Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[dude]

Some feel buying a mall is ok. And in may well be a great investment and generate lots of money to feed the poor in the future. And it may not be.

This is what I presume is the reason for such investments, in order to further the work in the future. But what I worry about is that after this deal is successful, it will be rolled into the NEXT big deal, then the NEXT, then the NEXT. I know how to work real estate and get rich, it's very tempting to never "cash out". Especially when you have your expenses covered on the home front with the tithing cash-cow. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about these types of investments. Plus, when the world economy crashes, how liquid is a mall?

[SlackTime]

This is what I presume is the reason for such investments, in order to further the work in the future. But what I worry about is that after this deal is successful, it will be rolled into the NEXT big deal, then the NEXT, then the NEXT. I know how to work real estate and get rich, it's very tempting to never "cash out". Especially when you have your expenses covered on the home front with the tithing cash-cow. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about these types of investments. Plus, when the world economy crashes, how liquid is a mall?

What I think you are missing Dude is that the mall is not just a real estate investment, it is also a way of preserving the beauty of downtown Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is and will continue to be a place of tourism, yes even pilgrimage (though not constrained pilgrimage) by distant members of the Church. The Church has a desire and I believe even a duty to try to keep the area as nice as possible. Whether or not it is a "good" (as in profitable) real estate investment, I'm sure the Church would still do it.

-SlackTime

[antishock8]

At least you can rest assured the Second Coming isn't happening any time soon. Seems like a pretty optimistic investment in the future. *whew*

[dude]

What I think you are missing Dude is that the mall is not just a real estate investment, it is also a way of preserving the beauty of downtown Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is and will continue to be a place of tourism, yes even pilgrimage (though not constrained pilgrimage) by distant members of the Church. The Church has a desire and I believe even a duty to try to keep the area as nice as possible. Whether or not it is a "good" (as in profitable) real estate investment, I'm sure the Church would still do it.

-SlackTime

Good point.

The intangibles are sometimes as important as the tangibles.

[SlackTime]

At least you can rest assured the Second Coming isn't happening any time soon. Seems like a pretty optimistic investment in the future. *whew*

Well, it could be the Church is preparing the area for the grand tour to be given to Christ on His return. I'm sure he'll demand the usual VIP tour including the Storehouses... Gotta make it look good!

[USU78]

I'm not sure how you got that I was accusing the LDS Corporation of illegal activities. I was lauding its business practices.

Since it is quite illegal for the LDS Church (in the US, at least) to commingle receipts from donations and receipts from for-profit enterprises, and you accused the Church of doing exactly that, I don't know why you're objecting to someone calling you on it. I thought you were rather proud of having said it.

The LDS Church is simply a subsidiary of the LDS Corporate entity. In fact, may of its business ventures are not-for-profit business ventures ran under notion that they exist for charitable enterprise. All that is fine. It's good business practice.

Actually, Bonneville Enterprises and the other for-profit subsidiaries of the nonprofit corporation sole that is the LDS Church are taxed and are the source of all funds for those ventures being presently discussed. The Church itself handles the not-for-profit activities in its own name. If you accuse the Church of failing to keep these enterprises separate, you accuse the Church of a crime. Tread carefully, grasshopper.

The for-profit business ventures do pay taxes. Tax evasion would be counterproductive to the longevity goals of the incorporated entity.

So far so good.

Of course, IF the Mormon Church were a truly "charitable enterprise" then it wouldn't have a problem being completely transparent in its finances... so to speak. That's why I say it's not really a charitable enterprise, but rather a completely different organism all together. The Mormon Church, again to default to my analogy, is less "charity hospital" and more "gated community". Neither of which is good nor bad in my opinion... they just have different goals.

Nonsense. You don't make the point but for its alleged shock value. If you want to accuse the LDS Church of being not a not-for-profit, then by all means, gather your evidence and present it to the IRS, which I'm quite certain would be more than happy to run with the case.

Moreover your inapposite "gated community" gratuity is quite absurd given the LDS Church's outreach programs, including but not limited to the Missionary effort.

