Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[Scott Lloyd]

What if the LDS church didn’t take on this project? What if downtown SLC fell into decay and became a dangerous place to live, work, and shop? Would the critics then say, “Hey, the Mormons have a lot of money! Why don’t they help clean this place up?!?”

Undoubtedly. The name of the game is: oppose, indict or embarrass "the Mormon Church" in whatever scheme or fashion you think you can make stick.

[Beowulf]

Thanks Wonka.

That's what I said on this thread, in the very first posting.

And people still don't get it. (sigh)

Now we have arguments about Jesus and capitalism. Well folks, capitalism had not yet been invented in the 1st C ce, so no, Jesus was not a capitalist. He was, however, a man of his times, and had no trouble using the economic system of the Roman Empire to illustrate his teachings.

Much like the leaders of the Church today use capitalist examples to illustrate their teachings. Strange, that.

Beowulf

[antishock8]

There are and have been enough people privy to what goes on behind the scenes that if something were amiss, surely some disgruntled whistle blower would have come forward by now.

But, to the consternaton of the antagonists, nothing is ever amiss. So they are left with their hostile conjectures and what-ifs.

Who has ever said that anything is "amiss"? Why is it that some Mormons on this board are insistent upon inventing motives or being so assumptive? To remind you, and anyone else still reading this thread, the Mormon church has every right to take post-expense income (tithes) and invest it. It is under no obligation to return its profits, nor find new ways to 'break even' in order to avoid the appearance of profit. What is obliged to do, however, is to pay taxes on invested money like any other business would do.

The bottom line is that everyone is just going to have to trust you and the Mormon incorporated entities because they are not going to release their financial information. That isn't unusual for a corporate organization to do.

[Scott Lloyd]

It occurs to me that those who keep calling on the Church to give a public accounting of its expenditures are missing the genius of the Church's donation structure.

When I pay tithing, I can feel confident that 100 percent of my donations is going to support the operating expenses and ecclesiastical mission of the Church.

When I pay a fast offering, I can rest assured that 100 percent of the money is going to support needy Church members.

When I donate to the humanitarian fund, I do it with the knowledge that 100 percent of the money will go to projects that benefit the needy who aren't necessarily members of the Church.

The only other thing I might need a financial accounting for is so I can second-guess and gripe about this or that appropriation. I don't feel inclined to do so.

Ergo, I as an active and believing Church member need no public accounting of expenditures. I know that bugs the critics to no end, but that's just how it is.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who has ever said that anything is "amiss"? Why is it that some Mormons on this board are insistent upon inventing motives or being so assumptive? To remind you, and anyone else still reading this thread, the Mormon church has every right to take post-expense income (tithes) and invest it. It is under no obligation to return its profits, nor find new ways to 'break even' in order to avoid the appearance of profit. What is obliged to do, however, is to pay taxes on invested money like any other business would do.

And what evidence do you have that the Church is mingling its commercial and donated funds in this manner or is not paying every penny of tax it is legally required to? Again this is simply more unfounded and hostile conjecture.

The bottom line is that everyone is just going to have to trust you and the Mormon incorporated entities because they are not going to release their financial information. That isn't unusual for a corporate organization to do.

Absent any evidence or substantiation of wrongdoing, such trust is a matter of civility.

[dude]

And what evidence do you have that the Church is mingling its commercial and donated funds in this manner or is not paying every penny of tax it is legally required to? Again this is simply more unfounded and hostile conjecture.

Not really hostile on my part, and many like me, who simply wonder aloud (heaven forbid) why the church would invest so heavily in one entity. And it doesn't take evidence to know that investing in a billion dollar mall means there are excess funds to do so (we all know they never borrow). If we were struggling operationally (meaning the tithes weren't sufficing), common sense would say a prudent move would not be to sink money into a mall. So almost by definition, although TECHNICALLY not mingling funds, it's obvious we're doing alright and can afford this investment. That's why I laughed when you blew off Maxrep's analogy as "fundamentally wrong-headed as to not merit the time and attention it takes to formulate a response". That I find naive, or rather immature, to blast it because you don't have a good answer. There isn't one. President Hinckley is being perfectly honest when he says no tithing funds are used. I consider myself TBM with basic accounting knowledge and I know that the spirit of that statement might be a little stretched. I just don't find the need to defend the church's every last move. I wish he'd just say "we're doing it" without any statement about tithing. That statement is to appease the TBM who need that sort of reassurance, because it certainly doesn't appease any critics. I think it just makes it worse. Just decide what we're going to do and don't pretend it's not tithing. Of course it's tithing, indirectly. I have no problem with that.

[TAK]

Teancum, just a small aside (I haven't read the whole thread yet - my usual refrain):

Not all donations are tithing right? Don't many people make "pure" donations to the church --- not tithing, not fast offereings, not missionary funds, etc --- just donations. Is it feasible that donations of this sort, that have been wisely invested, were used to finance the downtown area?

And, isn't it possible that some large donors may have even earmarked what their donations were and were not to be used for?

Just wondering.

Jan

If I understand your question, its possible but may not be likely that individuals have made donations to the profit making side of the church as they would not be tax deductible.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not really hostile on my part, and many like me, who simply wonder aloud (heaven forbid) why the church would invest so heavily in one entity. And it doesn't take evidence to know that investing in a billion dollar mall means there are excess funds to do so (we all know they never borrow). If we were struggling operationally (meaning the tithes weren't sufficing), common sense would say a prudent move would not be to sink money into a mall.

Keeping the environs around Church headquarters safe and wholesome is a prudent enough reason to save the downtown area from dying. And being in a healthy position financially (which I hope and believe the Church is) is not the same thing as having a bottomless supply of funds, which you seem to have implied before.

So almost by definition, although TECHNICALLY not mingling funds, it's obvious we're doing alright and can afford this investment.

So what?

And as USU78 has pointed out, mingling funds is illegal activity, and such an insinuation is bordering on libel.

That's why I laughed when you blew off Maxrep's analogy as "fundamentally wrong-headed as to not merit the time and attention it takes to formulate a response". That I find naive, or rather immature, to blast it because you don't have a good answer. There isn't one.

I blew off his long-winded analogy because it's based not on fact but unsubstantiated, fanciful conjecture, the "tithing-as-seed-money" notion.

The Church's commercial enterprises originated when the pioneers settled the Salt Lake Valley and basically founded a civilization from scratch. For the settlers to survive, the Church had to provide cooperative enterprises, such as U&I Sugar Company, that furnished a market for the pioneers' cash crops, and mercantile co-ops such as ZCMI. It founded a newspaper and other publishing ventures to meet the need for mass communication in the new settlement.

The wealth has accumulated over many years of prudent business management, not from the co-mingling of tithing and business funds, despite the unsubstantiated accusations.

Moreover, the Church homesteaded the Salt Lake Valley, and its real estate holdings were bound to increase in value greatly as the city grew and prospered.

President Hinckley is being perfectly honest when he says no tithing funds are used. I consider myself TBM with basic accounting knowledge and I know that the spirit of that statement might be a little stretched. I just don't find the need to defend the church's every last move. I wish he'd just say "we're doing it" without any statement about tithing. That statement is to appease the TBM who need that sort of reassurance, because it certainly doesn't appease any critics. I think it just makes it worse. Just decide what we're going to do and don't pretend it's not tithing. Of course it's tithing, indirectly. I have no problem with that.

President Hinckley's assurance that no tithing funds are used in effect tells the critics to put up or shut up. Either tithing is being used for the project or it isn't.

[USU78]

TIME magazine did a profile on the Mormon church's finances and offered up that number for one of the fiscal years in the 90's. The magazine claims that it was aided by the Mormon church regarding financial information. Please answer my question.

This is not true. The Church denied the numbers' accuracy in a public statement, which Time conveniently ignored.

USU "Don't believe all you read in the press" 78

[SleepingWillow]

President Hinckley's assurance that no tithing funds are used in effect tells the critics to put up or shut up. Either tithing is being used for the project or it isn't.

Too bad the Church is afraid of what would happen if it disclosed its finances in even the most general sense.

[USU78]

Incidentally, as I have explained above, fast offerings are distinguished from hamanitarian aid in that the former benefits Church members only, while the latter is administered without regard for religious affiliation.

