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

[Deborah]

I seriously wonder if anyone's ancestors even care about this. In the days of Brigham Young, everyone worked to build up communities, including many business enterprises. No doubt the would be happy to see what their efforts have grown into.

[AddamS]

I'm not LDS but my wife's family is.

Point 1:

There have been instances in her family where when someone passes away they leave a portion of their estate to the church to be used as (they believe) 'the Lord sees fit'.

I will freely admit that this may not be common practice as my only experience with the subject comes from her clan. But even if it is uncommon I can't imagine that in over a century and a half donations like this (properly invested) wouldn't be able to cover the cost of the mall ten times over.

There are several examples of other income I can think of similar to this that would technically be "tithing". Considering this, I think it is entirely possible the church is being forthright in the assertion that no tithing dollars go towards investments like this.

Point 2:

The public will probably never know how much money the LDS church spends on charity work vs how much is spent on investments. And even if it did, I'd bet if you counted the volunteer manhours spent on charity projects at minimum wage and missionary work the numbers would be much more palatable to critics (not that it really matters).

Point 3:

Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of members to get them to donate. If members paying into the system are able to trust the actions of those handling their donations it isn't my concern if the funds are buying malls, limosines, or crack. It is simply none of my business.

[wenglund]

I'm not LDS but my wife's family is.

Point 1:

There have been instances in her family where when someone passes away they leave a portion of their estate to the church to be used as (they believe) 'the Lord sees fit'.

I will freely admit that this may not be common practice as my only experience with the subject comes from her clan. But even if it is uncommon I can't imagine that in over a century and a half donations like this (properly invested) wouldn't be able to cover the cost of the mall ten times over.

There are several examples of other income I can think of similar to this that would technically be "tithing". Considering this, I think it is entirely possible the church is being forthright in the assertion that no tithing dollars go towards investments like this.

Point 2:

The public will probably never know how much money the LDS church spends on charity work vs how much is spent on investments. And even if it did, I'd bet if you counted the volunteer manhours spent on charity projects at minimum wage and missionary work the numbers would be much more palatable to critics (not that it really matters).

Point 3:

Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of members to get them to donate. If members paying into the system are able to trust the actions of those handling their donations it isn't my concern if the funds are buying malls, limosines, or crack. It is simply none of my business.

I am very pleased to see that somebody outside the Church gets it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Eagle Scout projects alone are huge.

[LDSToronto]

What I find most interesting is the double standard. Not one of those complaining pays, but they are busybody enough to complain to others who do pay their tithing and do so faithfully.

Up until last year I paid tithing faithfully for my entire adult working life. I paid on my gross income. My wife, too. Between us, we donated enough money to build two homes.

By your standard, I have every right to question the mall.

H.

[JAHS]

AdamS

"Point 1:

There have been instances in her family where when someone passes away they leave a portion of their estate to the church to be used as (they believe) 'the Lord sees fit'.

That does happen quite often in fact there is a church website where people can set up just such donation senarios:

http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/

Edited March 23, 2012 by JAHS

[AddamS]

I am very pleased to see that somebody outside the Church gets it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I knew if I stuck around here long enough I'd find something we would agree on!

[Jaybear]

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.

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.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow. You really are incapable of responding to me without resorting to over the top personal insults. That is both fascinating and sad.

All this bile because I don't believe it makes sound business sense to sink $5billion into luxury condos and a downtown mall in SLC.

Instead of simply accusing me of being profoundly ignorant, why don't you prove it. Put some numbers on the table the show why you think it a good investment.

[Senator]

I do find it amazing that the "financial investment" arm of the church can be so awash in cash in a recessed economy!

[Jeff K.]

Up until last year I paid tithing faithfully for my entire adult working life. I paid on my gross income. My wife, too. Between us, we donated enough money to build two homes.

By your standard, I have every right to question the mall.

H.

