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

[Cobalt-70]

Ever hear of the Salt Lake Tribune? The critics would start sending in their investigative reports and opinions on the church finances at the slightest hint of a perceived problem.

If you want to see some numbers, the church does disclose its financials in the United Kingdom and Canada where it is required to do so by law.

They are audited by the UK office of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Here are some links to the financial reports. It's not the whole church but it is something. Good luck if you can make any sense out of them :-)

Great Britain:

http://www.charity-c...ype=AccountList

http://www.charity-c...ype=AccountList

Canada (Canada Revenue Agency):

http://www.cra-arc.g...p=1#pageControl

That the church has successfully been transparent in Britain and Canada is an argument in favor of transparency in the United States. If you haven't heard any investigative news reports from the Tribune about the Church's finances in Britain and Canada, why would we expect them if the church became transparent in the United States too?

Plus, if there actually is the appearance of a perceived problem, I think the church would want to know about it, regardless of the source, so that it could avoid the appearance of evil. If the church is seen to respond to a potential problem and correct it, that only increases trust.

[thesometimesaint]

So is perceiving a problem where none exists a problem that the Saints must respond to?

[KevinG]

I'm only surprised that the financial transparency criticism took 16 pages to surface.

[KevinG]

Here is a little light reading for those who want to revisit church accounting practices:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56297-proper-use-of-church-funds/page__hl__finances__fromsearch__1

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56307-accusations-of-lds-general-authority-greed-and-mishandling-funds/page__hl__finances__fromsearch__1

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56123-humanitarian-aid-organization-and-our-church-and-others/page__p__1209060644__hl__finances__fromsearch__1#entry1209060644

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56045-elder-oaks-at-finance-committee-hearing-on-charitable-deductions/page__p__1209057852__hl__finances__fromsearch__1#entry1209057852

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Just a correction: the church is not a corporation. It used to be a corporation, until the LDS Church was dissolved by the Edmonds-Tucker Act of 1887. Since then, it has existed as an unincorporated, nonprofit, charitable association. The church does, however, own several for-profit corporations.

[Cobalt-70]

I see a qualitative difference between a restaurant that serves drinks and a bar whose principal business is the dispensing of alcohol and whose principal clientele are drinkers.

Outside of Utah, drinkers are the principal clientele of any restaurant.

[JAHS]

Just a correction: the church is not a corporation. It used to be a corporation, until the LDS Church was dissolved by the Edmonds-Tucker Act of 1887. Since then, it has existed as an unincorporated, nonprofit, charitable association. The church does, however, own several for-profit corporations.

There are however corporations within the church:

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property.

The Corporation of the President (1923) to receive and manage money and church donations.

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (1997) to hold all the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.

[KevinG]

Outside of Utah, drinkers are the principal clientele of any restaurant.

If by drinkers you mean sweet tea and coffee...

[Cobalt-70]

So is perceiving a problem where none exists a problem that the Saints must respond to?

Yes. If the problem is only perceived, then why not demonstrate that fact and remove a major source of criticism?

[Scott Lloyd]

There are however corporations within the church:

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property.

The Corporation of the President (1923) to receive and manage money and church donations.

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (1997) to hold all the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.

I believe there is also a Property Reserve Inc. that has to do with real estate and such things.

Given the widespread animus against the Church of Jesus Christ (something that has been prophesied, by the way), it makes sense to me that the Church would have some corporate or legal organization. Such a thing gives it strength and, I would suggest, helps make it "clear as the moon, fair as the sun and terrible as an army with banners."

[Scott Lloyd]

Outside of Utah, drinkers are the principal clientele of any restaurant.

So you're saying that the main reason people go into restaurants outside of Utah is to consume booze? I don't buy it.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

So you're saying that the main reason people go into a restaurants outside of Utah is to consume booze? I don't buy it.

Depends... Hooters or McDonalds?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. If the problem is only perceived, then why not demonstrate that fact and remove a major source of criticism?

Because carpers and antagonists will use any trivial or manufactured excuse they think is available to them to harass and vilify the Church of Jesus Christ. This 16-page thread has shown that.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Depends... Hooters or McDonalds?