Not entirely accurate, Scott. I have witnessed scores of instances where a Bishop will use fast offerings for the benefit of nonmembers living within the ward boundaries . . . sometimes with the proviso that the recipient attend a certain number of meetings. This is quite common in economically backward (read young and often migrant) areas along the Wasatch Front.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not entirely accurate, Scott. I have witnessed scores of instances where a Bishop will use fast offerings for the benefit of nonmembers living within the ward boundaries . . . sometimes with the proviso that the recipient attend a certain number of meetings. This is quite common in economically backward (read young and often migrant) areas along the Wasatch Front.

I don't doubt this is true, just as humanitarian funds might conceivably benefit some Church members living in disaster-stricken areas where the funds are administered.

I was talking more about general categories and perhaps should have used qualifiers, as did Elder Dallin H. Oaks in an Oct. 27 address to the annual fund raiser in Salt Lake City for Enterprise Mentors International, at which he said:

In contrast to welfare assistance, Church humanitarian aid is intended primarily for those who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is distributed without any strings attached.

Earlier, he said:

First, we have a welfare program, which we all support by fast offerings. This welfare program, which is targeted almost exclusively to members of our Church, is managed through local leaders and through general Church officers and professional staff.

This, by the way, was where he made the comments about "people-to-people" giving, in which Church members participate on their own initiative without any formal Church involvement.

[antishock8]

And what evidence do you have that the Church is mingling its commercial and donated funds in this manner or is not paying every penny of tax it is legally required to? Again this is simply more unfounded and hostile conjecture.

Absent any evidence or substantiation of wrongdoing, such trust is a matter of civility.

Are you not reading the worlds that I've typed? You are having some serious Freudian posting moments, Scott. Please re-read what I said, compare that to what you're saying I'm saying, and then try to re-engage me in dialogue on this topic if you desire.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you not reading the worlds that I've typed? You are having some serious Freudian posting moments, Scott. Please re-read what I said, compare that to what you're saying I'm saying, and then try to re-engage me in dialogue on this topic if you desire.

What I read you as saying is that, despite assurances to the contrary, you think the Church may be taking money donated for ecclesiastical purposes and investing it for commercial purposes. For this, you have yet to provide anything other than your own supposition.

Am I still misunderstanding you?

[antishock8]

This is not true. The Church denied the numbers' accuracy in a public statement, which Time conveniently ignored.

USU "Don't believe all you read in the press" 78

So you're telling me that the Mormon coporate entity aided TIME magazine, but claims TIME's financial figures were off the mark. Did the corporate arm set the record straight, or just issue a vague denial? Where would TIME get such a specific answer? In this instance you're essentially asking me to believe either TIME invented an outright lie and published it, or the Mormon corporate arm is spinning. I really don't know who to believe, but it would make sense that the figure put forth by TIME is in the ballpark regard annual tithing returns.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you're telling me that the Mormon coporate entity aided TIME magazine, but claims TIME's financial figures were off the mark. Did the corporate arm set the record straight, or just issue a vague denial? Where would TIME get such a specific answer? In this instance you're essentially asking me to believe either TIME invented an outright lie and published it, or the Mormon corporate arm is spinning. I really don't know who to believe, but it would make sense that the figure put forth by TIME is in the ballpark regard annual tithing returns.

In essence, the Church refused to be goaded into disclosing its financials, despite inaccuracies printed in a national magazine.

[USU78]

So you're telling me that the Mormon coporate entity aided TIME magazine, but claims TIME's financial figures were off the mark. Did the corporate arm set the record straight, or just issue a vague denial? Where would TIME get such a specific answer? In this instance you're essentially asking me to believe either TIME invented an outright lie and published it, or the Mormon corporate arm is spinning. I really don't know who to believe, but it would make sense that the figure put forth by TIME is in the ballpark regard annual tithing returns.

If you don't know whom to believe, follow the laws of burden of proof.

Who asserted the money figure?

Who denied it?

Who has the burden of proof?

Time asserted it (and asserted it had access to accurate information). Time has the burden to establish what it reported is true.

Time has no legal responsibility, however, to print things that are true, only things which are not knowingly untrue and accurately reported. An awfully low hurdle.

Yet you appear willing to accept an article, which needn't be particularly true but only "accurately reported" as true and build a syllogism thereon.

