Was My Mormon Ancestor'S Tithing Used To Build City Creek Mall?

[wenglund]

I am not worrried about it the tax issue you raised. I am mildley concerned about the new disclaimer.

Man with defenders like you and others here the Church does not need enemies. Adious amigo. I am out of here. This place has declined even more since the last time I was here. I tried to post what I thought was a reasonable balanced comment about this issue. I did not attack. I did not say I was done with tithing. I said I was considering some of my resources over that going elsewhere but that I was not sure. I defended the Church and its humanatarian assistance and noted that critics often conveniently forget that a very large sum of Church donated funds goes out to feed an help the poor in fast offering funds. But apparently my other comments, since they were not absolutly down the line did not set well with you. I remember a day when you were less snarky and angry in your posting. Perhaps you need a break from this board. The other nasties here are rubbing off on you.

This is more than a bit of an over-reaction don't you think? You get a little push-back on your relatively uniformed criticism of how the Church may allocate its finances, and you go ballistic and get all victimological on us. Speaking of a need for a break...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not worrried about it the tax issue you raised. I am mildley concerned about the new disclaimer.

Because I don't have one of the latest donation slips at hand, I had to resort to Google and eventually wind up at a notorious anti-Mormon website to try to figure out what Teancum was talking about. But this, according to that site (and take anything from there with a grain of salt), is the new disclaimer printed on the slips:

Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission.

Now then, this is not particularly new, but seems to me to be a more detailed statement of what has been on Church donation statements before, to the effect that any donations become the property of the Church.

I have a vague memory (and don't give a CFR, because it's only a theory, and I don't have any documentation at this point) that the reason for such a statement is that without it, a donor could not claim contributions to the Church as a tax deduction. That is to say, the offering must be free-will, with no strings attached, in order to constitute a charitable deduction under IRS regs. If I recall correctly, that's why parents of missionaries these days support their missionary son or daughter through a voluntary contribution to the Church. They can thereby claim the money they send as a tax deduction rather than merely sending money to support the son or daughter while he/she is away from home.

Therefore, by printing the disclaimer on the slips, the Church signals its legal refusal to make a guarantee about the specific use of the funds, qualifying the contribution as a truly free-will offering without any qualifiers and thus making the donor eligible for the tax deduction.

In practice, however, I think it would be highly unlikely for the Church to use the money in a way other than that designated by the donor; thus the pledge to make reasonable efforts globally to use the money as designated.

That's what I was getting at when I made the reference to tax laws.

I repeat, though, that this is only a theory.

At any rate I feel comfortable with it, because even if the funds aren't used in the specific manner designated, I'm OK with the money being used to support "the Church's overall mission" in whatever way needed, because I do, in fact, approve of that mission personally.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[zeez]

Thank God tithing money only goes toward building the kingdom and not shopping centers. I'm proud to know that part of my $thousands went toward the institution that gave Robbie Bosco a stadium. I loved Bosco.

[Okrahomer]

Thank God tithing money only goes toward building the kingdom and not shopping centers. I'm proud to know that part of my $thousands went toward the institution that gave Robbie Bosco a stadium. I loved Bosco.

Your history (among other things) is a bit "off." The expanded football stadium opened in 1982. The QB that year was Steve Young. Robbie Bosco started two years later. Since attendance at BYU home football games has been consistently 60,000+ in all the years since, it would seem to have been enjoyed and appreciated by many more people than just Robbie Bosco. I will grant you though that he may have deserved to "own" the stadium when he led BYU to the national championship.

[wenglund]

Your history (among other things) is a bit "off." The expanded football stadium opened in 1982. The QB that year was Steve Young. Robbie Bosco started two years later. Since attendance at BYU home football games has been consistently 60,000+ in all the years since, it would seem to have been enjoyed and appreciated by many more people than just Robbie Bosco. I will grant you though that he may have deserved to "own" the stadium when he led BYU to the national championship.

Besides, wasn't the expansion funded by donations and ticket sales?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Okrahomer]

Besides, wasn't the expansion funded by donations and ticket sales?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes. Of course it was. There were several large anonymous donors. There were also 40+ individuals who purchased "loges" for $100,000 each. The entire project cost about $12,000,000--so the "loge donors" alone covered more than one-third of the total. Perhaps our friend Zeez was one of those donors, and this is what he was referring to when he mentioned his "$thousands"? Somehow I doubt it though.

