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

[KevinG]

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.

I complement you on having a sheepskin of purest white.

[Pahoran]

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."

Yes, and?

How does that address what I wrote?

I did not say helping the poor wasn't important.

President Romney didn't say that it was the only thing we are supposed to do.

So your quote, offered without explanation or commentary as if it supported you, does not help your cause.

The mall, owned and built, by the Church, is well appointed. It is home to upscale retail outlets. It is a symbol of wealth.

Perhaps you think it would be more successful as a business venture if it was shabby, housed exclusively thrift stores and food banks, and symbolised poverty?

And it adorns the organization that owns it.

You are consciously equivocating. As pointed out above, "adorning" means the visible decoration of a visible structure, i.e. a church building. The mall that inspires your envy might visibly adorn the SLC landscape, or it might figuratively be said to "adorn" the reputation of the institution that owns it, but it clearly does not adorn a church in the straightforward, literal sense in view.

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

Do you?

So, yet again, just what is your interpretation?

Space for your answer here:

But thank you, by the way, for your uncharacteristically frank admission that, whatever your interpretation might actually be, it is not the only possible one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/haiti-relief/relief/why_we_help.htm

http://www.lds.org/service/humanitarian/center?lang=eng

http://www.providentliving.org/project/0,13501,4607-1-2009,00.html

[LDSToronto]

Yes, and?

How does that address what I wrote?

I did not say helping the poor wasn't important.

President Romney didn't say that it was the only thing we are supposed to do.

So your quote, offered without explanation or commentary as if it supported you, does not help your cause.

Sure it does. I just prefer it when you fill in the gaps.

Perhaps you think it would be more successful as a business venture if it was shabby, housed exclusively thrift stores and food banks, and symbolised poverty?

Food banks are a symbol of poverty? I always saw them as a symbol of compassion.

You are consciously equivocating. As pointed out above, "adorning" means the visible decoration of a visible structure, i.e. a church building. The mall that inspires your envy might visibly adorn the SLC landscape, or it might figuratively be said to "adorn" the reputation of the institution that owns it, but it clearly does not adorn a church in the straightforward, literal sense in view.

Well, obviously I don't mean that the mall was bolted onto the side of a temple, or even built near a temple....

Do you?

So, yet again, just what is your interpretation?

Read the thread. I've been very clear. I'm not going to repeat it here for you.

But thank you, by the way, for your uncharacteristically frank admission that, whatever your interpretation might actually be, it is not the only possible one.

Likewise.

H.

[rodheadlee]

So, LDS Toronto, to summarize your posistion. You think we should have not built the mall complex and gave all that money directly to some hungry, homeless people? You think we should have no income producing businesses and divert any money for producing income to the poor. Relying soley upon tithes and donations to build the Church bank account for all operating expenses and donations to the poor.

[LDSToronto]

So, LDS Toronto, to summarize your posistion. You think we should have not built the mall complex and gave all that money directly to some hungry, homeless people?

No. I doubt giving billions directly to the homeless would work.

You think we should have no income producing businesses and divert any money for producing income to the poor. Relying soley upon tithes and donations to build the Church bank account for all operating expenses and donations to the poor.

I never said that either. If the Church is capable of running a business to build a mall, then the church is also capable of raising the money again. Use the money to build *more* schools, educate *more* people, give *more* people clean water, prepare *more* lands for crops, vaccinate *more* people, build *more* homes...

I subscribe to a philosophy of bread, not circuses.

H.

Edited March 26, 2012 by LDSToronto

[KevinG]

If the Church is capable of running a business to build a mall, then the church is also capable of raising the money again. Use the money to build *more* schools, educate *more* people, give *more* people clean water, prepare *more* lands for crops, vaccinate *more* people, build *more* homes...

I subscribe to a philosophy of bread, not circuses.

H.

Build more schools and educate more people - Like the LDS business college housed in the new "mall" because their old facility was aging and not sufficient for students.

Give people more clean water- Like the projects in Africa that students from the church sponsored BYU are doing.

Prepare more land for crops - Like using existing downtown space instead of plowing under the few orchards left in suburban areas of SLC and Provo.

Vaccinate more people - like the tax revenues from downtown businesses will provide to the State of Utah.

Build more homes - like the condos and apartments in the new buildings provide.

What exactly again is the problem with the church privately funding this project with cash during a recession? What changes would you make with the investments that were made by a church you no longer donate to?

Like I said earlier if any other private entity was as generous in improving any downtown area it would be seen as nothing but positive.

[Pahoran]

Sure it does. I just prefer it when you fill in the gaps.

Translation: It doesn't, and you can't show that it does, so you're going to renege (again) and continue to pretend that it does.

Do you perchance, like the knight at the bridge, suppose that you can keep on pretending you're winning as long as you never actually admit defeat?

Food banks are a symbol of poverty? I always saw them as a symbol of compassion.

Now Toronto. As you know, I did not say that food banks are a symbol of poverty. You said the mall was "a symbol of wealth." I merely asked if you'd prefer that it symbolised poverty. Please try to avoid attributing statements to me that I do not make.

