There has never been a "successful" organization of ANY kind in the history of the world that wasn't successful at raising enough money to continue its existence. There has never been a successful church that didn't "fund raise" in some manner. With any organization that has philanthropic giving as part of its mission, cash influx must be greater than cash outflow in order to be successful in carrying out its mission to give.
I have no problem with disagreements about "how" the Church uses its money, but I can't complain about it having a corporate component - especially if that corporate component allows it to use its members' donations to fund meetinghouses, temples, colleges, missionary work, etc. and to feed, clothe, house and otherwise bless the poor and suffering. Frankly, and this is just me being me, I also want its corporate component to be profitable - specifically so it doesn't have to tap into its donations during difficult financial times simply to survive.
One last thing just for perspective:
Many people use the failed bank attempt of Joseph's day as "proof" that he wasn't really a prophet (since they believe God would have helped a real prophet know how to invest the Church's money successfully), while many of those same people use the Church's current financial success as "proof" that our current leaders aren't really prophets (since God would use the Church's financial success differently or not allow it to be so successful financially in the first place). In this case, the issue isn't the Church's financial condition; it's the outlook of the people evaluating it.
That alone is worth recognizing and considering.
Awkward Uses of Classic Tunes in Commercials
36 minutes ago