Was My Mormon Ancestor'S Tithing Used To Build City Creek Mall?

[wenglund]

Please take a deep breath.......I'm merely questioning their claim that no tithing funds were used...

Dude, count to ten. We are just questioning whether you are sincere, whether this is any of your business, whether you are in a position to question the claim, and whether your questioning the claim, particularly in this venue, is a productive and edifying enterprise. It isn't as though we think you are a terrorist or something.

Besides, I have already granted you permission to suppose that you contributed to all the good that is being done with the City Creek project. Isn't that enough?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

Just a couple of points...prior to my exit from Mormonims...I was a full tithe paying, temple recommend holding, active member of the church. I would like to think that some of those funds tht are being used to fund the Mall actually came from me.

Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall...Why does it matter if tithing funds were used...I'm certainly glad that the church wants to improve the core city by investing 5 billion dollars of their money into the downtown area...certainly no private funds were willing to do so...I say good for them for making SLC an even better place to live (although I do wish it were open on Sundays).

I hate that believers get so defensive at the very suggestion that tithing funds were used...or even that the investment income from tithing funds were used...good greif....chill out

Your prior status to choosing how to spend your money is irrelevant to the here and now.

Why is it a big deal when people who are no longer part of my faith question the honesty and integrity of those who I find honest and with integrity? Hmmm, if I were to question your parentage would that not be insulting, perhaps getting a bit of a rise from you? Even though I have nothing to do with your family, and do not interact, nor even tell them how to spend their money. Yet, constantly questioning every choice made by your family would be considered insulting and also something that is not of your business.

You have that believers get sensitive. Sorry if demeaning attitudes brings out some negativity. I have never been one to believe we should just "take it" because we are Saints. I decided to challenge people who constantly insinuated insults that seek to demean or make us less than who we are, I decided to do that a long while ago. Given my family history I can't see how it would be possible not to.

[Jaybear]

Evidently, the busy-bodies these days have become so presumptuous as to suppose they are now entitled to information that isn't any of their business. Is there any bounds to such arrogance and unwarranted meddling? I suppose once a person has unfettered themselves from personal integrity and propriety, the sky is the limit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There seems to be no limit to your hyperbole.

In my opinion, all organization that receive tax exempt status are subsidized by tax payers, and therefor as a matter of public policy should be required to open their books to the public.

I realize that others disagree, include those in congress who make the law, but feel no need to insult their "integrity" or "propriety" for daring to have a different opinion.

[wenglund]

There seems to be no limit to your hyperbole.

I can see how it may appear that way to those who are myopic.

In my opinion, all organization that receive tax exempt status are subsidized by tax payers, and therefor as a matter of public policy should be required to open their books to the public.

Some people believe the moon is made of cheese.

I realize that others disagree, include those in congress who make the law, but feel no need to insult their "integrity" or "propriety" for daring to have a different opinion.

I haven't insulted anyone's integrity or propriety for daring to have a different opinion, so your point is of no relevance here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rivers]

I don't understand why people criticise the church for building a mall. I think its a good use of money. Its job creation. It stimulates the economy.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

The Churchs' financial books have always been open to the IRS, and state equivalents. Just as my financial books are open to them. I, and the Church, are under no obligation to surrender our financial books to you or anyone else simply because we have an opinion and voice it.

Ps. It would appear that you would punish me and the Church for having an opinion you don't like.

Edited March 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Deborah]

Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall...

Because the First Presidency has said they weren't and you are calling them liars. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

[Cobalt-70]

I doubt you'd consider it a "divine gift", but the Salt Lake Valley (and most of Deseret/Utah) was essentially a gift from God. The Church owned it and deeded it to individuals and corporations as needed.

The land was not really a gift of God. It was a purchase from the United States federal government.

When the Mormons entered the Salt Lake Valley when it was part of Mexico, the Mormons did not effect legal title to the land. In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of February 1848, the entire Utah territory became the property of the United States government, with clear title. The Mormons were squatters.

During the ensuing decades, Brigham Young instituted laws for the grant of land that did not comply with federal law, and thus were illegal. Mormons did not legally own any of the land in the Utah territory until after 1869, when the federal government opened a land grant office in Salt Lake City. At that point, Mormons could either buy land from the federal government or establish homestead claims (which were free). The LDS Church could not establish free homestead claims, because the church is not a natural person. Thus, the church evidently had to have purchased its property from the federal government.

Source: http://archives.utah...ginal-title.htm

Edited March 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Jeff K.]

The results undermine your claims. Pray tell, explain how the church ended up owning land it did not own if the federal government believed they owned it illegally? The federal government was never an organization to look upon the Mormons in a positive way.

[Senator]

Exodus 20:17 and Deut. 5:21.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Covetousness as expressed in scriptures requires a certian distain, disregard for the possessors of the objects in desire, potentially leading the covetor to obtain the goods by malicious means. I have no such things in my heart.

Or do you feel it is sinnful to desire and/or appreciate the good things of this earth wherever one sees them?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

The Churchs' financial books have always been open to the IRS, and state equivalents. Just as my financial books are open to them. I, and the Church, are under no obligation to surrender our financial books to you or anyone else simply because we have an opinion and voice it.

