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

[Deborah]

BTW in my search on this it appears that it is the anti-Mormon websites that are conflating the cost of the mall, and without sources. The official publications state 1.5 million or rounded to around 2 million. The argument that we overspent on this compared to humanitarian aide, which by the way is separate from welfare aide have lost the argument.

[LeSellers]

According to Lehi it sounds like contributing members don't have standing to be concerned either.

Exactly.

When you pay for a haircut, do you insist the barber tell you how he'll spend the money?

When you pay their taxes, do you really believe the published budget reflects how the state spends the money they confiscated from you under threat of lethal force?

If you don't trust the barber to spend "your" money as you approve, find one you do. If you can't stand how any of them spends the money that was once yours, but which is now his, let your hair grow untrimmed. If you don't trust the government to spend the money that was once yours, but which is now its, move out (because you have no option not to pay if you stay).

If you don't like the way the Council on the Disposition of the Tithe (see Dov&Cov 120:1, all 52 words) spends (or does not spend) the money you freely give, then stop giving it. It is no longer your money: you gave it and unless you attach strings (in which case, it's no longer a tithe), how can you suppose that the Church, whose money it now is, has any duty to disclose to you how that money is disbursed? God sees a gift given with a grudging heart as if the gift had never been given in the first place. One may qualify to attend the Temple (other things being equal), but the blessings will not come: he fails to meet the minimum requirement: to give with a spirit of thanksgiving and rejoicing. Tithing is financial only to the extent that he who pays makes it so.

People who refuse to accept the Lord's way of spending His money might examine their motives for paying His tithing. I know I don't like to get less than half of what I pay for, so if I get less than the value of tithing based on giving only half (the "money" half, not the "heart" half), maybe I need to make full payments. The alternative is to stop paying and stop belly-aching about it. (Of course, not all those who stop paying stop belly-aching, but that's also revealing.)

Lehi

[UtahHumanRights]

Interesting question. Mine is: Were other Mormon churches all over the world party to the agreement to building the Mall. I spoke to someone overseas yesterday and they said regarding this mall: "What mall?"

[UtahHumanRights]

I think the barber analogy is too simplistic a version of what is happening. The money a barber receives is personal money for him and his family. The money the church receives is business money that is open to public scrutiny. See what happened in Prop 8, the public was involved because it is business activity. If it were a barber analogy as one author seems to suggest it would have been out of bounds for others to have a say on what the church did with "its" money. Not sure. Maybe I am missing something.

[UtahHumanRights]

Anyone has a link to the official publications on the costs for the mall?

[Deborah]

Anyone has a link to the official publications on the costs for the mall?

See post 226.

[TAO]

UCR, all the Mormon Churches are connected. I would say we are even more connected and hierarchial than the Catholic Church is. There isn't really any 'independent' Mormon Churches - they all answer to SLC. Which imho, is a good thing. That doesn't mean all decisions are made in SLC, of course. But the major ones, especially policy ones, can often be made up there. The less important things tend to be decided by Area Presidencies, Stake Presidencies, or the Bishphoric, etc.

Edited March 25, 2012 by TAO

[Deborah]

Interesting question. Mine is: Were other Mormon churches all over the world party to the agreement to building the Mall. I spoke to someone overseas yesterday and they said regarding this mall: "What mall?"

Why would they be? This was an issue for Salt Lake City and was in cooperation with the city to improve downtown which is a convention center as well as the center of the LDS church. The church has never informed its members of how its business interests are financed and I don't know why they need to. They are separate and apart from the ecclesiastical work of the church.

[Deborah]

I think the barber analogy is too simplistic a version of what is happening. The money a barber receives is personal money for him and his family. The money the church receives is business money that is open to public scrutiny. See what happened in Prop 8, the public was involved because it is business activity. If it were a barber analogy as one author seems to suggest it would have been out of bounds for others to have a say on what the church did with "its" money. Not sure. Maybe I am missing something.

Where do you get your information? Church members were behind contributing to Prop 8, not the church. You are aware the other side actually raised more money. The principle of the barber and a private corporation are the same. They are entitled to spend their money as they see fit.

[thesometimesaint]

UtahHumanRights:

There is only one The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are commonly known as Mormons. More properly as Saints(latter day saints, or LDS)

Our headquarters is in Salt Lake City Utah. We are top down organization, and not independent affiliates. Individual church buildings do not have a say in how the Church operates.