Last I checked, Hooters wasn't on the City Creek tenant list.

[KevinG]

Last I checked, Hooters wasn't on the City Creek tenant list.

Another potential critique of those snooty Utah Mormons.

Edited March 26, 2012 by KevinG

[Deborah]

Yes. If the problem is only perceived, then why not demonstrate that fact and remove a major source of criticism?

It has been said numerous times, but you have a tendency to ignore what you don't want to hear, that if not this then the critics would find some other avenue of fault-finding. In fact you can bet they would start complaining that this amount of dollars goes to this and that amount goes to this other thing and they wouldn't agree with the disbursement. Oh, wait, they've already done that by saying the church spent more on this mall than humanitarian interests (which has been shown to be false).

[Cobalt-70]

There are however corporations within the church:

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property.

The Corporation of the President (1923) to receive and manage money and church donations.

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (1997) to hold all the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.

These are not corporations "within" the church. They are corporations owned by the church, which is itself unincorporated.

[Cobalt-70]

I believe there is also a Property Reserve Inc. that has to do with real estate and such things.

Given the widespread animus against the Church of Jesus Christ (something that has been prophesied, by the way), it makes sense to me that the Church would have some corporate or legal organization. Such a thing gives it strength and, I would suggest, helps make it "clear as the moon, fair as the sun and terrible as an army with banners."

The church's corporate structure didn't help the it in 1887, when the LDS Church was disincorporated by Congress.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

So you're saying that the main reason people go into a restaurants outside of Utah is to consume booze? I don't buy it.

That's not what I said. I said drinkers are the primary clientele of restaurants outside of Utah. They go into restaurants to eat and drink. Actually, that's often the same reason people go into a bar.

[Cobalt-70]

It has been said numerous times, but you have a tendency to ignore what you don't want to hear, that if not this then the critics would find some other avenue of fault-finding. In fact you can bet they would start complaining that this amount of dollars goes to this and that amount goes to this other thing and they wouldn't agree with the disbursement. Oh, wait, they've already done that by saying the church spent more on this mall than humanitarian interests (which has been shown to be false).

I don't think it helps anyone when we Mormons retreat into martyr mode, and just assume that there is no common ground between us and our critics. If that's always our first reaction, then we have no hope of changing the situation.

[KevinG]

Hold on. Stating that the often observed phenomenon of critics getting what they wanted then complaining about it more is retreating into martyr mode?

That's a strong statement.

[Deborah]

I don't think it helps anyone when we Mormons retreat into martyr mode, and just assume that there is no common ground between us and our critics. If that's always our first reaction, then we have no hope of changing the situation.

Good grief. There is no martyr mode; it's a matter of practicality and fact. We won't change the situation no matter what we do as there are people who hate the church and will always find some reason to find fault.

[wenglund]

On the other hand, some people would have more trust in the church system if there were transparency.

That is debatable (some people are just distrusting regardless, and this at times because of transparency).

However, I don't view it as the church's responsibility to curry the people's trust, particularly in matters that are none of those people's business. The church's responsibility is to trust in God.

I understand, though, that people may not get this, and may think being a busy-body is okay except when someone is a busy-body with them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not what I said. I said drinkers are the primary clientele of restaurants outside of Utah. They go into restaurants to eat and drink. Actually, that's often the same reason people go into a bar.

And I'm saying the primary business of most restaurants -- inside of or outside of Utah -- is the preparation and serving of food, not the sale of alcohol. It's bars, which have little if any other purpose than selling liquor or beer to people, that are incompatible with the environment surrounding Temple Square.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The church's corporate structure didn't help the it in 1887, when the LDS Church was disincorporated by Congress.

We've come a long way since then, in size, strength, prosperity and influence. Those are the things that make the antagonists mad at us. To them, the church is indeed "terrible as an army with banners."

Or they behave as though it were. Thus, they agitate to have our tax-exempt status removed. Thus, under cover of anonymity, these brave souls bash the Church on websites and "reader comment" sections of on-line newspapers and magazines.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd