Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[Deborah]

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

another example of perjorative and unfounded conjecture.

[Beowulf]

Deborah, this is the standard method of attack by conspiracy-theorists...

"What were you doing last Saturday evening?"

"None of your business... (I was home with my wife and kids, but why am I required to tell you that?)"

"Hah, caught you in an illegal act!"

(Oh brother...)

These speculations about the Church finances are remarkably mean-spirited. If the Church was doing even a tenth (hah, get it, tenth!) of what these accusations hit upon, the Church would be in SERIOUS trouble with the IRS. I for one do not believe that they would let their finances get so muddled as to attract the attention of the tax authorities.

Surely they are smarter than that.

Beowulf

[TAK]

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

The notion that an organization that takes in billions of dollars every year and does not make investments - short term or long term in conjunction w/ its budgeted needs is laughable..

[antishock8]

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

Yes I am.

[antishock8]

What I find so amazing from this discussion is that Mormons generally recognize the value of financial controls at the local level to counter human nature.. ie.. local leaders are subject to the temptations of available cash. Why then, is it so difficult to recognize the same dynamic with senior leaders? Just a thought...

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that senior leadership would abuse their position for financial gain... someone would more than likely sound an alarm... at least internally. That being said I find it kind of interesting that Mormons don't gripe about oversight at the local level, but then gripe at the thought of oversight at the corporate level. Strange...

[simply_disappear]

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.

You've GOT to be joking with me! People want to hurt feelings so badly they are stooping to tell the Lord what to do with His money? The tithing money which ....if it was seed money for our commercial ventures.......(I don't know...never studied that) has nothing to do with using the gain from commercial ventures to refurbish downtown SLC which is REALLY a community service and is in effect CHARITY. SLC doesn't belong to the Church. It belongs to the people of SLC. Besides, tithing was needed to start the businesses in order that the Church become self-sufficient. It is now self-sufficient and able to do such a grand act of community service and you can do nothing but SCOFF so you can feel GOOD about yourself.

scoff all you please. There is nothing wrong with what is being done. I'm thankful for it. When I visit my family in UT, I love to go downtown in SLC and now I'll enjoy it all the more.....

[SleepingWillow]

commercial ventures to refurbish downtown SLC which is REALLY a community service and is in effect CHARITY.

The government has a very liberal definition of what counts as charity for tax deductions... This would not even come close to that liberal definition. It is a self-interested commercial venture... I find it very telling that some members want to believe in the divinity of the church so badly that they resort to calling malls "charity." At least the honest ones say, "so what the church is a business?"

Besides, I thought downtown SLC already had the Gateway center. Why does it need another upscale mall? (Answer: it doesn't)

another example of perjorative and unfounded conjecture.

Maybe. We'd know the answer to that if the Church disclosed at least a summary of its dealings.

[Deborah]

Maybe. We'd know the answer to that if the Church disclosed at least a summary of its dealings.

Then why do you assume and state something not founded on any fact as if it were true?

[SleepingWillow]

Then why do you assume and state something not founded on any fact as if it were true?

You keep stating that like I am making assumptions out of nothing. You are predisposed to trust the Church because you believe it is true, even if that involves believing God wants another upscale mall in downtown SLC. I am offering the opinion that I think would be representative of your average non-LDS observer with no axe to grind... a Church that focuses on business ventures, has by its own admission spent less than a year's worth of tithing on charity over the last 20 years, and will not disclose its financial records does in fact in all probability have something to hide--not necessarily illegal, I don't believe that, but certainly embarrassing.

[Deborah]

I am offering the opinion that I think would be representative of your average non-LDS observer with no axe to grind... a Church that focuses on business ventures, has by its own admission spent less than a year's worth of tithing on charity over the last 20 years, and will not disclose its financial records does in fact in all probability have something to hide--not necessarily illegal, I don't believe that, but certainly embarrassing.

