That's actually pretty cool. If the church actually does take care of its own like that I just might have to change my opinion on the mandatory tithing.

He also has the means to do more than I have.

Corporate structures have been allowed to become wired up in such a way that ironically is anti capitalism. I'm not sure there is even a word that describes the nature of contemporary incorporation. The effect of this wiring is that small business which is where you get the greatest initial creative and motivated energy have been made to be prohibitive to get into and maintain which is bad because you want wealth potentials to be broad.

People can claim that they are capitalists but if you have an unlimited tolerance for wealth concentration, at some point that is going to bite you in the ass hard when your balance between haves and have nots is horrendously intolerable to the majority which is how societies cycle through some very bad economic times and advances the cause of socialists/communists who also don't get it right for what capitalism can do to life a society up.

If there is any doubt, look at China which is on a rocket ride of internal capitalism. Their internal expansion is happening at a rate that staggering because they are utilizing one of their biggest resources, human energy.

I think the only temple on the planet that could be called anything close to "absurdedly lavish" would be the Salt Lake Temple. The one that was a huge community project, that nearly everyone worked on in an enormous volunteer effort. Before the church had gobs of money and most of the people had just gotten to Utah not long after being hounded, run out of their homes. Many lost most, if not all of their possessions. Many lost their lives, either at the hands of mobs or the privations from traveling to someplace they hopefully wouldn't be harassed. The rest of the temples are fairly modest. Some are large, yes (DC springs to mind) but I would hardly call them lavish.

I'm sure the church invests at least part of the money it receives. But not a single bishop, elder, priest, apostle, prophet, etc. receives a salary. They fulfill those responsibilities in addition to holding regular jobs, or they are retired. The church does employ people, but not for those working in a spiritual capacity. They employ people to run their websites, to maintain the temples and church buildings, things like that.

I couldn't tell you thing one about the overall church budget, how much money it has, or how it uses it. I've never considered it to be a good use of my time- but I also have never bothered to look at any other church's financial doings, Catholics, Scientologists, or other.

 

-----signature-----

There are a lot of errors here. I'm going to answer a few just to show neither side is altogether right.

The Mormon Church does not have paid clergy (sorry Rando). If you go into their churches you will probably find them quite plain. The temples are nicer but extravagant? I dunno even the Temple in SLC was mostly donated time and effort by the members.

The "welfare" program is not funded via tithing - it is funded via fast offerings. Once a month Mormons fast for a day. Then they give the cash they would have spent on food towards a "fast offering." This is what helps people in need. (Sorry Element) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_offering Frankly some tithing might end up as "welfare" but it is unknown because the church does not release financial details.

Interestingly the Mormons tried what most would call communism. According to dogma it failed not because it was immoral but because the members weren't ready for it. Church run communism is the higher law.

Tithing
In the early 19th century, Mormons adopted a communal economic system called "the United Order." Members of the Church gave everything they earned to the Church, and the Church redistributed those earnings according to individual members' needs. Some early members, however, lacking the required dedication, resisted this system. God, recognizing that the Church was not prepared for this higher law, instructed us to switch over to capitalism. In place of the United Order, God established the twin commandments of tithing, designed to care for the financial needs of the Church, and fast offerings (described above), designed to care for the financial needs of the poor.


Tithing, defined as 10% of one's earnings, is a financial offering given to God by way of the Church. Like many of God's commandments, the practice also has Old-Testament origins. Tithing funds are used to build chapels and temples, finance the Church's missionary program, and in general to build up and strengthen what Mormons consider to be God's kingdom on earth.

http://www.allaboutmormons.com/mormon_beliefs_commandments.php

Finally my opinion, not fact. Giving to your church is not at all a one to one equivalent to giving to the needy. For example, proselytizing is not the same as helping a brother out IMO. I was raised Mormon. They do take care of their own. That is good but it is not particularly admirable. It is taking care of those that are not part of your group or flock or faith that I find to be Christ-like. Mormons do some of that. We all do. We should all do more.

 

-----signature-----

Hmm.

Clearly, the Mormons above are right, and these temples aren't "lavish"

This unlavish temple that can't be seen from every mountain dominating the SLC landscape:



And this one I drive past rather often:



Certainly this isn't:



And this is basically just a store front where parishioners meet:



Nothing lavish so far..



And don't give me the b.s. about no "paid clergy." They certainly do have high ranking church officials who live in housing paid for by the LDS church and are given a "living allowance." How much this is, who knows? Nobody, because unlike most other churches, the LDS isn't accountable to church members for its budget.

 

-----signature-----

I grew up in the Washington area, I was so disappoint to find out that wasn't Disney world

Source?

Never mind, found it myself.

Looky

Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.
Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.[1] Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.
A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." Given the high caliber accomplishments of those called to full-time service, it is reasonable to expect that they could make a lot more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.
The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:
Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.[2]
Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living. Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments

And as to the buildings being lavish, would you say that almost all Catholic cathedrals are lavish? I've had multiple people confuse a LDS temple with a Catholic Cathedral. I personally think they are all beautiful buildings but I wouldnt call any of them lavish.

 

-----signature-----

http://mormon.org/faq/no-paid-clergy/

Why don’t Mormons have paid clergy?

Andrew answered…

The highest leaders in the LDS church do receive a "living allowance," Church-funded housing, subsidized/discounted meals at Church-owned cafeterias, and an automobile or car pool service, all of which has a monetary value. Many individuals who teach Mormon doctrine or history receive payment from the Church as professional teachers, such as religion professors at Church-owned schools and seminary instructors who teach in Utah. However, local church administrators, and seminary teachers outside of Utah, are not paid anything of monetary value for their countless hours of service to the Church.