No, you want to make the Church's decision not to deliver a public financial disclosure every year (which it stopped doing during my lifetime) into something nefarious, as though that alone were evidence of wrongdoing. Guess what? The Church is not a government with leadership accountable to taxpayers to which public disclosure and open meetings laws apply. It's something quite different. Don't conflate the requirements of openness in Government with duties owed by a private organization to its membership.

I also never thought for a moment the the Mormon Church or LDS inc has ever presented itself as the "charity hospital". I think it's very clear that the idea of Mormonism is to effect cultural change in addtion to achieve eternal salvation for everyone who wants to pay their dues.

You say that like it's a bad thing. As of this morning's paper, the percentage of illegitimate births in the US reached 40%. The Church tends to produce folks who think that's a bad idea. If you think such a thing is a good idea, then it is understandable that you would be resistent to social change achieved through changing one heart at a time, as the Church seeks to do. Social change for the better, especially achieved through nonprescriptive means, is a good thing, on my view.

All that being said, I find your defensiveness at this perspective interesting.

Funny "ha ha" or funny "weird?"

"Interesting" communicates both.

[antishock8]

Since it is quite illegal for the LDS Church (in the US, at least) to commingle receipts from donations and receipts from for-profit enterprises, and you accused the Church of doing exactly that, I don't know why you're objecting to someone calling you on it. I thought you were rather proud of having said it.

Actually, Bonneville Enterprises and the other for-profit subsidiaries of the nonprofit corporation sole that is the LDS Church are taxed and are the source of all funds for those ventures being presently discussed. The Church itself handles the not-for-profit activities in its own name. If you accuse the Church of failing to keep these enterprises separate, you accuse the Church of a crime. Tread carefully, grasshopper.

So far so good.

Nonsense. You don't make the point but for its alleged shock value. If you want to accuse the LDS Church of being not a not-for-profit, then by all means, gather your evidence and present it to the IRS, which I'm quite certain would be more than happy to run with the case.

Moreover your inapposite "gated community" gratuity is quite absurd given the LDS Church's outreach programs, including but not limited to the Missionary effort.

No, you want to make the Church's decision not to deliver a public financial disclosure every year (which it stopped doing during my lifetime) into something nefarious, as though that alone were evidence of wrongdoing. Guess what? The Church is not a government with leadership accountable to taxpayers to which public disclosure and open meetings laws apply. It's something quite different. Don't conflate the requirements of openness in Government with duties owed by a private organization to its membership.

You say that like it's a bad thing. As of this morning's paper, the percentage of illegitimate births in the US reached 40%. The Church tends to produce folks who think that's a bad idea. If you think such a thing is a good idea, then it is understandable that you would be resistent to social change achieved through changing one heart at a time, as the Church seeks to do. Social change for the better, especially achieved through nonprescriptive means, is a good thing, on my view.

Funny "ha ha" or funny "weird?"

"Interesting" communicates both.

You're ascribing motivations and statements to me that simply aren't there. I understand your hostility, though.... but you shouldn't be lying about what I did and did not say.

That being said...

I know the Mormon Church is actually incorporated into three entities... I can't remember their names off the top of my head... but each one essentially manages real estate, the other money (to include donations), and the third intellectual properties (like books and whatnot).

The Mormon Church receives around 90% in the form of tithing and donations. I find it extremely hard to believe that all of its for-profit ventures came from non-tithing received monies dating back to the mid-1800's... if that's what you're trying to tell me. Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't have a problem if I am, you can take non-profit monies and use them to invest in for-profit ventures as long as the then for-profit ventures are treated as such.

Regardless, a corporation that has tens of billions in hard assets is impressive. It's just interesting that a church has for-profit subsidiaries like Zions Securities Corporation, which is a subsidiary of the Deseret Management Corporation which is a subsidiary of the Mormon Church (or corporation, so to speak). ZSC manages corporate, residential, and retail spaces, operates ZCMI Center Mall, The Inn at Temple Square, Beneficial Life Tower, Eagle Gate Tower, Gateway Tower East, Gateway Tower West, and Social Hall Plaza. They also own many Residential apartment buildings including the Garden Apartments, West Temple Apartments, Deseret Apartments, and more.

