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

[LDSToronto]

Not that it is any of your business, but my reference is the four-fold mission of the Church. Obviously!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The four-fold mission of the church states that profit from the mall will go towards helping the poor? Come on, Wade, when called upon for a reference, you need to actually provide a reference.

H.

[LDSToronto]

I'm simply going off of the church's history in regards to humanitarian efforts. In that regard, i believe that the evidence in favor of my position is stronger than your's, though neither your position nor mine is backed up by proof.

It's all just 'opinion' at the end of the day.

OK - you are just guessing then, that profit from the mall will be turned over to humanitarian efforts. Is that correct? Because the there is no evidence that the church has used any of it's investments to help the poor, as far as I can tell (unless anyone wants to set me straight and provide actual evidence)

H.

[bluebell]

OK - you are just guessing then, that profit from the mall will be turned over to humanitarian efforts. Is that correct? Because the there is no evidence that the church has used any of it's investments to help the poor, as far as I can tell (unless anyone wants to set me straight and provide actual evidence)

H.

If you want to call what i said 'guessing' then go ahead. I suppose you are doing me a favor as it shows me where the standard is when there is no evidence to support an opinion in this discussion and allows me to judge your words with the same level of respect and intellectual rigor that you have mine.

Now i can just proclaim that your opinions are 'guesses' as well, which is much easier than the discussion i was actually trying to have. Considering I should be working on a paper right now, you're actually doing me a favor.

What i might have spent hours on trying to understand, relate to, and might have eventually come to see your point on, you have just allowed me to dismiss as irrelevant.

Bravo.

[rodheadlee]

And I think that people sometimes forget that a few billion dollars can go a long way in helping more than just a few thousand Utahns.

H.

I've built stuff in Calif, AZ, Nevada, Idaho, TN and Mexico so far. It's no trouble to travel for work.

[LDSToronto]

If you want to call what i said 'guessing' then go ahead. I suppose you are doing me a favor as it shows me where the standard is when there is no evidence to support an opinion in this discussion and allows me to judge your words with the same level of respect and intellectual rigor that you have mine.

Now i can just proclaim that your opinions are 'guesses' as well, which is much easier than the discussion i was actually trying to have. Considering I should be working on a paper right now, you're actually doing me a favor.

What i might have spent hours on trying to understand, relate to, and might have eventually come to see your point on, you have just allowed me to dismiss as irrelevant.

Bravo.

It's odd, bluebell, but a few posts back you went out of your way to point out that my words were just opinions, and not facts. And I agreed - I was stating my opinion. When I state a fact, such as where money comes from, or how much the church spent on aid, I back it up with a source. Why can't I hold you to the same standard?

If you are upset that I called your opinion a guess, I apologize for my poor choice of words.

H.

[blackstrap]

Someone needs to learn how wealth is generated.I could pick the poorest 5 million people in the USA and by liquidating all of Bill Gates' assets give each about enough money to last them 6 months. So in 6 months would there be 5 million and 1 poor people looking for money ? Well not quite. I suspect that Gates would soon be a millionaire again through talent,connections and hard work.In the meantime,his philanthropic foundations would wither and be unable to help as many as they do now. Thousands of his employees would be thrown on the job market and many of them may end up joining the 5 million poor.Even Christ recognized that "the poor are always with us .." Wealth must be continuously generated in order to extend anything to the poor.

That said,there is always more to be done to provide for those who are unable to,for a while,care for themselves.But to constantly be giving to the poor without accountability,results in what is seen in the UK,5 generations of people who have NEVER been off welfare.

[bluebell]

It's odd, bluebell, but a few posts back you went out of your way to point out that my words were just opinions, and not facts. And I agreed - I was stating my opinion. When I state a fact, such as where money comes from, or how much the church spent on aid, I back it up with a source. Why can't I hold you to the same standard?

If you are upset that I called your opinion a guess, I apologize for my poor choice of words.

H.

Not mad. Disappointed, but i probably should have expected it.

As for why you can't hold me to the same standard-you can, but it has to be on the same topic.

What you've done is called my orange a guess because it doesn't match up to the evidence for your apples. That, to me, was just a shifty way to handle the discussion and not at all about 'same standards'.

My orange was that some of the money that will be made on the city creek project could be used for humanitary aid. Your orange was that it would not be used for humanitarian aid. Feel free to compare those two oranges all you want.

You're apples were how the church aquires some of its humanitarian aide and the estimated costs of the city creek project. That has nothing to do with my orange and as such, the two can't honestly be compared.

[MorningStar]

Is it your position that all tithe-paying members of the LDS church must agree that the Lord ordered this mall built?

H.

No, but they should sustain their leaders and trust that the Lord has called them for a reason and that there are probably multiple ways the decision will bless the church and others. Helping the poor and needy is important, but so is ensuring the area surrounding Temple Square doesn't turn into a dive. If people think it's greedy to invest in business or that the church is lying when it says it's using non-tithing funds, then why the heck are they paying tithing? Contrary to popular belief, the church doesn't have unlimited funds.

