the church asks except for that.

Everyone should give thanks every day that the Church does not call the law of Consecration. How much faith would that take to pay.

You will noticed that I used a small “c” in church, rather than the customary “C”. I did this for a reason. Yes, I believe that there are occasions when the Church involves itself in politics, especially in the business arena like downtown SLC. Interestingly, when the Church asked the current gov. of AZ to help revitalize downtown Mesa, she said “no thanks”. Instead, the Church will be pumping in who knows how much to help bring back that area to a thriving business sector.

On the other hand, the “c”hurch probably weilds a bigger stick. That is to say that when people decide to serve in government, they bring with them who they are, their personal moral code, their business background, etc. If one is a true blue, died in the wool Mormon, they bring with them a certain perspective of how things should be. Hopefully, when they begin “legislatin” they will do so from that perspective, which is what I think we see in states like UT, CA, HI, AZ. Large numbers of politicos are members, and the way they vote, or legislation they introduce will reflect their “mormonism”.

We always used to pitch in to pay for the chapels, but they told us we didn’t have to anymore.

But I’m thinking, 10% is a lot to me. I guess it’s all relative, but if we’re going broke, then the other churches( faiths, I mean) must be going broke a lot faster because they don’t tithe that much. Although, doesn’t tithe mean tenth?

“Mormons are a decided minority and…by and large benefit from separationism, especially since those most opposed to separationism in the United States are also those who are the most religiously hostile toward Mormons.”

A loaded sentence. We benefit from separationism–in what sense? We benefit in that we are not on the receiving end of formal, state-sanctioned persecution; obviously, an important enough fact that it may, perhaps, overshadow every other consideration. But only “perhaps.” Do we benefit in terms the civic life that we enjoy (or don’t) in the contemporary U.S.? Do we benefit in terms of social morality? Do we benefit in terms of the progress (or lack thereof) of the civilization our tradition cannot avoid sharing?

I’m not endorsing Constantinianism. But I am suggesting that to uncomplicatedly assert that Mormons, as a minority, should of course be strict separationists, because to be otherwise is to be unaware of how the Baptists are out to get us, is a little simplistic.