We left off the previous discussion on church finance with a discussion on how the church derives investment income from tithing, and then uses that investment income to invest in projects small and large, fat and skinny, the named and nameless. And, lest the wondering minds of inquiring members get concerned, the church uses this “investment income” and is careful to point out that they are not using “tithing” funds for such projects. Not tithing funds – just the income earned by investing tithing in largely Babylonian investments over a couple of years.
The Church is The Kingdom
So, now we get to the original reason why I started looking into this stuff in the first place, though it’s a circuitous route and has more than a few twists and turns I didn’t originally anticipate. Not the most exciting stuff, mind you, but certainly bizarre. Just what else does the Church ™ invest in? What other projects do they control with their “investment income”?
One of the top items on the list of strange things a tax-exempt Church ™ owns, just so happens to be a couple of private hunting reserves. Not your typical run of the mill religious item – after all I’m admittedly not sure how killing animals for sport/pleasure persuades people to believe in Christ – but at least it’s a potentially profitable one. In Daymon Smith’s book, The Book of Mammon (a good read, mind you), he talks how the church went from providing paid positions to unpaid, volunteer positions masquerading as “missions” within the organization in order to save money and increase profit. The public perception of these “missions” doesn’t come off that way, but that was, and is, the net result. Instead of a “money saving” idea, it’s billed as an opportunity to work for God’s Kingdom here on the earth. After all, what better way to serve God than to volunteer your time building the “Kingdom”? And, when the “church” and “kingdom” have become conflated to such an extent as to where the two are used simultaneously from pulpits far and wide, why not pimp the idea that you’re working to build the kingdom? Interestingly, how often do we take note of this conflation and realize that never were the two to be considered twain?
Many talks over the pulpit have increased this propensity to fail to see the differentiation between the church and the Kingdom of God. Gordon Hinckley did it several times:
“What I say of myself concerning this matter is equally applicable to all who hold office in this the Church and kingdom of God.”
Ezra Taft Benson likewise asserted as much in his famous talk, I Testify:
“The church and kingdom of God was restored in these latter days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…”
LeGrand Richards likewise helped conflate the issue when he stated:
“When I was president of the Southern States Mission, one of our missionaries preached on that dream of Nebuchadnezzar in one of our meetings where we had some investigators, and I stood at the door to greet them as they went out. A man came up and introduced himself as a minister, and he said, “You don’t mean to tell me that you think that the Mormon Church is that kingdom, do you?”
And I said, “Yes, sir, why not?”
He said, “It couldn’t be.”
I said, “Why couldn’t it?”
He said, “You can’t have a kingdom without a king, and you don’t have a king, so you don’t have a kingdom.”
“Oh,” I said, “my friend, you didn’t read far enough. You just read the seventh chapter of Daniel, where Daniel saw one like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, ‘and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.’ (Dan. 7:14.)
“Now,” I said, “my friend, tell me how can the kingdom be given to him when he comes in the clouds of heaven if there is no kingdom prepared for him? That is what we Latter-day Saints are doing.”
Now, it should probably be noted that there is a difference between working to establish the Kingdom (as Richards noted in that last sentence) and professing that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints™ is that kingdom. This belief is perhaps best witnessed by hearkening back the Ronald Poelman’s talk, given in 1984, on the differences between the “Gospel” and the “Church.” In the original talk, Poelman made the following astute observations:
“Of equal importance is understanding the essential relationship between the gospel and the Church. Failure to distinguish between the two and to comprehend their proper relationship may lead to confusion and misplaced priorities … when we understand the difference between the gospel and the Church and the appropriate function of each in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons … .”
In commenting on Poleman’s talk, and the reasons why it was re-recorded, Denver Snuffer noted the following:
“Right now testimonies within the church recite the mantra “I know the church is true.” The correlation process has made the church into god. People’s testimonies of the “church” have supplanted their testimonies of Christ. Read any Ensign issue of any conference held within ten years after the correlation process, and consider how many talks focus upon the church and the church’s processes and goodness, in contrast with how many of the talks focus upon Jesus Christ and His doctrines. Christ’s role has been diminished by the emphasis upon the correlated church.”
A peculiar people, indeed.