Sorry, in case anyone wants a supporting source, try this one: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=13940

Edited March 29, 2012 by Okrahomer

[Calm]

Got to ask, okra. Your sig about sliding out of bed...I take it okra is high in fiber or something? Or did I misread it?

[Okrahomer]

Got to ask, okra. Your sig about sliding out of bed...I take it okra is high in fiber or something? Or did I misread it?

Yes it is--soluble fiber, which is the best kind. The "slime" is really only noticeable though when you "cook" it. I've never liked cooked Okra all that much. I love it dredged in cornmeal and fried or pickled. Yum!

[JCNowandForever]

In practice, however, I think it would be highly unlikely for the Church to use the money in a way other than that designated by the donor; thus the pledge to make reasonable efforts globally to use the money as designated.

That's what I was getting at when I made the reference to tax laws.

Tax laws allows for Conditional Donations. A conditional donation (if accepted by the Church) allows the donor to specify specific conditions that the Church must fulfill. A missionary donation is an example of a conditional donation. All funds in that donations is restricted only and only for Missionary activity. All other use of that fund is precluded and prevented, by IRS rules. Otherwise, if the church doesn't use the missionary donation for missionary activity, the funds are refunded back to the donor or the donor has the right of refund.

We are discussing this type of conditional donations on this thread: http://www.mormondia...n/page__st__243

Conditional donations may also be use to prevent future misuse of funds for any reason. So perhaps members could look at this option when contributing to any charity and specify specifically the conditions for use of funds instead of no conditions.

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[Christian Mormon]

i bet the Church used money it got from investments. I also bet that the church didnt use donations.

and if they did use donations....good for them

[CASteinman]

This is not the only real estate development program that the Church has been involved in.

There is another development that is extremely sensitive and which the Church has pretty well hidden its tracks but which is very interesting as it relates to revelation regarding the future.

[ERayR]

When people accuse the Church of using sacred tithing money to fund things like the building of the City Creek mall, the obvious answer is of course that tithing money is not used; rather money from the for-profit arm of the church is used that was obtained through business investments over the years.

But then of course critics ask the next question; "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?"

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members. So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members 150 years ago; money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this?

Give me their names and I'll look on the list.

[Tacenda]

Because I don't have one of the latest donation slips at hand, I had to resort to Google and eventually wind up at a notorious anti-Mormon website to try to figure out what Teancum was talking about. But this, according to that site (and take anything from there with a grain of salt), is the new disclaimer printed on the slips:

Now then, this is not particularly new, but seems to me to be a more detailed statement of what has been on Church donation statements before, to the effect that any donations become the property of the Church.

I have a vague memory (and don't give a CFR, because it's only a theory, and I don't have any documentation at this point) that the reason for such a statement is that without it, a donor could not claim contributions to the Church as a tax deduction. That is to say, the offering must be free-will, with no strings attached, in order to constitute a charitable deduction under IRS regs. If I recall correctly, that's why parents of missionaries these days support their missionary son or daughter through a voluntary contribution to the Church. They can thereby claim the money they send as a tax deduction rather than merely sending money to support the son or daughter while he/she is away from home.

Therefore, by printing the disclaimer on the slips, the Church signals its legal refusal to make a guarantee about the specific use of the funds, qualifying the contribution as a truly free-will offering without any qualifiers and thus making the donor eligible for the tax deduction.

In practice, however, I think it would be highly unlikely for the Church to use the money in a way other than that designated by the donor; thus the pledge to make reasonable efforts globally to use the money as designated.

That's what I was getting at when I made the reference to tax laws.

I repeat, though, that this is only a theory.

At any rate I feel comfortable with it, because even if the funds aren't used in the specific manner designated, I'm OK with the money being used to support "the Church's overall mission" in whatever way needed, because I do, in fact, approve of that mission personally.

http://ldsliving.com/story/69822-lds-church-adopts-new-tithing-slips/print

[KevinG]

Tax laws allows for Conditional Donations. A conditional donation (if accepted by the Church) allows the donor to specify specific conditions that the Church must fulfill.

If you had only read this thread instead of using it to repost your pet issue. sigh.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://ldsliving.com...ing-slips/print

Thanks for this link, Tacenda. It provides clarification I did not have when I wrote my post back in March of this year

[Ares]

JCNowandforever don't keep posting the same comment on different threads. This one is closed.