Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Stone holm

City Creek Center

Recommended Posts

I personally don't care whether the Church invests in stuff that may or may not meet our social standards, but I am curious as to why suddenly I am seeing posts of articles questioning the investment in City Creek.  Hasn't that been around for awhile?  Is it tanking or something right now?  Why is it suddenly in the blogosphere again?

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure - slow blognews day? 

Share this post


Link to post

I personally don't care whether the Church invests in stuff that may or may not meet our social standards, but I am curious as to why suddenly I am seeing posts of articles questioning the investment in City Creek.  Hasn't that been around for awhile?  Is it tanking or something right now?  Why is it suddenly in the blogosphere again?

 

People have stupid issues for no good reason?

Share this post


Link to post

Stone holm do you have a link or reference?

Share this post


Link to post

Stone holm do you have a link or reference?

Good girl, Tacenda! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I personally don't care whether the Church invests in stuff that may or may not meet our social standards, but I am curious as to why suddenly I am seeing posts of articles questioning the investment in City Creek.  Hasn't that been around for awhile?  Is it tanking or something right now?  Why is it suddenly in the blogosphere again?

Who knows?  Would Roman Catholics (or anti-Catholics) get upset if the Roman Curia made improvements to Vatican City?  Real estate is one of the soundest investments possible.  In fact, most of the LDS Church holdings are in real estate.

Share this post


Link to post

Puremormonism.blogspot.com. At least I think that was where the post came from, it was being posted on Plain Mormon Facebook page. It seemed to be an attack on the Church using tithing to make money. Really didn't understand the issue, as I thought Adam Smith had been canonized. Did I miss a memo, or something...I thought we had given up on the United Order until the Millenium, so why are they complaining about catering to the 1%?

Share this post


Link to post

Puremormonism.blogspot.com. At least I think that was where the post came from, it was being posted on Plain Mormon Facebook page. It seemed to be an attack on the Church using tithing to make money. Really didn't understand the issue, as I thought Adam Smith had been canonized. Did I miss a memo, or something...I thought we had given up on the United Order until the Millenium, so why are they complaining about catering to the 1%?

 

City Creek is an interesting study. I heard from a member of the Presiding Bishopric that between the year before the mall opened and the year that it did, visits to Temple Square rose something like 10%. This had a direct effect on discussions taught. 

 

People should also know that the Church never, ever, ever used tithing funds on City Creek. Nor was the money ever tithing funds. The Church never had to use tithing funds for its other investments. Basically, the money it uses for its holdings were never tithing; not yesterday, not ten years ago, not fifty years ago, not 150 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post

............................................................  

.......................................... Basically, the money it uses for its holdings were never tithing; not yesterday, not ten years ago, not fifty years ago, not 150 years ago. 

You might want to differentiate commercial real estate holdings from holdings for religious purposes.  Most LDS real estate worldwide is in meeting houses, temples, Church Educational System (institutes, colleges, and universities), visitor centers, distribution centers, and the like.

Share this post


Link to post

You might want to differentiate commercial real estate holdings from holdings for religious purposes.  Most LDS real estate worldwide is in meeting houses, temples, Church Educational System (institutes, colleges, and universities), visitor centers, distribution centers, and the like.

 

Sorry. The for profit holdings never originated from tithing dollars.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry. The for profit holdings never originated from tithing dollars.

 

There would be the occasional nincompoop nitpicker who might point out that if it weren't for the tithing dollar, the church couldn't afford to use the other dollar to buy City Creek.  I guess this is related to the economic term, "opportunity cost". 

 

But seriously folks...

Share this post


Link to post

Puremormonism.blogspot.com. At least I think that was where the post came from, it was being posted on Plain Mormon Facebook page. It seemed to be an attack on the Church using tithing to make money. Really didn't understand the issue, as I thought Adam Smith had been canonized. Did I miss a memo, or something...I thought we had given up on the United Order until the Millenium, so why are they complaining about catering to the 1%?

Tacenda's nicer than I am.  If I had made the request, it would have been an official CFR, for which, "Uhhhh ... I saw it somewhere on the Interwebz ... I think" :huh::unknw: (or even referring to a whole Web site) wouldn't suffice.  But ... hey ... whatever counts for proof ... or even for evidence ... in your world.

Share this post


Link to post

Better question is why it has never left the blogosphere ---- it is a big issue for some people.

 

And if it really came from the puremormonism blog, then its reappearance may just mean that the author of that blog (who was recently excommunicated) no longer feels any constraints to what he posts.

Share this post


Link to post

There would be the occasional nincompoop nitpicker who might point out that if it weren't for the tithing dollar, the church couldn't afford to use the other dollar to buy City Creek.  I guess this is related to the economic term, "opportunity cost". 

 

But seriously folks...

 

Haha. That is not true. At all.

Share this post


Link to post

Haha. That is not true. At all.

 

Please elucidate why not.  I'm not a nincompoop, so would not advance the idea as if I believed it, but how would you dispel the nincompoopery?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...