I never said you were under such an obligation. I said entities who ask for and receive tax exempt status SHOULD BE open to the public.

Its an opinion, that I would like to see made part of the tax code. Other countries, Great Britain, for example, have such a requirement.

Ps. It would appear that you would punish me and the Church for having an opinion you don't like.

I have absolutely no idea why you think or would say that. Are publicly traded companies "punished" because their books are made public?

That has to be strangest statement I have seen in a while.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

When people accuse the Church of using sacred tithing money to fund things like the building of the City Creek mall, the obvious answer is of course that tithing money is not used; rather money from the for-profit arm of the church is used that was obtained through business investments over the years.

But then of course critics ask the next question; "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?"

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members. So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members 150 years ago; money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this?

The investments of the Church help it receive funds to help more of the poor. I am an Electrician, if I lived there it would help me feed my family, give back to the Church which in turn would help others.

[Jaybear]

I don't understand why people criticise the church for building a mall. I think its a good use of money. Its job creation. It stimulates the economy.

I don't agree that with the decline in real estate values and with Malls closing in other cities, that it make sound business sense to spend $5billion to construct luxury condos and a mall that is only open 6 days a week.

Frankly, I don't understand why LDS members here aren't expressing criticism. If the Catholic Church spent that kind of money on a mall, I would expect that catholics would be the first to criticize the decision.

That said, it has been good for the economy. Thanks. I for one appreciate the investment into the local economy.

[wenglund]

Covetousness as expressed in scriptures requires a certian distain, disregard for the possessors of the objects in desire, potentially leading the covetor to obtain the goods by malicious means. I have no such things in my heart.

Or do you feel it is sinnful to desire and/or appreciate the good things of this earth wherever one sees them?

I was joking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

The results undermine your claims. Pray tell, explain how the church ended up owning land it did not own if the federal government believed they owned it illegally? The federal government was never an organization to look upon the Mormons in a positive way.

You can't "own land illegally." Either you own it or you don't. What was illegal was Brigham Young's method of land distribution, which had no legal effect. Nobody obtained ownership under U.S. law by getting the land under Young's territorial land grant system. After 1869, even if they had gotten the land 20 years earlier under Young's system, and were living on the land, they still had to buy the land from the federal government. This has nothing to do with how the United States treated Mormons. It was the same law in all the U.S. territories. If you were a non-Mormon in California, it was the same set of rules.

[Skylla]

It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall. Member Pays Tithing à Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested à Investments Earn Return à $$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall…. Classic Money Laundering...So can the Church really claim that they didn’t use tithing funds to fund the City Creek mall? Ummm I suppose so…but is it really an honest statement to claim such or is the church just being disingenuous?

PS: Just for the record...I really don't care if they used tithing funds or not....I'm personally glad that they did it...I can't enter their temples...but at least for the time being, I can enter their mall

Craig: Take a break. When you come back, don't ever accuse the church of illegal activity again.

Skylla

[cinepro]

The distinction between the Church having "tithing" funds and "non-tithing" funds is fascinating. I can only hope that one day the Church will explain to individual members how we can distinguish between which of our funds are "tithing" and "non-tithing".

According to the arguments in this thread, if I invest money, then the original investment can count as "tithing" and is under the Lord's stewardship, but the interest on that investment is "non-tithing", and I can use it to make more money, or start a business. If my grandfather dies and leaves me his shoe repair business, then that business is "non-tithing", and its value and all the proceeds from it are "non-tithing", and I don't need to feel an obligation to tithe on that money or use that money to help the poor.

And when I die, I will be sure to note that everything I leave to my heirs is specifically "non-tithing", meaning they don't need to pay tithing on it because obviously that inheritance is from me, and so God doesn't care what they do with it (or want 10% of it). They can use that money to start business, maintain their homes or invest it, and their original investment and the return on that investment is all "non-tithing." They just need to keep it in a different account, separate from their "tithing" funds, and everything will be fine.

Edited March 23, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

I don't agree that with the decline in real estate values and with Malls closing in other cities, that it make sound business sense to spend $5billion to construct luxury condos and a mall that is only open 6 days a week.

Frankly, I don't understand why LDS members here aren't expressing criticism. If the Catholic Church spent that kind of money on a mall, I would expect that catholics would be the first to criticize the decision.

That said, it has been good for the economy. Thanks. I for one appreciate the investment into the local economy.

This is the crux of your general comments on this board.

Now on a more economic point: My wife is a CFO for a firm that builds malls. If the investment is done correctly the malls are excellent opportunities to increase the overall local property value, even here in overpriced CA. Utah is recovering faster and better than our state is, and from the standpoint of long term strategy, they have chosen an excellent time to open a mall since no one will be scrambling to build during a good time, but to build when material and contractor costs are significantly less due to the economic downturn. So you have an efficiently built unit with an excellent location to take advantage of the growth whose rate will increase. One does not need revelation to understand economic common sense.