I've heard estimates from 1.6 Billions of dollars to 6 Billions of dollars. I don't know the actual cost, but it is a very nice Mall.

http://www.ldsmag.co...phy/category/93

Edited March 25, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

I think the barber analogy is too simplistic a version of what is happening. The money a barber receives is personal money for him and his family. The money the church receives is business money that is open to public scrutiny.

How do you figure that?

I give privately. No one but the bishop, the clerk and my family has any idea what I donate and pay. and it's none of his business, either.

See what happened in Prop 8, the public was involved because it is business activity.

How do you figure that.

I perceive that we have another homosexual advocate on our hands. How did this turn into a Prop 8 topic?

If it were a barber analogy as one author seems to suggest it would have been out of bounds for others to have a say on what the church did with "its" money. Not sure. Maybe I am missing something.

It is no one's business what the Church does with God's money. He has set up a mean of disbursing the money we give, and for all the world, I have looked and never seen "UtahHumanRights" on the list of people whom He has commanded to have that responsibility. My name's not there, either. The difference is, I don't insist that those whose names are there allocate that money in accordance with my needs and return and report to me what they did.

Lehi

[Sleeper Cell]

I think the barber analogy is too simplistic a version of what is happening. The money a barber receives is personal money for him and his family. The money the church receives is business money that is open to public scrutiny. See what happened in Prop 8, the public was involved because it is business activity. If it were a barber analogy as one author seems to suggest it would have been out of bounds for others to have a say on what the church did with "its" money. Not sure. Maybe I am missing something.

A church is not a business.

Tithing is an act of faith -- not a business activity. As a religious activity, it is not open to “public scrutiny.” It is not even open to IRS scrutiny (unlike the personal income of a barber). Indeed, critics of the LDS church often complain that the church is “not open” about its tithing.

I do not understand your point about Prop 8. Since when is public advocacy, per se, considered a business activity?

I also do not understand your use of quote marks in the phrase:

… what the church did with “its” money

If the church’s money somehow doesn’t really belong to the church, whose money is it?

[Calm]

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?

I don't have time now, but read yesterday a comment by Pres. Hinckley that stated more or less the Church operates on the principle of not spending money it doesn't have, which would mean it had the money up front to pay for the project.

IIRC, the mall itself cost around 2 billion, the rest of the project cost the 3 billion. The project consists of much more than just the mall. It seems this needs to be pointed out over and over again for some reason even though it seems a very simple fact to understand to me.

Edited March 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[LDSToronto]

I don't have time now, but read yesterday a comment by Pres. Hinckley that stated more or less the Church operates on the principle of not spending money it doesn't have, which would mean it had the money up front to pay for the project.

IIRC, the mall itself cost around 2 billion, the rest of the project cost the 3 billion. The project consists of much more than just the mall. It seems this needs to be pointed out over and over again for some reason even though it seems a very simple fact to understand to me.

What are the two distinct parts - the mall and the condos?

H.

[Duncan]

UtahHumanRights:

There is only one The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are commonly known as Mormons. More properly as Saints(latter day saints, or LDS)

Our headquarters is in Salt Lake City Utah. We are top down organization, and not independent affiliates. Individual church buildings do not have a say in how the Church operates.

I've heard estimates from 1.6 Billions of dollars to 6 Billions of dollars. I don't know the actual cost, but it is a very nice Mall.

http://www.ldsmag.co...phy/category/93

Deborah, that is your answer! I only said 5 billion because others have been saying it

[Pahoran]

I don't believe in The Book of Mormon as a historical document, that is true. That doesn't mean I discount it as a moral tome. I do believe in caring for the poor and I do believe that adorning a church with a mall is morally wrong when the money could go to caring for the poor and needy.

Ah, so this is how you justify your willful misinterpretation of scripture.

The mall does not "adorn a church." It's a business venture.

How are those morally superior to helping the poor and needy?

No-one said they were "morally superior to helping the poor and needy." That is a straw man.

But as the scriptures abundantly attest, helping the poor and needy is not the only thing we are supposed to do. They also make it clear that we are not expected to help the poor and needy by impoverishing our own families or divesting ourselves of productive resources.

For example, in Old Testament times, the law required farmers to provide for the poor and needy in the way that they harvested their fields: they weren't to reap right into the corners and they weren't to pick up whatever was dropped along the way. The poor were allowed to glean the fields after the reapers had gone through. But note well: nowhere were the farmers told to surrender ownership of their fields, nor to refrain from reaping the fields in the first place. In fact, the law protected the claims of their heirs from any misjudged acts of generosity. Year after year, farmers continued to plough, plant, reap and gather the harvest into their barns, which were not opened up to all and sundry. And note also that the provision for the poor required them to actually work; they weren't supposed to sit in town and wait for the farmers to deliver their entitlements to them.