How many times and in how many ways does it need to be said tithing does not go to humanitarian efforts but to the infrastructure of the church. There are separate funds for humanitarian efforts. How many times and in how many ways does it have to be said that the business ventures are financed separately and not from tithing monies. They are in fact self-supporting. The more I see the critics pressing for "full disclosure" the happier I am that the church does not concede; I can just see the critics nitpicking every dollar spent. And once again why do those who don't pay tithing even care?

[SleepingWillow]

How many times and in how many ways does it need to be said tithing does not go to humanitarian efforts but to the infrastructure of the church. There are separate funds for humanitarian efforts. How many times and in how many ways does it have to be said that the business ventures are financed separately and not from tithing monies. They are in fact self-supporting. The more I see the critics pressing for "full disclosure" the happier I am that the church does not concede; I can just see the critics nitpicking every dollar spent.

It is disingenuous to separate the funds. The Church can spend the totality of its funds however it wants to. The fact that the vast majority of the Church's funds (95%+) go towards non-humanitarian causes is troubling--especially when it builds an upscale mall of all things.

And once again why do those who don't pay tithing even care?

If I am able to convince just one person on this board that it is not worth paying tithing to build upscale malls, and instead they donate the money entirely to fast offerings or to charity, then it makes it worth it. That's one reason among many.

[TAK]

Deborah:

And once again why do those who don't pay tithing even care?

I will tell you why anyone should care..

Religions that are tax deductable cost communities and governments lost revenue in the billions of dollars each year that need to be made up by higher taxes by every one else or have to do with less services. If a church has the resources to spend that kind of money on malls and expensive buildings then they should be willing to pay property taxes on its meeting houses, temples and other exempt properties. Further there should be no reason why members can deduct its dues (tithings) any more than those who pay membership fees to a golf or yacht club.

[Avatar4321]

Deborah:

I will tell you why anyone should care..

Religions that are tax deductable cost communities and governments lost revenue in the billions of dollars each year that need to be made up by higher taxes by every one else or have to do with less services. If a church has the resources to spend that kind of money on malls and expensive buildings then they should be willing to pay property taxes on its meeting houses, temples and other exempt properties. Further there should be no reason why members can deduct its dues (tithings) any more than those who pay membership fees to a golf or yacht club.

Why exactly would that be a convincing argument? The government wastes billions of dollars on toilet seats. It takes more or less 1/3rd of everyones money. They waste more money every year than most people can even conceive of. Why on earth would I, or any other rational person want them to have more money to waste?

Government has been telling religion for years to stay out of government, its about time government did the same. There is no reason any Church should have to pay anything to the government, nor vice versa. That was the whole point of the First amendment. Because the second government has its grips on religion, it corrupts it.

[TAK]

Why exactly would that be a convincing argument? .. Because the second government has its grips on religion, it corrupts it.

Because govenment is responsible for building roads, educating our childern, defending our country .. if you dont like the way the government works get involved.

Many would suggest that religion already is and has been corrupt.. It might as well pay its taxes just like any other business. - maybe if one of Utah's most major businesses paid taxes on all its holdings like every other business, the downtown area might not so blighted..

[cougarfan]

It is disingenuous to separate the funds. The Church can spend the totality of its funds however it wants to. The fact that the vast majority of the Church's funds (95%+) go towards non-humanitarian causes is troubling--especially when it builds an upscale mall of all things.

If I am able to convince just one person on this board that it is not worth paying tithing to build upscale malls, and instead they donate the money entirely to fast offerings or to charity, then it makes it worth it. That's one reason among many.

The vast majority of tithing funds go to construction and maintenance of buildings and to the operating budgets of individual units. Members know this. Anyone who wants to help the less fortunate should give to one of several funds on the donation slip which are use specific ... in addition to tithing.

Tithing is a commandment. To actively encourage anyone not to pay tithing is to go against the Lord's teachings.