USU "I worry about you kids sometimes" 78

[Scott Lloyd]

Duplicate post

[antishock8]

What I read you as saying is that, despite assurances to the contrary, you think the Church may be taking money donated for ecclesiastical purposes and investing it for commercial purposes. For this, you have yet to provide anything other than your own supposition.

Am I still misunderstanding you?

You're close, but sort of obfuscating what I've said. Let me be very clear what I'm saying:

I do not believe the Mormon corporate entity spends all of its annual tithing receipts on overhead and infrastructure. I believe that the Mormon corporate entity invests the leftover monies into porfolios and investment opportunities in order to sustain long-term financial viability in order to continue its ecclesiastical mission. I think it's a shrewd business organization that is very profitable. I respect that, but don't respect that it portrays itself as a church and is unwilling to be open about its finances. I understand why it does that, though. When you're trying to run a company there's room for one CEO, not 5 million... and I think we all know what would happen if the Mormon corporate entity opened its books up for scrutiny. Tithing revenues would most likely decrease dramatically when we would see just how financiall soluable the organization is at the moment. And that would go against the long-term goals of the organzation.

[antishock8]

In essence, the Church refused to be goaded into disclosing its financials, despite inaccuracies printed in a national magazine.

Wow. You're levying a very serious charge against TIME magazine. Just as I can't prove that the figures are inaccurate, I think you're taking the same amount of liberty by assuming that they are. I would think that a respectable magazine wouldn't print an outright lie... at least over this issue. And especially since the Mormon financial arm aided in TIME's research.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're close, but sort of obfuscating what I've said. Let me be very clear what I'm saying:

I do not believe the Mormon corporate entity spends all of its annual tithing receipts on overhead and infrastructure. I believe that the Mormon corporate entity invests the leftover monies into porfolios and investment opportunities in order to sustain long-term financial viability in order to continue its ecclesiastical mission. I think it's a shrewd business organization that is very profitable. I respect that, but don't respect that it portrays itself as a church and is unwilling to be open about its finances. I understand why it does that, though. When you're trying to run a company there's room for one CEO, not 5 million... and I think we all know what would happen if the Mormon corporate entity opened its books up for scrutiny. Tithing revenues would most likely decrease dramatically when we would see just how financiall soluable the organization is at the moment. And that would go against the long-term goals of the organzation.

Just as I said: unsubstantiated assertion based on fanciful conjecture.

Until the last temple has been built; until the last person on earth has heard the message of the Restoration; until the last genealogical record has been unearthed and the last temple ordinance performed for a deceased ancestor; until the family unit has been shored up; until Christ comes in glory, there will always be a place to put tithing funds before plowing them into commercial enterprises.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow. You're levying a very serious charge against TIME magazine. Just as I can't prove that the figures are inaccurate, I think you're taking the same amount of liberty by assuming that they are. I would think that a respectable magazine wouldn't print an outright lie... at least over this issue. And especially since the Mormon financial arm aided in TIME's research.

What I'm doing is choosing to believe the authoritative word of the Church itself as opposed to the head-scatching supposition of magazine journalists. And I say this as a journalist myself.

[USU78]

Wow. You're levying a very serious charge against TIME magazine. Just as I can't prove that the figures are inaccurate, I think you're taking the same amount of liberty by assuming that they are. I would think that a respectable magazine wouldn't print an outright lie... at least over this issue.

A review of Sullivan seems appropriate here. A news entity has a very low standard of "truth" in dealing with matters of public interest and public figures . . . and the LDS Church is very definitely a public figure. You can be quite respectable and never come within a football field of the truth.

Don't rely on the press for truth, my friend. They don't know what it means.

And especially since the Mormon financial arm aided in TIME's research.

CFR.

[Calm]

I believe that the Mormon corporate entity invests the leftover monies into porfolios and investment opportunities in order to sustain long-term financial viability in order to continue its ecclesiastical mission.

Just to be clear--are you saying they are investing the leftover tithing monies into for-profit ventures (as opposed to profits leftover)?

[SleepingWillow]

In essence, the Church refused to be goaded into disclosing its financials, despite inaccuracies printed in a national magazine.

This suggests that whatever the Church is hiding, it is even less flattering than what Time magazine reported.