I tend to believe that monies that orginated in tithing and donations have been rolled into business ventures, and the the incorporated organization has done an excellent job at increasing its assets and keeping the Mormon Church viable. That doesn't negate the fact that the organization as a whole is ran like a business. It's interesting to see the unintentional corporate atmosphere of the board and CEO filter down to the clientele... business wear on Sundays, clean shaven faces, meetings and minutes that parallel corporate business strategem. It's a little funny, actually.

[SlackTime]

I tend to believe that monies that orginated in tithing and donations have been rolled into business ventures, and the the incorporated organization has done an excellent job at increasing its assets and keeping the Mormon Church viable.

What you choose to believe vs. what has actually been done can't be helped by us. All we can do is tell you what has been done and since you choose to believe otherwise, it is your problem. Since you have nothing to back your assertion, I will treat it with the respect it deserves.

-SlackTime

[antishock8]

What you choose to believe vs. what has actually been done can't be helped by us. All we can do is tell you what has been done and since you choose to believe otherwise, it is your problem. Since you have nothing to back your assertion, I will treat it with the respect it deserves.

-SlackTime

Would you please offer me a resource that can provide proof of your assertions? I mean... if you think about it... I go to the source to try and find decent answers to the questions this thread is creating, and this is what I get:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4...-14-168,00.html

It's overly simplified statements like that, from the source, on a quick search that leads to confusion of the facts. Any help in getting a substiantive and exhaustive break-down of the Mormon Church's finances would be appreciated.

[structurecop]

It's overly simplified statements like that, from the source, on a quick search that leads to confusion of the facts. Any help in getting a substiantive and exhaustive break-down of the Mormon Church's finances would be appreciated.

Don't hold your breath. Why are you that worried anyway, are you concerned your tithing is being misused?

[USU78]

I tend to believe that monies that orginated in tithing and donations have been rolled into business ventures, and the the incorporated organization has done an excellent job at increasing its assets and keeping the Mormon Church viable.

Since that's been illegal for a long time, I'd like to see something other than bald assertion in support of the proposition. {It's considered good manners to provide documentation when asked}

That doesn't negate the fact that the organization as a whole is ran [sic] like a business.

Call for references.

It's interesting to see the unintentional corporate atmosphere of the board and CEO filter down to the clientele... business wear on Sundays, clean shaven faces, meetings and minutes that parallel corporate business strategem.

Call for references.

It's a little funny, actually.

Michael Richards funny or Rosie O'Donnell funny?

[SolarPowered]

Any help in getting a substiantive and exhaustive break-down of the Mormon Church's finances would be appreciated.

As I strongly suspect you are well aware of, the Church does not make this information public. You will not find it anywhere.

President Hinckley stated at General Conference that no tithing funds are being used in this project. I testify that I saw him say this in a live broadcast, and I also have this statement on videotape. Are you stating that he was lying?

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for your "belief" that funds that originated in tithing are being used here? Call for references. It appears that you are simply projecting you animus towards the Church into unfounded assumptions.

[antishock8]

Don't hold your breath. Why are you that worried anyway, are you concerned your tithing is being misused?

What gives you the impression I'm worried about your church's finances? I've been lauding them. If anything, I've noticed an undercurrent of reticence from some of the members here.... which I don't understand.

What I am wondering... if we were to take a round figure like $5 Billion/year tithing in-take... if the more anti-social posters on this thread believe that the entire amount is spent, or if any of it is invested?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is this the corporate version of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day,,,,,but teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime" gig?

I guess I can live with that. The ends justify the means sort of thing? As long as the "ends" actually come. What I mean by that is at some point, in a non-profit organization, you actually have to start giving the money away, or "spending" it. I truly am grateful for the frugal use (and growth) of our tithing funds (parable of the talents has been used), but at what point can you start really putting it to use and loosen the belt a little? This is always a fine line and dilemma for those leading charitable organizations, keep the organization strong while still giving a healthy portion away. Just because our church leaders don't drive Mercedes like the wealthy super-church pastors of protestantism, doesn't mean it's okay to horde wealth.