[LDSToronto]

Not mad. Disappointed, but i probably should have expected it.

bluebell - you seem to be cutting a very fine semantic line here.

My orange was that some of the money that will be made on the city creek project could be used for humanitary aid. Your orange was that it would not be used for humanitarian aid. Feel free to compare those two oranges all you want.

I thought that's what I was saying, and I thought I was supporting my orange by stating that there is no evidence that your orange has been done in the past.

H.

[MorningStar]

And again, what's with this attitude that I've heard a few times now on this board - only people who pay tithing should be concerned with certain matters?

Right. It's none of their business and they're hypocrites to suggest that the church should be spending their money on x, y, and z when they themselves go on vacation, have all the latest technological gadgets, own bigger homes than they really need, drive new cars, etc. Helping the poor is just one of the church's goals, but there has to be a balance with its' other goals like missionary work, building temples, new church buildings, and planning for whatever the future may bring.

Of course, the families going on vacation, buying the latest gadgets, buying biggers homes, and driving new cars are helping employ pilots, hotel employees, computer programmers, construction workers, and car manufacturers, preventing more people from going on welfare. You can throw money at people until it runs out or you can figure out a way to make that money grow and help others earn more.

[bluebell]

bluebell - you seem to be cutting a very fine semantic line here.

I'm not trying to.

I thought that's what I was saying, and I thought I was supporting my orange by stating that there is no evidence that your orange has been done in the past.

H.

But then i can say that I'm supporting my orange by saying that there is no evidence that it hasn't been done in the past and that the church's humanitarian program and it's focus on taking care of the poor and the needy is evidence that it uses money from different avenues to support its goals.

And in the end, we've both given our opinions which are both completely unprovable (which is what i originally said on this topic-so now we've come full circle).

It was at this point that you labled my unproven opinion a 'guess' while seemingly keeping your unproven opinion as 'facts and evidence'. That's where it all went downhill.

[Evergrow]

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?

Easy.... You tell them that "outside" of Tithing funds have been given to the Church from the very beginning of it's existance and even before.

Remind them of several of the Restoration events such as the printing of the BOM which did not come from Tithing money, but from money simply donated.

Tell them that money, stocks, businesses, & stuff have been donated to the Church from the beginning, and non of it was Tithing money.

Their argument is ignorant and flawed and based in bigotry not truth or right just as all their arguments are.

[LDSToronto]

I'm not trying to.

But then i can say that I'm supporting my orange by saying that there is no evidence that it hasn't been done in the past and that the church's humanitarian program and it's focus on taking care of the poor and the needy is evidence that it uses money from different avenues to support its goals.

And in the end, we've both given our opinions which are both completely unprovable (which is what i originally said on this topic-so now we've come full circle).

It was at this point that you labled my unproven opinion a 'guess' while seemingly keeping your unproven opinion as 'facts and evidence'. That's where it all went downhill.

Good points, bluebell. You seem rationale and articulate and caring; and I was defensive. My apologies.

H.

[bluebell]

Good points, bluebell. You seem rationale and articulate and caring; and I was defensive. My apologies.

H.

I apologize as well for being a bit snarky back.

As an aside-i wonder how many people, who had just joined in on the discussion, read only our last exchange about 'supporting our orange' and thought we had lost our minds.

[JAHS]

Easy.... You tell them that "outside" of Tithing funds have been given to the Church from the very beginning of it's existance and even before.

Remind them of several of the Restoration events such as the printing of the BOM which did not come from Tithing money, but from money simply donated.

Tell them that money, stocks, businesses, & stuff have been donated to the Church from the beginning, and non of it was Tithing money.

Their argument is ignorant and flawed and based in bigotry not truth or right just as all their arguments are.

Yes but the critics will argue that any money donated to the church in the beginning should be considered sacred(not just tithing) and therefore should not be used for comercial ventures like mall building. They are really stretching it by making such an argument but they do it anyway, and you're right it is based on bigotry and fault finding.

By the way thank for bringing the subject of this thread back on track. People were starting to argue about oranges and apples and it was getting a little crazy :-)

[Calm]

Yes but the critics will argue that any money donated to the church in the beginning should be considered sacred(not just tithing) and therefore should not be used for comercial ventures like mall building.

That goes against the tradition of the Church pretty much back to the very beginnings. It has always been involved in the practical side of life as well as the sacred.

Any critics who claim that are not aware of the history of the Church.

[cinepro]

That goes against the tradition of the Church pretty much back to the very beginnings. It has always been involved in the practical side of life as well as the sacred.

Any critics who claim that are not aware of the history of the Church.

Perhaps the limits of the "practical side" of Church investments can be found in the last century, as reported by Michael Quinn:

Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. temporarily resigns as vice-president of Brigham Young Trust Company because first counselor George Q. Cannon allows its property to become "a first class" brothel on Commercial Street (now Regent Street), Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber J. Grant is invited to its opening reception and is stunned to discover himself inside "a regular whore-house." This situation begins in 1891, and for fifty years church controlled real estate companies lease houses of prostitution.

...

Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge with church-owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years of church's leases to brothels.

http://www.i4m.com/t...mon_history.htm

If that's true, then a mall would seem to be a huge step forward. Even if it sells immodest clothes and alcohol and is open on Sunday.