The Church™ was never intended to be the Kingdom, nor the Kingdom the Church. Complementary, certainly, but never the same thing. Now, members reaching retirement age and with sufficient financial reserves to devote a year or three of their lives are encouraged to serve a “mission” for the church. Some of these very “missions” are served in mission homes, some as service missions and some, yay verily, are working for “for-profit” industries. And, no matter the call, these missions are viewed as the next best thing since sliced bread. Generations will be affected, for the better, or so the reasoning goes. Kim Clark, now president of BYU-Idaho, offers us a glimpse into this mindset. If you remember, Clark was the president of the Harvard Business School for nearly a decade before leaving to become president of BYU-Idaho in 2005. Clark received a good amount of flak for his decision to leave from member and non-member alike, and rationalized his decision thusly:
“We believe that that man, Gordon B. Hinckley, is a prophet of God,” Clark told television host Charlie Rose in an interview in July, explaining his decision to leave Harvard. “And Moses says—the man who is acting like Moses says—he would like you to do something. Now, in this case, of course you`d say yes…”
So, the effort becomes threefold: (a) you label the call to serve wherever in the church a “mission,” (b) you have those missionaries convinced that they need to pay their own way as a way to build up the “kingdom” of God and (c) you belabor the idea that the “Kingdom of God” and the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ™” is that very kingdom and (d) each “mission call” is signed, sealed and delivered with the “Prophet’s” very name and signature on each call. And, following these four steps you reach a point where virtually any position, in any corporation within the Church can be staffed by “volunteers” more than willing to pay their way to build up the Kingdom, errrr, Church.
Private Hunting Preserves
Take, for example, Clair Huff, and his wife. Huff spent his entire career as a wildlife biologist, including working as the Director of Operations for the Division of Wildlife Resources. As retirement age approached, Huff and his wife began contemplating serving a mission for the Church™. Huff had an interesting skill set, honed over years of work within the Division of Wildlife Resources. And, the Church with its varied needs and interests, is quick to match people up with positions that match their skill set. A mission, as is taught throughout the church system, was the most logical outlet wherein he and his wife could use their talents to “build the kingdom.”
Well Clair Huff and his wife did just that when they worked for a “private hunting preserve” along the “southwest shores of Utah Lake.” Yessiree, full-time “missionaries” employed for the Church ™, working on a “private hunting preserve” that covers approximately 11,000 acres just outside of Elberta, Utah. That “private hunting preserve” is owned, part and parcel, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That “preserve” is a profit making venture, or at least that’s the goal. And, according to an article written in 2000, when hunting permits were running upwards of $1,500 per person, it wasn’t yet churning out a profit, though Huff could see the silver lining on the horizon.
And, lest you think the permit is only a one-time benefit, it seems as though there are lasting benefits many people would do well to acknowledge:
“Only a few pheasant and goose-hunting permits are sold each year, with hunting aficionados paying as much as $1,500 for the opportunity to hunt what is fast becoming an exclusive “club” for “members only.”
Once a hunter ponies up the cash to secure a permit, he’s not only guaranteed a permit for the following year, but his chance to draw the prime target areas on the preserve improve along with his seniority in the exclusive group.
“All of our hunters are from Utah, many of them doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” Elder Huff said. The flatlands also provide an additional advantage for the well-heeled hunting crowd — a 2,600-foot landing strip where private aircraft can whisk hunters in and out of the remote preserve, saving them the long and lonely drive. … “Just like the farm derives revenue from harvesting crops, the preserve is designed to produce revenue when hunters harvest the wildlife here,” Elder Huff said. … ”
As these words suggest, it’s a “private hunting preserve” that is geared toward the affluent. Heck, how many people do you know would fly into a “private hunting preserve” in order to avoid a “long and lonely drive”?
But, this is not all. According to this same Deseret News article, the church owns at least one other preserve in Utah:
“The church owns thousands of acres of farm and ranch land throughout the West, including the Deseret Land and Livestock Co., a private big-game hunting preserve scattered over 200,000 acres in northern Utah. Hunters from around the country vie for a limited number of elk and moose permits there that cost as much as $8,500 each.”
Complete with a formal hunting lodge for housing and meals, the hunts are guided by a local outfitter in search of their “trophy” elk or buck. And while there’s no guarantee that a hunter’s bullet will find its mark, hunting on the preserve is so popular that there’s a six-year waiting list to buy a permit.
“Elder” Huff was optimistic that the operation will turn a profit for the first time in 2000, but I was unable to find any financial information on the reserve, but the track record of the church is fairly good at turning a profit, so I’m assuming that they do. Huff continued, “This is a very viable habitat, and if they continue to invest the profits back in and find an innovative manager to run it, there’s the potential to boost the number of permits we issue up to a maximum of about 250 someday.”
And as the habitat, and consequently, the number and variety of wildlife improves, the price of the permits would logically go up as well, he said.
“Imagine if we got to the point that we could boost the price (of each permit) to $2,000 or $2,500. Times that by 250, and it doesn’t take a lot to understand that this could be a very profitable operation.” (emphasis is mine.)