Pres. Hinckley wisely initiated one of the greatest spending sprees in church history when he exploded the temple building and the new Conference Center, when the church's accountants, even as frugal as they are, hinted to him that church coffers were so full we had enough to last until the second coming (my words, not theirs). I think our leaders spend cautiously, and I"m glad for that, but I wouldn't mind seeing those coffers opened again to see some humanitarian spending on a massive scale.

In support of SleepingWillow, I admit that I too was a little surprised to see how low in percentage our outside donations are. Even if those numbers are 10-fold off, it seems we can afford more. I'd support that.

Earlier in this thread, Wonka raised a point that I fear has not gotten the attention it deserves:

Doesn't the money spent on humanitarian projects come mainly from fast offerings and humanitarian aid, and not from tithing? If the church isn't spending enough on humanitarian aid, then maybe it's because the members aren't donating enough.

It's a salient point. Tithing, humanitarian aid and fast offerings are distinct line-items on the donation slip (fast offerings go toward aiding Church members, while humanitarian aid is administered without regard to religious affiliation. Tithing is for sustaining the Church and its operations).

The Church's humanitarian aid is funded by Church-member donations given for that specific purpose. The Church thus consolidates and focuses the collective efforts of its members throughout the globe.

It follows, therefore, that if someone, active Church member or not, thinks "the Church" is not doing enough humanitarian aid, that individual should pony up and contribute to the Church's humanitarian-aid fund, thus making more money available for use in humanitarian endeavors.

My impression, though, is that's not what this is about. If you strip away the sanctimonious posturing and spin, what the detractors and fault-finders are demanding is that the Church divert money away from its ecclesiastical work: saving souls, bringing people to Christ, constructing meetinghouses and temples, funding missionary work and genealogy, strengthening the family unit, calling sinners to repentance, generally teaching bad people to be good and good people to be better.

This is hardly surprising, as the detractors and fault-finders have little or no regard for, and some are quite contemptuous of, such ecclesiastical work. All the more reason not to take their carping seriously. It's none of their affair how the Church and its believing members choose to employ their resources.

(And contrary to dude's rumor-mongering above, I simply don't believe the notion of a Church of Deep Pockets of Latter-day Saints is accurate.)

[Scott Lloyd]

It's overly simplified statements like that, from the source, on a quick search that leads to confusion of the facts. Any help in getting a substiantive and exhaustive break-down of the Mormon Church's finances would be appreciated.

To give fault-finding outsiders a shot at second-guessing decisions made by the Church leaders? And why would the Church be interested in doing that?

[SlackTime]

Would you please offer me a resource that can provide proof of your assertions? I mean... if you think about it... I go to the source to try and find decent answers to the questions this thread is creating, and this is what I get:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4...-14-168,00.html

It's overly simplified statements like that, from the source, on a quick search that leads to confusion of the facts. Any help in getting a substiantive and exhaustive break-down of the Mormon Church's finances would be appreciated.

But it is you that is making the claim that the Church is converting tax-free donations into taxable accounts. The Church has stated that it is not. You are the one who is on the point for backing up the claim. Failure to do so exonerates the Church. The legal assumption in this country is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Please present your proof of your assertions.

I would bet that you pay absolutely nothing in Tithing OR Donations to the LDS Church. Yet you want to look at the books? I think you have no basis or need to do so. I however pay a lot of money every year in Tithes AND Donations and I am completely confident that the money is properly managed and accounted for. I can go to my Bishop and receive an accounting of that money, and indeed I have discussed it with my Bishop and am satisfied that it is well-handled.

-SlackTime

[antishock8]

To give fault-finding outsiders a shot at second-guessing decisions made by the Church leaders? And why would the Church be interested in doing that?

So that the insiders can see how their Church is being ran? So they can exert more influence on the flow of funds and how it's being used? If I'm not mistaken most major religious institutions have pretty good financial transparency...

