Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[Beowulf]

In the closed philanthropy thread below, one of our detractors asserted that the Church by developing real estate in downtown SLC was diverting charity and tithing to money-grubbing commercial activities.

This is not true.

When the initiative was announced, the Church went out of its way to assure everyone that no tithing money was involved; that it was being financed from the Church's existing commercial ventures. This assurance is even in this month's Ensign, which is a reprint of October conference.

They TOLD you this, over and over. And yet you do not bother to listen.

And if you ARE listening, you apparently do not believe the statement. Why not?

Moreover, as one other contributor to that thread hinted, rejuvenation of downtown SLC is important for the Church, if for no other reason than to make the downtown safe for visitors to Conference, Church Headquarters, and the Temple.

Seven or eight years ago, the Economist magazine wrote that downtown SLC was one of the most vibrant urban downtowns in America, named the Church as the reason for this, and then expressed optimism that this vibrancy would continue.

Surely, then, this is a worthy project, along the lines of charity for the downtrodden. (I can think of a number of American cities that would be green with envy to have such a downtown promoter.)

Beowulf

[SleepingWillow]

If the seed money for the church's commercial ventures came from tithing (which I am to understand they did), then the fruits of that still trace back to tithing money.

An analogy... I rob a bank, steal $10,000 dollars, and invest it for 30 years. It's worth $400,000 now. I can hardly argue that the $400,000 is NOT still the bank's money.

[structurecop]

An analogy... I rob a bank, steal $10,000 dollars, and invest it for 30 years. It's worth $400,000 now. I can hardly argue that the $400,000 is NOT still the bank's money.

Outrageous. Members gave that money willingly. Probably a great deal was not from tithing, but from other donations by members. The Church wisely invested the money (remember the parable of the talents???) and is investing some of the return in a community that is about 50% LDS. Fueling the economy where most Church members live is going to create more tithing in the long run. I don't understand your objection to this.

[SleepingWillow]

Outrageous. Members gave that money willingly. Probably a great deal was not from tithing, but from other donations by members. The Church wisely invested the money (remember the parable of the talents???) and is investing some of the return in a community that is about 50% LDS. Fueling the economy where most Church members live is going to create more tithing in the long run. I don't understand your objection to this.

Willingly? The church teaches that you cannot be saved in the Celestial Kingdom unless you pay tithing. You cannot receive a temple recommend. It's a transgression to withhold tithing--money for salvation.

Then church takes the widow's mite and invests it in a downtown upscale mall. How can you not see the objection?

Fueling the economy where most Church members live is going to create more tithing in the long run? You really think the Church is going to get $1.5 BILLION extra in tithing money because of this project? Meanwhile, as you read this post, 10 children around the world starved to death.

[ERMD]

If the seed money for the church's commercial ventures came from tithing (which I am to understand they did), then the fruits of that still trace back to tithing money.

An analogy... I rob a bank, steal $10,000 dollars, and invest it for 30 years. It's worth $400,000 now. I can hardly argue that the $400,000 is NOT still the bank's money.

"Will a man rob God?"

Oh, never mind...

[Baurak Ale]

Hermetically Sealed

[structurecop]

Willingly? The church teaches that you cannot be saved in the Celestial Kingdom unless you pay tithing. You cannot receive a temple recommend. It's a transgression to withhold tithing--money for salvation.

Then church takes the widow's mite and invests it in a downtown upscale mall. How can you not see the objection?

Fueling the economy where most Church members live is going to create more tithing in the long run? You really think the Church is going to get $1.5 BILLION extra in tithing money because of this project? Meanwhile, as you read this post, 10 children around the world starved to death.

Delightful. Yet somehow you escaped the stranglehold of the Church and do not pay tithing, and probably don't care a whit whether you go to the Celestial Kingdom or not. How is the Church taking that money by force, one more time for the audience?

Once again you are speculating on the origin of the money with no evidence.

Somehow, the Church accumulated this sum of money and obviously, LOTS MORE over 200 years, after nearly being bankrupted time after time, so how is it that you don't think the Church will at sometime recoup its expenditures on this project?

As you typed that post, yes, children starved. Quickly, you must shut off your Internet, sell your computer, and send the money you save every month to the starving children. Somehow I have a feeling you won't do that.

[Yong Xi]

Once again you are speculating on the origin of the money with no evidence.

Ironically, so are you. Do you have evidence of the origin of the money?

[structurecop]

Ironically, so are you. Do you have evidence of the origin of the money?

Since the Church does not disclose its finances to me personally, no, I do not. But I would wager that it also does not disclose them to you or anyone else, so ANYONE speculating on their origin would have to admit this. SleepingWillow did not.

[SolarPowered]

Firstly, where does this $1.5B figure come from? The article I saw said that the Church had stated that the cost will be somewhat less than a billion. Let's not exaggerate.