But it seems your argument is that the church should hide its money under a rock because it might be somehow lost. I don't thinkt he Lord wants His servants doing such a thing.

Or it may be that your argument is that costs should be limited to what "you" personally believe the church should spend, that the members have the ultimate say as to how the Lord spends their money. Again, I ask you to understand that tithing is not the money that belongs to the tithe payer. It is money that the tithe payer returns to the Lord. When you pay money to someone you owe, do you then insist they only spend it as you see fit?

[wenglund]

I don't agree that with the decline in real estate values and with Malls closing in other cities, that it make sound business sense to spend $5billion to construct luxury condos and a mall that is only open 6 days a week.

People who are relatively ignorant of all the factors that went into this business decision, and/or who lack sound business sense, themselves, may rashly view it that way.

Frankly, I don't understand why LDS members here aren't expressing criticism.

As intimated before, it would be just silly were we to expect the proverbial, trust-challenged busy-bodies to understand, particularly those who have an ax to grind and/or who have no compunction against expressing criticism from a position of profound ignorance.

If the Catholic Church spent that kind of money on a mall, I would expect that catholics would be the first to criticize the decision.

I have a much higher opinion of the Catholics than that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

The distinction between the Church having "tithing" funds and "non-tithing" funds is fascinating. I can only hope that one day the Church will explain to individual members how we can distinguish between which of our funds are "tithing" and "non-tithing".

According to the arguments in this thread, if I invest money, then the original investment can count as "tithing" and is under the Lord's stewardship, but the interest on that investment is "non-tithing", and I can use it to make more money, or start a business. If my grandfather dies and leaves me his shoe repair business, then that business is "non-tithing", and its value and all the proceeds from it are "non-tithing", and I don't need to feel an obligation to tithe on that money or use that money to help the poor.

And when I die, I will be sure to note that everything I leave to my heirs is specifically "non-tithing", meaning they don't need to pay tithing on it because obviously that inheritance is from me, and so God doesn't care what they do with it (or want 10% of it). They can use that money to start business, maintain their homes or invest it, and their original investment and the return on that investment is all "non-tithing." They just need to keep it in a different account, separate from their "tithing" funds, and everything will be fine.

I see no need for a distrinction as to tithing and non tithing. Since it is not my money, I care little about how the Church uses it since they will do so in the most correct way possible. Upon the day that I feel the Lord no longer leads the church, upon that day I will cease to pay my tithing. But I have received and continue to receive revelation that the Lord does want me to continue tithing to His church.

[Jaybear]

Now on a more economic point: My wife is a CFO for a firm that builds malls. If the investment is done correctly the malls are excellent opportunities to increase the overall local property value, even here in overpriced CA. Utah is recovering faster and better than our state is, and from the standpoint of long term strategy, they have chosen an excellent time to open a mall since no one will be scrambling to build during a good time, but to build when material and contractor costs are significantly less due to the economic downturn. So you have an efficiently built unit with an excellent location to take advantage of the growth whose rate will increase. One does not need revelation to understand economic common sense.

Oh I understand that some people might think that its a good time to sink $5Billion in SLC real estate. I don't.

But it seems your argument is that the church should hide its money under a rock because it might be somehow lost. I don't thinkt he Lord wants His servants doing such a thing.

Or it may be that your argument is that costs should be limited to what "you" personally believe the church should spend, that the members have the ultimate say as to how the Lord spends their money. Again, I ask you to understand that tithing is not the money that belongs to the tithe payer. It is money that the tithe payer returns to the Lord. When you pay money to someone you owe, do you then insist they only spend it as you see fit?

When you feel the urge to tell me what argument is ... rest assured, you have it wrong.

[wenglund]

The distinction between the Church having "tithing" funds and "non-tithing" funds is fascinating. I can only hope that one day the Church will explain to individual members how we can distinguish between which of our funds are "tithing" and "non-tithing".

When was the last time you looked at a tithing slip? For as long as I can remember, those slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings.

However, I suppose there is only so much the Church can do to accomadate the nuance-challenged. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

When was the last time you looked at a tithing slip? For as long as I can remember, those slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings.

However, I suppose there is only so much the Church can do to accomadate the nuance-challenged. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Rumor has it that there was a little too much nuance on the tithing slip, and the new ones are decidedly murkier with the following note:

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

[wenglund]

Rumor has it that there was a little too much nuance on the tithing slip,

Evidently, any nuance may be too much for the nuance-challenged. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 March 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Now on a more economic point: My wife is a CFO for a firm that builds malls. If the investment is done correctly the malls are excellent opportunities to increase the overall local property value, even here in overpriced CA. Utah is recovering faster and better than our state is, and from the standpoint of long term strategy, they have chosen an excellent time to open a mall since no one will be scrambling to build during a good time, but to build when material and contractor costs are significantly less due to the economic downturn. So you have an efficiently built unit with an excellent location to take advantage of the growth whose rate will increase. One does not need revelation to understand economic common sense.

Oh I understand that some people might think that its a good time to sink $5Billion in SLC real estate. I don't.

That is because you don't understand what a good investment is. Give it some thought.