Well, obviously I don't mean that the mall was bolted onto the side of a temple

In which case you "obviously" mean something different than the scripture you quoted does.

Thank you for admitting that.

Read the thread. I've been very clear. I'm not going to repeat it here for you.

I have read the thread. You have been "very clear" that you think Mormon 8:37 helps you somehow, but you have not provided your interpretation thereof. If in fact you have done so and I've missed it, please be so kind as to advise the number of the post where I may find your explicitly stated interpretation of the verse.

Surely it's not too much like hard work just posting a number...?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

Each and every time I hear anything along these lines, I think of John 12, and I wonder what would be shown if he who stands in the place of the accuser of the brethren should release his tax documents.

[Pahoran]

Build more schools and educate more people - Like the LDS business college housed in the new "mall" because their old facility was aging and not sufficient for students.

Give people more clean water- Like the projects in Africa that students from the church sponsored BYU are doing.

Prepare more land for crops - Like using existing downtown space instead of plowing under the few orchards left in suburban areas of SLC and Provo.

Vaccinate more people - like the tax revenues from downtown businesses will provide to the State of Utah.

Build more homes - like the condos and apartments in the new buildings provide.

What exactly again is the problem with the church privately funding this project with cash during a recession?

Well, along the way of generating more revenue so that the Church can do more of the very things he wants it to do, only more sustainably, evidently it's beneficial to the Church, and we can't have that.

What changes would you make with the investments that were made by a church you no longer donate to?

To be fair, he's already mentioned some things. In addition to which, perhaps he wouldn't mind if the Church were to use the money to build statues to Harvey Milk or some other notorious pederast that Toronto admires.

Like I said earlier if any other private entity was as generous in improving any downtown area it would be seen as nothing but positive.

No doubt; but H doesn't obsess about the doings of any other private entity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Build more homes - like the condos and apartments in the new buildings provide.

First, more means more. Second, do you *really* think when I said 'more housing' I meant housing for the wealthy?

H.

[LDSToronto]

To be fair, he's already mentioned some things. In addition to which, perhaps he wouldn't mind if the Church were to use the money to build statues to Harvey Milk or some other notorious pederast that Toronto admires.

Ah, a sure sign of a win - you guys have turned to my avatar... Happens every time!

H.

[LDSToronto]

Do you perchance, like the knight at the bridge, suppose that you can keep on pretending you're winning as long as you never actually admit defeat?

I don't view this as a contest - I view it as a discussion.

Now Toronto. As you know, I did not say that food banks are a symbol of poverty. You said the mall was "a symbol of wealth." I merely asked if you'd prefer that it symbolised poverty. Please try to avoid attributing statements to me that I do not make.

No, you clearly stated that putting thrift stores and food banks in a mall would make it a symbol of poverty - "Perhaps you think it would be more successful as a business venture if it was shabby, housed exclusively thrift stores and food banks, and symbolised poverty?"

I have read the thread. You have been "very clear" that you think Mormon 8:37 helps you somehow, but you have not provided your interpretation thereof. If in fact you have done so and I've missed it, please be so kind as to advise the number of the post where I may find your explicitly stated interpretation of the verse.

So, when I stated that I interpret the mall to be an adornment, a la Mormon 8:37, you don't view that as my interpretation? Maybe you'd like to give me an example of what you expect.

You are a tough guy to please, Pahoran.

H.

[selek1]

I don't view this as a contest - I view it as a discussion.

Bull. If it was a discussion, you'd be answering questions rather than simply vomitting up the same smug holier-than-thou talking point.

A "discussion" is an exchange of ideas, rather than hypnotic fugue of a single scurrilous sound byte repeated over and over and over...

Edited March 26, 2012 by selek1

[KevinG]

First, more means more. Second, do you *really* think when I said 'more housing' I meant housing for the wealthy?

H.

More economic activity in a healthy downtown Salt Lake City that goes into the coffers of the LDS Church investment wing means - more. I thought that was abundantly clear.

The last time I checked the wealthy needed homes too?

Perhaps you would be happier if the church put up an inner city housing project. It worked so well in Chicago's Cabrini Green.

The mall project has generated 4000 jobs (2000 which will be permanent) , many in construction during a construction lull (recession). Isn't it better to remove thousands of construction workers from the rolls of the poor than to give them housing?

I don't view this as a contest - I view it as a discussion.

Your behavior does not demonstrate this assertion. It appears as though you are contesting anything the LDS church does despite the good it will bring about.

Tell us H. what would you have done differently with those funds to generate benefit long term if not the project in downtown SLC? Please tell us your specific solutions to the problems you have identified.

[JAHS]

I don't view this as a contest - I view it as a discussion.

No, you clearly stated that putting thrift stores and food banks in a mall would make it a symbol of poverty - "Perhaps you think it would be more successful as a business venture if it was shabby, housed exclusively thrift stores and food banks, and symbolised poverty?"