Secondly, the detractors here appear to think that this money is being "spent." "Expended." Like one would do if one threw a big party, and the money was all gone when they were done. This is not the case. In accounting terms, these aren't "expenses" that decrease the bottom line; the Church is converting assets from one form to another. Assuming that they are acting wisely, and I have every reason to think that they are, the "Net Worth" of the Church should be larger after these investments are made than it was before. And, as these are income-producing properties, substantial amounts of income will be generated, that can be used for the work of the Church.

Of course, all this has been explained several times before, and it was and continues to be ignored.

[SolarPowered]

Once again you are speculating on the origin of the money with no evidence.

Ironically, so are you. Do you have evidence of the origin of the money?

How about the statement at the most recent General Conference by President Hinckley that no tithing money is being used for this project. Are you saying that he was lying?

[Avatar4321]

Who the heck cares?! its the Lord's money. Let Him do as He pleases. Why the heck does it matter whether the money came from tithing or any other sources. It belongs to the Lord. This benefits the Church. What in the world is bad about it?

Seriously, if this is the best the critics can come up with its quite clear we are in good conditions.

[GRW]

The question of whether tithing monies were used or not is completely irrelevant. No matter where it came from, it is the Lord's money, right?

Since 1984, according to the Deseret News (December 29, 2005), a church spokesman stated that â??the LDS Church has donated nearly $750 million in cash and goods to people in need in more than 150 countries.â? That seems to be an obviously wonderful thing.

But consider that this mall will cost somewhere around $1 - 1.5 Billion. In other words, in one year, the church will spend more in one year on a shopping mall than it spent on helping the world's poor and suffering people for the previous 20 years.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with that--the church is a private organization and can spend its money as it sees fit. It may well be, and probably is, a very good, long-term business proposition. And I do not doubt it will benefit SLC and many people.

To me, the real question is how this squares with the character of Jesus as I find him in the New Testament. Granted, I am no prophet and can only use my best judgment, but that judgment tells me that the Jesus of the New Testament would not spend more on shopping malls than on helping the poor.

Furthermore, the church is estimated (it must be estimated, since the church does not disclose its financial dealings as many churches do) that the church receives about $4.3 billion annually in tithing, plus another $4 billion from its business enterprises. Looking at that $750 million again, it does not seem so impressive. Itâ??s less than 10 percent of the churchâ??s annual income from just one year. Over the course of 20 years, it amounts to less than one half of one percent of the churchâ??s total gross income. Even if we cut the estimated annual income by three quarters, from $8.3 billion to $2 billion, itâ??s still less than two percent.

Again, I don't find this immoral in any way. I am a free-market capitalist libertarian, after all. But I cannot square it with the Jesus I have come to know.

[maklelan]

Then church takes the widow's mite and invests it in a downtown upscale mall. How can you not see the objection?

Oh if this isn't an appeal to emotion I don't know what is. I love how the people with the least understanding of the mechanisms of church financing make the most outrageous claims about the truth of the situation. I lived for two years getting food from the church welfare system and I wasn't even a member of the church. I was 17 and paying my family's rent. The rest was coming from the church, and of the seven of us, only one was a member. They can do whatever they want with my tithing. They kept us alive for two years and never asked for anything because of it. That widows mite keeps countless widows who have no mites alive and well. I was a branch president in Uruguay and had the unique opportunity to help a family that was destitute. I didn't tell them, but all they had to do was pay their tithing and we would've taken care of the rest. It took three weeks to get the family to pay their tithing, but after they did we set them up with a months worth of food and got the dad and the oldest son a job. There will always be people who look past the thousands of people whose lives are forever changed because of tithing to the one example of spending that they think constitutes extortion. They will always claim someone's tithing is doing this, that or the other. One of the quickest ways to get a disciplinary hearing in the church is to misappropriate sacred funds. I've overseen a few different aspects of church spending and know they are serious when they call the funds sacred.

[SolarPowered]

But consider that this mall will cost somewhere around $1 - 1.5 Billion. In other words, in one year, the church will spend more in one year on a shopping mall than it spent on helping the world's poor and suffering people for the previous 20 years.

Dang nabbit!!! Feet stomping! Highly irritated!!! I just posted about this!!!

NO!!, the Church is NOT going to "spend" these funds. Do you understand the difference between spending money and investing it?!! Yes, the money spent on the poor was indeed "spent"--it's gone, and it's not coming back. That's OK--we're supposed to help the poor. But the money used to improve the downtown area is NOT "spent". It is used to make capital improvements to these facilities. Say these facilities are now worth $1B, and the Church invests another $1B in improvements. When you are done, you end up with facilities are that are worth maybe $2.5B. You haven't lost anything--you've gained (in my example) $0.5B. And then you bring in perhaps $200M a year in revenue from these properties, each and every year, that the Church can spend on helping the poor, building Church buildings, building temples, etc.

Do you understand the difference here?

[GRW]

Do you understand the difference here?