Especially #2 - that sounds a lot like adornment.

Only according to your idiosyncratic, ad hoc interpretation of "adornment."

An interpretation that is apparently agenda-driven.

Are you saying that the church is a corporation and that somehow makes the mall right?

I'm saying that Mormon 8 clearly refers to churches as individual buildings, not institutions or corporate bodies. The expression "adorning of your churches" refers to decorating buildings, not to acquiring productive assets.

I think I was pretty clear from the get-go.

I don't agree. You merely assume that the passage supports you, without any explanation of why you assume that.

And while aspects of your interpretation become clear from your commentary, you have yet to spell out how you think this passage helps you.

And now that I've asked you to do so, you you seem to have flatly refused.

I conclude, therefore, that you are unable to support your claim.

How about we agree to stick to the discussion?

Splendid idea. Asking you to explain how the passage you've waved as a slogan actually supports your argument is integral to the discussion.

That might help curb your usual nastiness.

But what's going to curb yours?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

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.

I am sorry, but if you are too dense to understand that the fourfold mission essentially guides and defines everything the Church does, then that is your problem, not mine. The reference reasonably supports what I said, whether you agree or not--again, not that it is any of your business.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

What's the matter, Kevin? Did someone leave your cake out in the rain? LOL

Isn't it funny how some of the least charitable among us (and I am not speaking here just about financial or time donations, but also in their judgments of and communications with others), are the most vocal critics of the Church as a charitable organization.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 25, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

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.

Ah... but we do. How many times have you been counseled to avoid debt, increase savings, prepare for emergencies... That is what the church does and it works well for individual members.

[KevinG]

What are the two distinct parts - the mall and the condos?

H.

Office space, public concourses, homes for two colleges, public parking... Does no one read anymore?

[LDSToronto]

But as the scriptures abundantly attest, helping the poor and needy is not the only thing we are supposed to do.

Marion G. Romney, in 1978, said:

"Few, if any, of the Lord’s instructions are stated more often, or given more emphasis in the scriptures than is the commandment that we members of his church take care of the poor."

Only according to your idiosyncratic, ad hoc interpretation of "adornment."

Leave some adjectives for the rest of us The mall, owned and built, by the Church, is well appointed. It is home to upscale retail outlets. It is a symbol of wealth. And it adorns the organization that owns it.

I'm saying that Mormon 8 clearly refers to churches as individual buildings, not institutions or corporate bodies. The expression "adorning of your churches" refers to decorating buildings, not to acquiring productive assets.

Oh I don't think Mormon 8 is as clear as you claim and is wide open for interpretation.

I don't agree. You merely assume that the passage supports you, without any explanation of why you assume that.

And while aspects of your interpretation become clear from your commentary, you have yet to spell out how you think this passage helps you.

And now that I've asked you to do so, you you seem to have flatly refused.

I conclude, therefore, that you are unable to support your claim.

I think I'm finally on to your tactics, Pahoran. You quote-clip and ignore and then make claims such as, "I conclude" and "Clearly, you are wrong" and "I have asked and you flatly refuse" and all sorts of other line-in-the-stand statements. But these tactics are mere adornments, meant to distract the reader away from a lack of substance in your claims.

Now, I will engage you, every time, because I like talking with you. But it would be even better if your points were supported, and your posts weren't so inflammatory.

H.

[KevinG]

The guys who spend their free time poking at the church with a stick and phrasing their criticism in polite tones would like you to be more polite when you respond... I get it.

[LDSToronto]

The guys who spend their free time poking at the church with a stick and phrasing their criticism in polite tones would like you to be more polite when you respond... I get it.

Would you prefer it if I was rude?

[KevinG]

Would you prefer it if I was rude?

You are assuming you aren't... But to answer your question:

As my black friend says of racists around here in the South. I prefer them to Northern racists because they are loud, obnoxious and you can see them coming from a mile off. You are less likely to get knifed in the back that way.

[LDSToronto]

You are assuming you aren't... But to answer your question:

As my black friend says of racists around here in the South. I prefer them to Northern racists because they are loud, obnoxious and you can see them coming from a mile off. You are less likely to get knifed in the back that way.

Well, I'm controversial, often labeled 'apostate' and 'anti-Mormon', my posts inspire anger amongst many of you. But I doubt it is ever because I am rude. If I have been rude, please point it out with a few examples (you can use the search feature).

H.