So, when I stated that I interpret the mall to be an adornment, a la Mormon 8:37, you don't view that as my interpretation? Maybe you'd like to give me an example of what you expect.

You are a tough guy to please, Pahoran.

H.

It doesn't make much sense for people to argue with opinions; because neither one will be wrong in their own minds. What needs to be understood is the intent of what the church is really trying to do; not what it looks like they are doing. It is not the church's intent to adorn itself with costly expenditures to be the envy of the world. They are trying to save the inner city and make it a safe and healthy environment for both the headquarters of the religion and the economy of the people of the community. At the same time they are trying to strike a balance of doing that and at the same time also feeding the hungry and helping the poor and proclaiming the gospel. But everyone is going to have their own opinion on how much effort in each area is the right amount.

[KevinG]

But everyone is going to have their own opinion on how much effort in each area is the right amount.

Exactly right... that is why I've asked a critic of the project what is the right balance in their opinion? I wonder if he will have the courage to state his convictions for discussion instead of taking pot shots at the decisions the church authorities made?

[MorningStar]

Exactly right... that is why I've asked a critic of the project what is the right balance in their opinion? I wonder if he will have the courage to state his convictions for discussion instead of taking pot shots at the decisions the church authorities made?

It doesn't matter what the church does. If it were to give more money to the poor, then it's accused of just trying to convert people. Danged if we do, danged if we don't. The goal is to criticize the church no matter what. We can't even help after a natural disaster without being criticized that we're trying to convert people.

[KevinG]

It doesn't matter what the church does. If it were to give more money to the poor, then it's accused of just trying to convert people. Danged if we do, danged if we don't. The goal is to criticize the church no matter what. We can't even help after a natural disaster without being criticized that we're trying to convert people.

Didn't you know we pray for earthquakes in third world countries so we can get our missionaries in the news?

[KevinG]

Perhaps my CFRs are too subtle.

Toronto - what would you differently than what the church has in Salt Lake City and the world? Specifics please.

[Pahoran]

Ah, a sure sign of a win - you guys have turned to my avatar... Happens every time!

Is that why you chose it?

I don't view this as a contest - I view it as a discussion.

So you are loftily superior to anything competitive -- but you crow loudly as soon as you see something you can call "a sure sign of a win."

Got it.

No, you clearly stated that putting thrift stores and food banks in a mall would make it a symbol of poverty - "Perhaps you think it would be more successful as a business venture if it was shabby, housed exclusively thrift stores and food banks, and symbolised poverty?"

Yes I did. Did you notice the point-by-point?

You said, "The mall, owned and built, by the Church, is well appointed." I asked if you would rather it was shabby.

You said, "It is home to upscale retail outlets." I asked if you would prefer that it housed exclusively thrift stores and food banks.

You said, "It is a symbol of wealth." I asked if you thought it would be better if it symbolised poverty.

I did not say that housing thrift stores and food banks would make it a symbol of poverty. I said that thrift stores and food banks would not be upscale retail outlets.

Now if you still don't get it, I can spell it out in even smaller words. But again, try not to attribute to me statements that I did not make.

So, when I stated that I interpret the mall to be an adornment, a la Mormon 8:37, you don't view that as my interpretation? Maybe you'd like to give me an example of what you expect.

You are a tough guy to please, Pahoran.

Not really. I just expect you to be prepared to do what you demand of others. I remind you that you wrote:

The Book of Mormon seems to condemn the mall; Mormon 8:37 is an example. Please reconcile.

Actually it doesn't. If you think it does, you need to explain why. You don't get to just throw out random references and demand that we entertain you by dancing to your tune.

You are the accuser and wannabe sower of discord. As you have consistently failed to support your accusation, it is clearly without merit.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I debate the assertion that Mr Mac is an upscale retail outlet. Even if they do give you two pairs of pants with each suit jacket.

Ohhh... and its right above that upscale eatery the Golden Arches Supper Club.

(Good thing alterations are free)

Edited March 26, 2012 by KevinG

[wenglund]

It doesn't make much sense for people to argue with opinions...

It also doesn't make sense to pay much mind to opinions that are terribly uniformed (not privy to all the facts and are well outside of the decision-making loop), about matters that are really none of the opiner's business, expressed in ways that are highly resistant to practical, fair, and balanced considerations, in a venue where the expressed opinion has little chance for productive impact, and which seems intended solely to grind an ax and distract attention away from one's own personal failings.

In short, it was a mistake for me to have given H and his ironically uncharitable and small-minded opinion so much undue attention. Since I can see that he is not about to budge from his position, I am okay with, from here on out, leaving him unattended to his relatively harmless, quixotic quest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

It will be interesting to revisit this in five years ago to see how accurate the naysayers over the past several years have been in their doomsday prophecies about City Creek. Of course, by then they'll be nowhere to be found.

It was interesting to be downtown this past week and weekend. I haven't seen it this crowded and festive since the Olympics in 2001.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[MorningStar]

How long has Utah had Nordstrom anyway? It's about time! It is the one true department store. Best return policy ever!