Please. If you want to have an aneurysm over semantics, go ahead. "Spend" is a commonly used term for describing financial transactions involving money. Pardon me for being an ordinary person who uses ordinary English.

In fact, though, I did explicity state that it was probably a good, long-term business propositon--which should have been a clue that I do, indeed, understand the concept of investing and that a hissy fit was unnecessary.

But fine, insert "invest" wherever I used "spend." Does it change my point? I don't think so. I still don't think Jesus would have "invested" more on a shopping mall than he would have "invested" in helping the world's poor.

[urroner]

I think that we can all agree that none of the money comes from slave labor here in America, but if you trace its origins back far enough, there probably was some slave labor involved in it back before the Civil War.

[OMWO2]

Oh if this isn't an appeal to emotion I don't know what is.

And your followup statement IS NOT "an appeal to emotion"?

I lived for two years getting food from the church welfare system and I wasn't even a member of the church. I was 17 and paying my family's rent. The rest was coming from the church, and of the seven of us, only one was a member. They can do whatever they want with my tithing. They kept us alive for two years and never asked for anything because of it.

See above.

There will always be people who look past the thousands of people whose lives are forever changed because of tithing to the one example of spending that they think constitutes extortion. They will always claim someone's tithing is doing this, that or the other. One of the quickest ways to get a disciplinary hearing in the church is to misappropriate sacred funds. I've overseen a few different aspects of church spending and know they are serious when they call the funds sacred.

I too oversaw the appropriation of funds. But the seriousness that YOU saw at the WARD level was to get the funds to the bank. Can you claim firsthand knowledge of how the "tithing" funds are handled AFTER they leave the local units and go to SLC? In my experience, my annual tithing alone covered our wards budget and the remaining tithe funds were used how? Also, a distinction. When you refer to assisting others with "welfare items" I beleive only FAST OFFERING are used for that purpose NOT TITHING.

[TAK]

"Will a man rob God?"

Umm?? dont go there unless you are willing to argue God needs expensive Stores, Resturants and luxuary Condos..

[mnn727]

First: If I give you $20.00, who does the $20.00 belong to, you or me?

Second: If I give you $20.00 does my neighbor have the right to tell you how to spend it?

For those of you whining about how the Church spends it's money -- get over it!

[urroner]

Umm?? dont go there unless you are willing to argue God needs expensive Stores, Resturants and luxuary Condos..

What does God need? Do He even need us? Is tithing for God or for us?

[Kemara]

To me, the real question is how this squares with the character of Jesus as I find him in the New Testament. Granted, I am no prophet and can only use my best judgment, but that judgment tells me that the Jesus of the New Testament would not spend more on shopping malls than on helping the poorâ?¦But I cannot square it with the Jesus I have come to know.

I have used the following two scriptures previously in relation to exactly the same subject, so at the risk of being boringly repetitive I will none the less post them again.

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.

And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

Mark 14:3-6

For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made [them] other five talents.

And likewise he that [had received] two, he also gained other two.

But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.

His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:14-30

[SleepingWillow]

I have used the following two scriptures previously in relation to exactly the same subject, so at the risk of being boringly repetitive I will none the less post them again.

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.

And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

Mark 14:3-6

Well, gee, that's settled. Jesus is for billion dollar shopping malls.

For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made [them] other five talents.

And likewise he that [had received] two, he also gained other two.

But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.

His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:14-30

So usury is a commandment?

The more I learn...

[GRW]

I have used the following two scriptures previously in relation to exactly the same subject, so at the risk of being boringly repetitive I will none the less post them again.

You've posted two scriptures as if their relevance is self-evident. Personally, I fail to see much relevance. But I never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the lamp, so feel free to increase my wattage. In the meantime, here is my take:

In the first scripture, Jesus defends a woman's actions in a very specific circumstance. He makes no blanket statement about how to spend your wealth.

The second scripture is a parable that primarily is not about how and whether to help the poor. If one takes a superficial view of the parable, one may conclude that the church is not doing anything immoral by making a good investment and seeking a profit.

But then, I said in my post that I didn't think there was anything wrong with the church's decision to buy a shopping mall. I just said that I cannot imagine that Jesus would have spent more on a shopping mall than he would have spent on the poor in the preceeding 20 years.

I see it not as a sign that the church is "bad" (which I don't believe), but as a sign that the church isn't personally led by Jesus Christ.

[SleepingWillow]

Furthermore, the church is estimated (it must be estimated, since the church does not disclose its financial dealings as many churches do) that the church receives about $4.3 billion annually in tithing, plus another $4 billion from its business enterprises. Looking at that $750 million again, it does not seem so impressive. Itâ??s less than 10 percent of the churchâ??s annual income from just one year. Over the course of 20 years, it amounts to less than one half of one percent of the churchâ??s total gross income. Even if we cut the estimated annual income by three quarters, from $8.3 billion to $2 billion, itâ??s still less than two percent.

It's less than one half of one percent? My heavens... there are for-profit corporations that donate more than that.