So what? Is there a point to this information.

Is there a point to reading and commenting on blog entries you personally find pointless?

   0 likes

It has owned this land for decades and decades. It like other land owners ahd maintained th land and taken cre of the land. Whether theLDS Church is a church or other organization, it has properly used the land and not let it run down. It is not doing anything illegal. Is there a purpose to slamming the LDS church here. Would you be doing the same if it was Disney or an individual or the Catholic church? I doubt it!
Your comment that the place was closed on Sunday for tours was telling in itself. As if this was wrong, so what if the LDS ranch is closed on Sunday. My hair dresser is closed on Sunday and Monday big deal. My fabric store is closed on Saturday to observe Sabbbath. Are you going after them for that?

   0 likes

   0 likes

this is a blog. It is, by its very nature, an open invitation to seek opinions, and to foster debate.

Exactly. I’m glad to see you’ve figured out the answers to the questions you posed in the end of @162.

   0 likes

Chanson, this is a blog. It is, by its very nature, an open invitation to seek opinions, and to foster debate. It may not be “my business” that you’re discussing this, but it is a public forum, that theoretically seeks public input. I’m interested in the most basic principles of freedom and liberty. That’s why I care. I believe that adherence to these princples brings about the greatest amount of wellbeing and even prosperity in any society. That’s why I care.

I also have an interest in what the LDS church does because I am a member, I pay tithing, fast offerings, etc… So, I’m interested. But that hardly means that the LDS Church has a duty (fiduciary or otherwise) to disclose anything to me about those ranching operations. They can disclose as much or as little as they please and I can decide for myself if I want to participate or donate to the Church.

The difference between my interest in this discussion, and your interest in the ranch’s financial operations is that this is a public forum that seeks public input. Private individuals, and private businesses, both for-profit and non-profit, are, wait for it….. wait for it… Private.

They are private, which means NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

@164

I do agree that all special tax breaks should be done away with. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I will focus on promoting more freedom and liberty, which includes removing special tax breaks, and which excludes making private information public. You can’t promote a principle by violating it.

Also, McDonald’s can organize a charitable effort and recruit volunteers. The LDS Church can recruit volunteers (missionaries or otherwise) to aid in their charitable and other non-profit endeavors. If part of those efforts include oversight of their for-profit businesses, so be it. Non-profit corporations can own for-profit corporations. I served on the board of a non-profit organization that owned a for-profit corporation. The profits from the for-profit corporation were used to bolster our non-profit activities. I was a “volunteer” board member, working for free for the non-profit. Part of my responsibility included oversight of hte for-profit business.

Again, you don’t know “where the money is going” and that’s ok. It’s not your money. Not your business.

dpc is basically right about the laws regulating corporations in the US, but I think this discussion is not about what the regulations are, but what they should be.

His point about reading 10-Qs and 10-Ks is completely beside the point. Either it makes sense to require disclosure or it does not. In my opinion, it does not. He also mentions securities laws and says that “it makes the financial system transparent so that corporations can raise more capital while the investors can more appropriately allocate risk.” If this were the case, you wouldn’t need a law to enforce it. Congress should not care if a company can raise capital. The company does care. The company should do whatever they think potential investors require to attract investment. Investors should invest in whatever companies they are comfortable investing in. If Company A discloses everything, that naturally reduces the risk of the investment. If Company B does not, that’s Company B’s problem, not mine, and not the US Government’s. If an investor does not want to invest because the potential risk is deemed too high because of the lack of disclosure, then he/she does not have to invest. Pretty simple.

   0 likes

As for number 3, private organizations (including for-profit corporations) have no obligation to disclose their finances. Non-religious charities are required to disclose how much they spend on overhead and how much they use to benefit the targets of their charities. The only reason that big corporation disclose finances is because of securities law. It makes the financial system transparent so that corporations can raise more capital while the investors can more appropriately allocate risk.

As for number 4, even if the church disclosed its financial statements, I doubt that anyone without a finance background would really know what they were looking at. I’ve looked at lots of finance statements and they are usually pretty staid. When was the last time you looked at a 10-Q or a 10-K? Plus I can see a lot of disaffected ex-Mormons complaining (although, I admit, most likely with good intentions) about the amount spent on office furniture or vehicles or printing costs when that money “could have gone to the poor” or “tsunami victims” as though a church were just some kind of glorified disaster relief organization or wealth-redistribution scheme.

   0 likes

As far as your other points go, for-profit corporations are not allowed to have people volunteer for them in ways that will generate profit, or they have to pay them. Internships are highly regulated by the government. The same does not hold for LDS Inc., even though the ranch is for-profit. Another case of religions being treated differently.

As far as #1 goes, well, if they are making money to give to the poor, I’d be fine with it. But you don’t know where the money is going any better than I do. So, I don’t know that that is what they are doing.

   1 likes

It’s none of your busienss whether “this ranch is run purely for humanitarian reasons”. It has nothing to do with you. Why do you even care?

This post has nothing to do with you, JJL9. Why is it your business that we’re discussing it? Why do you care? Why are you wasting your time reading this post and writing comments on it if the topic is so uninteresting?

   0 likes

It’s none of your busienss whether “this ranch is run purely for humanitarian reasons”. It has nothing to do with you. Why do you even care?

   0 likes

The questions that make this practice sketchy in my opinion are:
1) Why does a religion need a for-profit ranch?
2) Why is it okay for people to volunteer for a for-profit ranch owned by a religion but not okay for people to volunteer for, say, McDonald’s?
3) Why are religions that run for-profit subsidiaries not required to report the profits and expenses from those?
4) Why doesn’t the LDS Church voluntarily report how much money it makes from this and where the money goes?

Maybe this ranch is run purely for humanitarian reasons, but neither your nor I know that to be the case.

   0 likes