Count that among the things I likely will never experience in my life, what with permits ranging from $2,000 to $8,500 (and likely more, today), with their own private hunting lodges and airstrips. Seems like the good ole boys’ club has come to roost in Utah.
The Deseret Land and Livestock, located in northern Utah, states,
“The LDS Church ownership era has been marked by conscientious business practices including strategic planning, cost control, increased production, and accountability. Emphasis on holistic management has brought a uniqueness to the ranch that is attractive to visitors from many walks of life.” At the ranch, “hunting is a key means of generating ranch revenue.” (emphasis is mine.)
So, one “preserve” just south of Utah Lake leaves us with a statement that it could be a “very profitable” venture, while another preserve up north states that hunting is a “key means of generating ranch revenue.” Is there any real question that the church – the owner of both preserves – is operating these preserves with little other interest other than to turn a buck (pun intended)?
Not only can you hunt on these lands, but one can also experience guided fly-fishing tours. One guide, linked to the official website of the reserve, offers one-on-one tours for “Trophy Elk” on Deseret Land and Livestock land for an insignificant sum of $17,500. Or, should that be slightly out of reach of your discretionary income budget, you could just stick to hunting antelope for only $4,250 (that’s the lowest priced permit offered through this outfitter). It’s no wonder that Huff mentioned that these preserves cater to a very specific, very affluent crowd.
As of 2005, the church owned Deseret Ranch, a different cattle ranch in central Florida, was the largest working cattle ranch in the United States. That ranch, valued at an estimated $500 million when purchased back in the 1950s, covers approximately 300,000 acres of Florida swamp and pasture land. It includes 1,000 miles of canals, 250 miles of roads and 1,400 miles of fencing. The ranch employs approximately 75 full-time employees (and their families), most of which live in houses across the ranch. On-site amenities for the employees that stay on the ranch include a swimming hole, campgrounds and a rodeo arena. As of 2005, the ranch maintained a herd of 44,000 heifers and purebred cows. One article estimated annual income to be in the neighborhood of at least $16 million just from the calves they sell each year at cattle auctions.
Cynthia Barnett, in an article entitled, The Church’s Ranch, discussed what she called “ecclesiastical entrepreneurism” and the church and wrote:
“While the church is committed to stewardship of the land, it is just as committed to squeezing profits out of its private companies. …
And eventually, those two missions; are sure to clash on this prime central Florida property. Real estate sources estimate Deseret’s spread is worth some $900 million, though the assessed agricultural value is far lower than that. For decades, the family cattle ranches that once made up Osceola and outlying Orange counties have been gobbled up by housing developments – a pattern that’s repeating itself throughout Florida and the nation. But because the church is so rich, it has not yet buckled to pressure to sell any of its Florida land to developers. Ten years ago, the church backed off a plan to develop 7,000 acres near the Bee Line Expressway under sharp criticism from environmentalists.
Often at odds in other parts of the country over issues such as animal waste and grazing, the tree-huggers and the cowpokes in central Florida have for now become allies. For example, environmentalists helped Deseret fight a huge landfill Brevard County wanted to put adjacent to the ranch. That area is also home to one of the largest bird rookeries in the state.
Squires says the church’s long-term plans for the majority of Deseret Ranch are to keep it agricultural. But he acknowledges the business-savvy church will develop the fringes – particularly its property outside Orlando – as the land becomes more valuable. “The pressure is here,” Squires says. “But we want to be responsible and be good neighbors.” It’s in his church’s ecclesiastical and entrepreneurial missions to do so, he says.”
Interesting, I wasn’t aware of an “entrepreneurial” mission to the church. At least not an official one, but it should be noted that while outsiders view the church as “business-savvy” and striving to “squeeze” as much profit out of whatever private business their running these days, members are largely clueless as to the holdings the church has on its books.
As part of the Deseret Wildlife plan, some 45 hunt clubs lease portions of the ranch to hunt (the favored politically correct term of these articles seems to be “harvest.” It sounds much more humane when you say we’re “harvesting” animals versus “hunting”) animals. The ranch also harvests timber and leases TV and radio towers as a way to increase revenue.
Sunstone Magazine posed a thoughtful question on the matter, as well as an interesting mp3 listen, of these for-profit “hunting preserves” sometime back:
“To what degree should the principle of ‘respect for life” be extended to bird and animal creations? What do the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and other early Church leaders teach about the grand design and purposes of God’s non-human creations? Does having “dominion” over the kingdom of creatures mean we are their predators and exploiters or does it suggest a “stewardship” relationship in which we become their caretakers in order to help them “fulfill the full measure of their creation?”