[Scott Lloyd]

So that the insiders can see how their Church is being ran? So they can exert more influence on the flow of funds and how it's being used? If I'm not mistaken most major religious institutions have pretty good financial transparency...

Those "major religious institutions" can manage their programs how they like. We're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ, who manages the Church He founded by revelation to prophets and apostles.

[antishock8]

Those "major religious institutions" can manage their programs how they like. We're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ, who manages the Church He founded by revelation to prophets and apostles.

Who make mistakes. Because they're human. Maybe the Mormon church's membership would be more inclined to be involved with the institutions money if they actually knew how it was used. I don't know. I don't know because it doesn't happen. Which seems odd.

Regardless, the financial entity isn't going to change its business practices... so this part of the conversation is fruitless.

[chonguey]

Those "major religious institutions" can manage their programs how they like. We're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ, who manages the Church He founded by revelation to prophets and apostles.

I truly find it hard to believe that the same being who got righteously indignant at the commingling of commerce and worship when he cleansed the temple in Jerusalem is also be the world-wide leader of a "church" with multi-billion dollar financial assets and opaque accounting practices. (In fact it was the only recorded instance of Christ being so outraged that his actions approached violence.)

Seems to be polar opposites to me.

[SolarPowered]

I truly find it hard to believe that the same being who got righteously indignant at the commingling of commerce and worship when he cleansed the temple in Jerusalem is also be the world-wide leader of a "church" with multi-billion dollar financial assets and opaque accounting practices. (In fact it was the only recorded instance of Christ being so outraged that his actions approached violence.)

Then you clearly don't understand what happened at the temple in Jerusalem.

(If you would like a reference, I think Andrew Lloyd Weber captured the essense of what was happening of very well in Jesus Christ Superstar.)

[chonguey]

Then you clearly don't understand what happened at the temple in Jerusalem.

(If you would like a reference, I think Andrew Lloyd Weber captured the essense of what was happening of very well in Jesus Christ Superstar.)

I was BIC, RM, Gospel Doctrine Teacher for 3 years, etc but I need lessons from Andrew Lloyd Weber (no less!) to appreciate the "true" meaning of what happened that day after the triumphant entry in to Jerusalem that somehow brings a synthesis to the ideas that Christ can both abhor "filthy lucre" in his Father's house while at the same time heading up a multi-billion dollar top-down hierarchical corporate entity with fingers in all sorts of for-profit business's as his "true" church? Uh huh.

To paraphrase you: Get a life.

Please do not "quote" secular musical plays to prove a point. If I am wrong, please explain it, rather than just snidely insinuating it.

[Yong Xi]

Then you clearly don't understand what happened at the temple in Jerusalem.

(If you would like a reference, I think Andrew Lloyd Weber captured the essense of what was happening of very well in Jesus Christ Superstar.)

Nor do you. Just because something is written, doesn't mean it happened. You are just speculating.

[antishock8]

But it is you that is making the claim that the Church is converting tax-free donations into taxable accounts. The Church has stated that it is not. You are the one who is on the point for backing up the claim. Failure to do so exonerates the Church. The legal assumption in this country is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Please present your proof of your assertions.

I would bet that you pay absolutely nothing in Tithing OR Donations to the LDS Church. Yet you want to look at the books? I think you have no basis or need to do so. I however pay a lot of money every year in Tithes AND Donations and I am completely confident that the money is properly managed and accounted for. I can go to my Bishop and receive an accounting of that money, and indeed I have discussed it with my Bishop and am satisfied that it is well-handled.

-SlackTime

Are you telling me that the $5 billion per year income the Mormon church receives ever year is used up entirely on ecclesiastical expenses? Or would you be open to the possibility that it takes the leftover income and invests it in whatever it deems as a reasonable profit-making venture?

[SolarPowered]

... but I need lessons from Andrew Lloyd Weber (no less!) to appreciate the "true" meaning of what happened that day.

What's wrong with Andrew Lloyd Weber? I reference him because he did a fantastic job of bringing that piece of scripture to life in a way that I am not capable of doing with words.