The Church'S Appeal For Money For Monument(S)

[Calm]

The area was urbanized to begin with. There is green space in Salt Lake City, both downtown and on the outskirts, if that is what one is looking for.

IIRC, when the city was first laid out under the direction of Brigham Young (in both his roles as church and government leader), there were extensive parks included in the plans. If there is less now, it's likely not the Church's fault.

[ozpoof]

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Part of the church's beliefs concerning self reliance is that we help 'others' to be sustain themselves when they themselves don't have the means to do so.

"When we are self-reliant, we use our blessings and resources to prepare for and avoid problems. Self-reliance, however, is enhanced as we pray for the courage to meet with faith the challenges that will surely come. Self-reliance also enables us to keep our covenant to care for others."

It's because the church is so self reliant that it can strengthen the community in downtown SLC, not in spite of it.

First-not all donations to the church are considered tithing. You've really got to do better research if you are going to spout opinions like they are fact.

Second-Judas said the same thing about the money mary wasted on the oil to worship Jesus with. It's for this reason that i have a hard time believing that those who make this sorry claim are motivated by anything other selfish motives.

Third-Tithing money isn't used for welfare. Again, that is a completely different donation. And, if it wasn't for the money making part of the church, the church wouldn't be able to help nearly as many people as it does. If people sincerely cared about the church helping the poor, they would support the church's efforts to bring in money so that it could meet all the needs it can of both members and nonmembers. That so many resent the church doing so, again, shows that it's not about the poor at all.

I disagree. If the church teaches a principle, it should lead by example. If it tells people in the 3rd world they should give 10%, and God will sort out their lack of food later, then they should tell the business community of SLC to pay tithing and it will all work out, like they tell everyone else. The City Creek Center is all about making the temple area look better. If they wanted to invest to make money so they could help the poor (really?) there are PLENTY of better options out there. The fact the church invested in real estate immediately before the bubble burst shows the move was less than inspired.

Perhaps if the church can afford to help more people if they can splash billions around to build condos. Should the church give ONLY money donated as welfare to the poor?

Finally, if you believe the church helps many people with its welfare donations, you need to do some research rather than spouting opinion and propaganda like they were facts.

[ozpoof]

Not true. The church has always had business enterprises. Nauvoo became a thriving city not because or donations but because of the business that was able to grow there. Likewise for SLC in the early days.

Even if it were true, so what. For those who gladly pay tithes and offerings we recognize that once the money is given stewardship for how it is used is in the hands of men who are accountable to God. I wouldn't want to abuse that responsibility.

Nauvoo wasn't "The Church". Remember, the law of consecration flopped. Those "thriving" businesses were owned by individuals. The income of the church ALL originated with donations. They didn't get a loan from a bank to start a church which they then paid back with interest.

Ignoring what any leader does, church or not, and stating that your hands are washed of any guilt because you place the entire responsibility on the leaders is an admission that you consider the leaders infallible. History and church doctrine shows church leaders are not infallible. All men are imperfect, hence make mistakes. They should therefore not be treated as if they are perfect like Father in HEaven.

[ozpoof]

You seem to be implying that it is the fault of the LDS Church that SLC needs bailing out. If so, wouldn’t that be a strong argument in favor of the church bailing out SLC?

Or a strong argument for the Church to stay out of other people's free agency.

[Deborah]

The income of the church ALL originated with donations.

CFR. And in case you don't know that means show your references.

[Sleeper Cell]

Or a strong argument for the Church to stay out of other people's free agency.

I will try again. If, as you imply, the LDS church has damaged the economy of SLC (due to "free agency" issues or otherwise), isn’t the church obligated to make restitution? If so, shouldn’t the restitution take the form of a project that the elected officials of SLC approve? These SLC officials want the church to build the mall and believe that it will greatly help the economy of the city. In other words, taking your own argument to its logical conclusion, the church is not only justified in building the mall, it is morally obligated to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

IIRC, when the city was first laid out under the direction of Brigham Young (in both his roles as church and government leader), there were extensive parks included in the plans. If there is less now, it's likely not the Church's fault.

In fact, when the Church bought a block of Main Street several years ago to put in lawns, benches, statuary, fountains, etc., the antagonists raised such opposition that the Church was forced to pay for the land twice and twice go through a costly legal process that ended up in federal appeals court.

[wcdrotar]

This is productive and accomplishing things.