Finally, we are promised that the windows of heaven will be open and that we will be blessed for paying our tithing. In no way do I suggest we will get the money back, but I need all the blessings I can get.

[antishock8]

The vast majority of tithing funds go to construction and maintenance of buildings and to the operating budgets of individual units. Members know this. Anyone who wants to help the less fortunate should give to one of several funds on the donation slip which are use specific ... in addition to tithing.

Tithing is a commandment. To actively encourage anyone not to pay tithing is to go against the Lord's teachings.

Finally, we are promised that the windows of heaven will be open and that we will be blessed for paying our tithing. In no way do I suggest we will get the money back, but I need all the blessings I can get.

I'm sorry, but how do you know this to be true? You do not. You have no oversight on tithing funds, nor are you given an account of how tithing funds are spent outside of what little they tell you. I know it's a nice feeling to trust others and wash your hands of responsibility for your charity, but it's not prudent and in some cases it's irresponsible.

[Avatar4321]

Because govenment is responsible for building roads, educating our childern, defending our country .. if you dont like the way the government works get involved.

Many would suggest that religion already is and has been corrupt.. It might as well pay its taxes just like any other business. - maybe if one of Utah's most major businesses paid taxes on all its holdings like every other business, the downtown area might not so blighted..

1)government isnt responsible for educating our children. Parents are.

2)building infrastructure and military defense take a very small portion of the taxes currently used.

Nothing you says changes the fact that freedom is supposed to be free. Maybe if people took responsibility for themselves instead of expecting others to take care of things, things wouldnt be so bad. Stop expecting others to pull your weight and do it yourself and then you wont have any problems.

[TAK]

Nothing you says changes the fact that freedom is supposed to be free.

Really? where did you ever learn that? The freedom we have came at a very high cost..

[SleepingWillow]

1)government isnt responsible for educating our children. Parents are.

2)building infrastructure and military defense take a very small portion of the taxes currently used.

Nothing you says changes the fact that freedom is supposed to be free. Maybe if people took responsibility for themselves instead of expecting others to take care of things, things wouldnt be so bad. Stop expecting others to pull your weight and do it yourself and then you wont have any problems.

Woohoo anarchy.

[antishock8]

1)government isnt responsible for educating our children. Parents are.

2)building infrastructure and military defense take a very small portion of the taxes currently used.

1) You realize that's an anachronism in today's society, no? How many billions of people have been better educated by their governments vice their parents? There are certainly examples of homeschooling that benefit children better, however for society it has become the primary responsibility of the government to school its citizens. I'm surprised you would say something like that given the reality that surrounds you every day.

2) Military defense for this fiscal year will cost us nearly half a trillion dollars. If I'm not mistaken that's a significant portion of our tax liability, and one of the primary reasons we now face an $8.5 trillion dollar debt. I would seriously reassess my opinion of the military industrial complex and your statement given the reality that is facing us each fiscal year.

[USU78]

It is disingenuous to separate the funds.

Take it up with the IRS. Your tax dollars at work compelling "disingenuousness" in order to fund pork and insure re-elections.

The Church can spend the totality of its funds however it wants to.

True enough . . . so long as the Church follows Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and otherwise obeys the laws requiring segregation of funds based upon source.

The fact that the vast majority of the Church's funds (95%+) go towards non-humanitarian causes is troubling--especially when it builds an upscale mall of all things.

So . . . assuming that figure is correct (I have no way of judging and neither does anybody else hereabouts), how are you defining "humanitarian" and "non-humanitarian?" Is it "non-humanitarian" to build and maintain a building at which humanitarian service is one of many functions going on? How do you put a percentage value on the humanitarian and non-humanitarian uses to which meeting houses and temples are put? If the Red Cross needs an administration building, is it non-humanitarian that they spend a certain amount of their money and use a certain part of their building's acquisition and maintenance costs on legal, accounting, and whatnot and only a lesser portion (as you apparently define it) to actual on-the-ground help for the needy?