If the scriptures teach, “woe be unto man that sheddeth blood or wasteth flesh and have no need,” and “the blood of every beast will I require at your hands,” what rationale could be used to explain Church-owned, revenue-generating enterprises such as Deseret Land and Livestock and the Westlake Hunting Preserve? Do these operations constitute sacrificing principle for profit?”
Aside: The mp3 (see footnote below) has an interesting discussion on some Mormon leader (a Regional Representative) who went on several safari’s while on a church trip to visit some congregations in Africa. While on this trip, the regional representative later related killing both a lion and a “rare Roman antelope,” and yet had the moral strength to turn down an alcoholic beverage at a dinner that same evening. “What peculiar priorities,” indeed.
Mormon Matters and The Faithful Dissident both discussed these preserves sometime ago, and in good depth. Both touched on the aspects of hunting, or canned hunting as happens at these LDS preserves, as it relates to a gospel principle and what part hunting for sport has amongst the church. This particular article has nothing to do with the hunting aspect, but rather is to focus and touch on the financial aspect owning such enterprises – as in, why the hell is the church investing in a for-profit “hunting preserve” or “cattle ranch” or whatever the investment du jour is? But, even with that said, one would do well to consider the ramifications of canned hunting. Even some of the more correlated church curriculum manuals state,
“We may also eat the flesh of animals and of fowls of the air and use the skin of animals for clothing (see D&C 89:12–13; 49:18–19); however, we are not to kill animals for mere sport or pleasure and waste the meat (see D&C 49:21).”
But, with that being said, I fully admit I’m not sure just how these animals spend their dead hours. Do all the canned hunters save the meat to eat, do some, do none? I think, generally, your average run-of-the-mill hunter is as conscientious about what they are doing, but I wonder whether the more affluent of the bunch – those who have access to the church owned preserves through their expensive permits – have the same conscientiousness.
My guess is that it may be lacking in some areas. For example, on the “referral” page of some of “approved” outfitters one can read the following accounts:
“Whether you want a trophy deer or elk, or just want to catch some large trout, these guys can take you to the right spot. I’m already looking forward to next season. Thanks for the wall hangers!!” – Robert H. (emphasis is mine.)
“I can honestly say that they have One of the best hunting experiences you can imagine. They have a very knowledgable guides , great packers and great food. Their quantity and Quality of game can’t be matched. You will see more Elk , deer, moose in one day than you will see on most places in a season. I tell my friends that It is the Disneyland of Elk hunting because you can”t believe the quality experience that you will have.” – Matt T. (emphasis is mine.)
“We looked at close to a hundred bulls, maybe more. He never pressured me to shoot any of them, and I’m sure many hunters would have been happy to take several of them. I would recommend you to anyone that wanted a first class elk hunt. I took a heavy bull that I am very happy with. I know several people were involved in putting me on that bull.” – Ed G.
“I’ve never had an opportunity that paralleled what we were able to experience. Fishing water that I suspect never has been fished in recorded history, not seeing a boot track, another human being, or any sign of human habitation for two days, and I personally having caught probably over 500 fish. What an experience!!” – Lynn W.
Take those accounts for what they’re worth. Regaling over catching a couple hundred fish, smarting about the most recent piece to the collection hanging on your wall or visiting the most beautiful of “God’s creations” while “harvesting” some of His other creations. Canned hunting or not, in spite of it all, we’re shown time-and-again that the very “missions” the church claims as being a means to establish the “kingdom” of God have very little to do with anything resembling Christ, but rather with making money. Profiting from animals, the land and virtually everything on this God-given earth. No wonder the church plucked Clark from HBS to serve as the new president of BYU-Idaho in 2005: one attends HBS to make “shedloads of money,” which somehow attests that those who make the most money, are the “most morally good.”
***To be continued …***
 Madson, Mac and Watts, Prestwich. “Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves,” Sunstone Magazine. 08/10/2001. Retrieved 10/4/2010.
 See: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/09/24/is-the-church-sacrificing-principle-for-profit-with-hunting-preserves/ for a more detailed discussion.
 See: http://thefaithfuldissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/sacrificing-principle-for-profit-church.html for a more detailed discussion.
 Per Wikipedia: “A canned hunt is essentially a trophy hunt in which the animal is kept in a more confined area, such as in a fenced-in area, increasing the likelihood of the hunter obtaining a kill. According to the dictionary definition a canned hunt is a “hunt for animals that have been raised on game ranches until they are mature enough to be killed for trophy collections.”
 Broughton, Philip Delves. What They Teach You at Harvard Business School: My Two Years Inside the Cauldron of Capitalism.