Comments about ‘Tending the flock’

What? No one has commented on this yet???

I am Mormon, but I cannot afford to go hunting at this place. So only rich folks can hunt there? that don't seem right.

Could someone please remind me how many expensive private hunting game preserves Jesus ran? What happened to "Don't Shoot the Little Birds" as Kimball taught?? Is this a church or a big business? Oh, wait, I already know that answer to that!

So do these missionaries have to pay their way like other missionaries do? It seems odd that the preserve is generating $2000 and $8500 permits and extending callings for free laborors. That can't be correct...

I do not understand how anyone can't see through this stuff. We will charge you a huge fee to hunt here but the caretakers also have to pay for the privilge and honor of serving God to work there? How is this serving God? and how can the church claim this is helping to build up the kingdom of God? I am so confused

I think our local welfare ranch has a family taking care of it and I'm almost certain they're not doing it for free. Mouths to feed, etc.

So, if the LDS church wasn't involved:
1. Someone else would be doing the same thing. And that someone would be charging the same price. Would it be an issue then? I can't afford a to go on a cruise, but I don't bad mouth Carnival for offering them to those who can. Should we be mad at Carnival for "attracting" consumers to their tables every day (3 times a day) and eating fish, birds, chicken and cattle that someone else killed? And Carnival makes a profit that stock holders and CEOs spend on whatever they want. I know, first hand, LDS money helps a lot of people. Want names of those who had their rent covered last month? Their medicine covered every month?
2. The area by Lake Utah and the other areas mentioned would be federal or state or private property. They may or may not issue permits to hunt. They or may not have any animals to hunt. So, what if the church sold it or gave it up? I don't like the concept - I'm not a hunter - but don't jude with anti-mormon glasses on.

Ducky, you need to work on your first argument. Saying that if the Church didn't do it "someone else would be doing the same thing" could be extended to all sorts of unethical ventures.

Like tobacco or pornography: If the Church didn't sell porn then someone else would. Sorry, but that's not a good reason that the Church should be involved in a business venture.

The Church's principles, such as regard for the value of all creatures lives, should preclude it from profiting off of sport hunting.

Should the church run a sport hunting reserve? I'm not sure; the idea seems odd to me, but I'll allow that many people would be okay with this.

Should the church call highly qualified biologists to provide free labor on a sport hunting preserve in the name of missionary work? Surely not.

I don't see how this advances the mission of the church. It is highly profitable, and the money can be used for many wonderful things, but as Damien argued, there are many and various ways to make a buck, not all of them ethical. Is it ethical to use free, highly qualified labor to support a primarily business venture? Is the use of missionaries justified because they are serving as stewards of these natural resources?

I don't think there would be as much opposition if the church employed and paid these stewards, rather than call them as missionaries.

Hunting and killing animals without having a life-threatening need to do so is evil. God intended us to be Stewards of animals.

Joseph Smith said: "Surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands."

Also, D&C 89 specifically states that it is pleasing to God that animals not be used unless it is a time of cold or famine. It is neither. Any legume + a grain = a complete protein, and even fish can be replaced by flax seed.

Owning a recreational hunting preserve (two, so I've read) is completely contrary to church teachings.

Karen you deserve a lot of respect for apparently being a vegetarian, and I can't argue with your point. But for the rest of us that aren't willing to be vegetarian, I just want to say that hunting for sport doesn't mean you shoot a bird and leave it there. It means you shoot the bird, then take it with you, clean it, and eat it. Getting meat that is raised on a hunting reserve in this way is a lot more decent than going to the walmart and buying your chicken that has been raised in a chicken factory where the chickens aren't even given an opportunity to walk their entire lives. I'm not sure about this place, but I know a lot of pheasant farms will even clean and package the birds for you for a nominal fee. I'm not a hunter or anything, so if anyone thinks I'm wrong please speak up, but I think a lot of you need a reality check.

I don't like the idea of having missionaries providing free labor under the guise of missionary service. If people want to volunteer, then they should be called volunteers not missionaries. Missionaries are typically seen as providing service whether sharing the gospel or helping people in any number of fashions. While I have no opposition to the operation, I feel that the church is exploiting these so-called missionaries for their expertise and time.

I think if the church called people to do it then they have a higher purpose than just sport of profit. Not really sure the church needs money enough to start random businesses.

I bet a lot of corporations would kill to be able to staff their for-profit ventures with volunteer missionaries who pay their own expenses. Its a great strategy