If I am able to convince just one person on this board that it is not worth paying tithing to build upscale malls, and instead they donate the money entirely to fast offerings or to charity, then it makes it worth it. That's one reason among many.

Such a worthy goal.

Now . . . why is it again that you think GBH was lying?

[saemo]

Lots of speculation going on, in both directions. A few facts, just for fun:

The Mormon church built SOME of SLC and what it considered to be Deseret using tithing funds. Read up on Tithing Houses, Tithing Scrip, and Tithing Receipts.

Today, there are tax laws that I am sure the Mormon church adheres to as there is nothing more precious, financially speaking, than a tax exempt status. To risk that would be incredibly stupid.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Historically speaking, the church's investments have roots in tithing funds (and other donations of course). You can't separate them out and determine that X investment dollars originated from tithing and X dollars did not. Who could do that? And how?

The for-profit businesses that the Moromon church owns donate some of their profit back to the Mormon church. And those for-profit funds then become non-profit monies. Nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about that whatsoever.

Trying to split out what was originally tithing, as it was used before the current tax laws, is a futile effort. You may as well try to pull the water that originated in the Andes mountains from the sea. Sure, it's there, but it is part of the whole and you aren't going to be able to separate it out and pour yourself a refreshing drink of water and claim it came from the Andes. And you can't look at the sea and claim that is is not comprised of water from many places, including snow in the Andes mountains.

As for SLC being built by the Mormon church, and owning the two malls for "decades". Come on! Main Street was a thriving, bustling, business district comprised of individual ownership. The Mormon church didn't buy Crossroads Mall until 2003. The First Security Bank building was built by the Kearns family.

The Mormon church has recently bought downton SLC properties through its real estate arm Property Reserve Inc. What PRI owns and manages is far beyond 2 blocks of downtown SLC. It is only the 2 block project that is getting lots of press, because it is a huge and highly visible endeavor.

And when Hinckley says no tithing monies are being used, I believe him, in the context of todays finances and tax laws, most definately I believe him. What some people get hung up on is that the non-profit funds that are being used did originate in part from tithing, at some point in time. OK. Fair assessment. I'm not really sure what is gained by Hinckely stating something like "no tithing funds are being used, and I mean that no funds that have been kept separate since the current tax laws we adhere to have required us to keep them separate". Would it change anything at all, really?

[TAK]

If the Red Cross needs an administration building, is it non-humanitarian that they spend a certain amount of their money and use a certain part of their building's acquisition and maintenance costs on legal, accounting, and whatnot and only a lesser portion (as you apparently define it) to actual on-the-ground help for the needy?

If the Red Cross kept 99% of the money it had raisied for internal purposes, yea... I would call it non-humanitarian ...

[Scott Lloyd]

The notion that an organization that takes in billions of dollars every year and does not make investments - short term or long term in conjunction w/ its budgeted needs is laughable..

Depends on what you regard as "investments." Is the money I put in my credit union savings account an investment? It does draw a modicum of interest. Doesn't mean I'm using it to found a corporation.

[Scott Lloyd]

You keep stating that like I am making assumptions out of nothing.

So far, that's precisely what you have done. And repeatedly.

You are predisposed to trust the Church because you believe it is true, even if that involves believing God wants another upscale mall in downtown SLC. I am offering the opinion that I think would be representative of your average non-LDS observer with no axe to grind... a Church that focuses on business ventures, has by its own admission spent less than a year's worth of tithing on charity over the last 20 years, and will not disclose its financial records does in fact in all probability have something to hide--not necessarily illegal, I don't believe that, but certainly embarrassing.

An organization could be squeaky clean and still have good reason not to give private information to meddling, malevolent outsiders.

Look at the way you keep asserting a priori that the Church is using tithing funds to build a mall. In direct contradiction to what the Church president has stated, in effect calling him a liar.

Why should the Church want to publish its financials to the likes of you?