Edited March 25, 2012 by cinepro

[Jaybear]

Yes but the critics will argue that any money donated to the church in the beginning should be considered sacred(not just tithing) and therefore should not be used for comercial ventures like mall building. They are really stretching it by making such an argument but they do it anyway, and you're right it is based on bigotry and fault finding.

By the way thank for bringing the subject of this thread back on track. People were starting to argue about oranges and apples and it was getting a little crazy :-)

Any critics who claim that are not aware of the history of the Church.

Straw man alert. Beware of the imaginary critic. The make such terrible arguments.

[Xander]

The Church is a legal corporation that is run by businessmen. It is run just like any other corporation looking to maximize profits, except they get to file for tax exemption. I don't know why it should surprise anyone that the Church spends money like this while millions of people are starving all over the world. The Church has been sitting on tens of billions in tithe revenues for decades without donating a significant portion to charity, so I don't know why anyone thinks this mall experiment was an attempt to create more wealth for the sake of the poor. The Church could have been doing this for decades already, but it doesn't. Most of their charity goes towards its own membership who aren't technically "poor" to begin with, and most of that comes from fast offerings. I remember reading an article in the Ensign back in the mid 80's when the Church donated a few million in charity for the starving in Africa. But I've heard nothing of similar contributions since that time. In any event, a corporation donating even as much as ten million a year for the starving and afflicted, seems rather modest when its annual income surpasses ten billion.

[Jaybear]

The key words in this sentence have now been bolded.

Of course, your opinion on the matter is just as meaningless as your love or hatred for brussel sprouts.

Thanks, but when I begin a sentence with "In my opinion" and put "SHOULD" in the same sentence, in all caps, anyone with a fourth grade reading comprehension know that I am merely expressing my personal opinion.

BTW, my opinion was premised on the fact that all tax payers subsidize tax exempt organizations. If you wish to engage in substantive discussion, you could start with challenging the underlying assumption, rather than going right to the personal attack.

Despite your prurient "curiousity", the fact remains that the Church's financial practices- including the City Creek Mall- are none of your business.

Here is where your imagination gets the better of you.

I did not now nor have I ever express an interest in examining the LDS Church's financial records.

I stated, that in my opinion, as a matter of public policy, all tax exempt organization should be financially transparent.

While I regret how terribly that galls you, it is nonetheless, the legal and ethical reality underwhich we must operate.

But let me be he first to offer you a Tums^TM tablet.

More of your bizarre twisted imagination. If it give you some perverse pleasure to think that I am frustrated at some of the Congress has seen fit to pass, or pass upon, then you will be pleased to know that Its galls me that the political climate allowed the president to take the country to war in Iraq on false pretenses. The fact that Congress does not see fit to impose laws requiring financial transparency of tax exempt organization, ... eh. No big deal.

As has been stated ad nauseum- the Church's financial policies and practices have been repeatedly audited, and found to be both ethical and in accordance with the law.

Auditors found the policy and practices "ethical"? If that is what they told you, you have been duped. Accountants don't offer those kind of opinions.

Those who sugget otherwise- and who implicitly accuse our leaders of deceipt and corruption- need to either offer some factual evidence of retract the claims.

I am sure there are plenty of websites where critics accuse your leaders of deceit and corruption and provide the evidence that they believe supports the claim. You should go there and give them a piece of your mind.

Good luck with that. Let me know if convince any of them to retract their claims with this mythical ethical audit of yours.

[Ariarates]

Hi folks, I've only read about half the thread so I hope this wasn't discussed before. While we don't know the church's finances, we do know the current state of the real estate market. How reasonable is it to assume that the church's real estate development arm operates with sufficient profits in the current market to finance a multi-billion dollar project?

[Deborah]

what about the criticism that the Church has only spent 1 billion, as per the welfare fact sheet, on humanitarian aid yet 5 billion on this mall thing?

Where is the 5 billion coming from; the article I read said 1.5 billion.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765561770/City-Creek-Center.html

Edited March 25, 2012 by Deborah

[Senator]

Hi folks, I've only read about half the thread so I hope this wasn't discussed before. While we don't know the church's finances, we do know the current state of the real estate market. How reasonable is it to assume that the church's real estate development arm operates with sufficient profits in the current market to finance a multi-billion dollar project?

This thought was in my mind when I made my previous statement of amazement. I think it would actually be really cool if the church offered in house classes to the membership on how to make buckets of money on investments in any economy. You know, kind of like the marriage and family relations, or emergency preparedness classes.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Senator

[LeSellers]

well if tithing wasn't used for this mall then why not say where the money came from?

That does not answer the question.

Why does anyone imagine it's his business? What is the purpose they believe would be served by publishing this information?

The only thing that comes to my mind is to discover some hook they might hang their anti-faith caps on.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

Because making money is not one of the four fold missions of the Church. We of course are to be wise with our resources be thay large or small. IE; Save 10%; give 10%, spend the rest with thanks giving.

Edited March 25, 2012 by thesometimesaint