Wrong again, when you no longer had confidence you ceased payment. From that point on, you no longer had anything to say or say in the matter. In fact it reflects a certain lack of understanding on your part. Tithing isn't your money, never was. You need to understand it is a small compensation to the Lord for blessings. Apparently you have a somewhat limited abiltiy to comprehend what is being written, I suggest you read my posts more carefully.

You have no right in the matter. End of story

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

I do find it amazing that the "financial investment" arm of the church can be so awash in cash in a recessed economy!

I am sure a number of anti Mormons feel the same way you do. Wow, what a coincidence!

[JAHS]

In 1985 President Gordon B. Hinckley explained a few things relative to this subject:

4. Why is the Church in commercial business of any kind?

Essentially, the business assets which the Church has today are an outgrowth of enterprises which were begun in the pioneer era of our history when we were isolated in the valleys of the mountains of western America. For instance, a newspaper was then needed to keep the people advised of what was going on at home and abroad. The result was the Deseret News, which has been published now for 135 years. In the 1920s, government officials encouraged newspapers to set up radio stations. That was in the infancy of the broadcasting industry. One such radio station was established by the Deseret News here in Salt Lake City. From that has grown, by the natural process of development, holdings of a number of broadcasting properties.

As all of you will recognize, the ability and the facilities to communicate are among our great and constant needs. The ownership of these properties, both newspaper and broadcasting facilities, while they are operated as commercial entities, both directly and indirectly helps us in our responsibility to communicate our message and our point of view.

The Church was a pioneer in the sugar beet industry to help our farmers who needed a cash crop. One of our present properties is an outgrowth of that.

A beautiful hotel was constructed adjacent to Temple Square seventy-five years ago to provide a comfortable hostelry for visitors to this city.

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

(Ensign Nov, 1985)

[AddamS]

I do find it amazing that the "financial investment" arm of the church can be so awash in cash in a recessed economy!

I find it amazing as well. Kudos to the church's financial team. I would much prefer them managing my 401K than my current provider.

[Jeff K.]

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

I am sure it won't matter to the nattering masses of negativity. They will not be robbed of their gossip, nor will they be robbed of their pound of flesh. As they presume it to be.

[LDSToronto]

Wrong again, when you no longer had confidence you ceased payment. From that point on, you no longer had anything to say or say in the matter. In fact it reflects a certain lack of understanding on your part. Tithing isn't your money, never was. You need to understand it is a small compensation to the Lord for blessings. Apparently you have a somewhat limited abiltiy to comprehend what is being written, I suggest you read my posts more carefully.

You have no right in the matter, never had one.

I have lots to say in this matter and I have as much right as anyone else to say it. I could have a long discussion about the blessings of tithing, but that would go astray of the OP.

Maybe I should back up, because ultimately, I couldn't care less how much tithing money the church did or did not use. In fact, I really don't think tithing money was used to pay for the mall. I do think that one could trace back through time and find it was tithing money that funded the businesses that ultimately produced the money to build the mall, but I don't really care about that.

What I contend is that:

1) It is morally wrong for a church to spend billions on a mall (or any structure, for that matter) when that money could be used to help the needy

and

2) Building a mall of such value is an outlandish adornment of the church and boasts of it's wealth.

H.

[Senator]

I find it amazing as well. Kudos to the church's financial team. I would much prefer them managing my 401K than my current provider.

Well, hold on tight then, because JeffK has a missile headin your way.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Senator

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

The Church and its members already contribute untold Billions towards helping the needy. Further while helping the needy is a worthy goal it is not the only function of the Church. You sound like Judas Escariot complaining about the cost of the oils to wash Jesus' feet with.

Actually it is an effort to make the area around Temple Square more appealing to residents and visitors alike, or would you have Church staff and officers work and live around squawler and fiflth?

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto:

The Church and its members already contribute untold Billions towards helping the needy. Further while helping the needy is a worthy goal it is not the only function of the Church. You sound like Judas Escariot complaining about the cost of the oils to wash Jesus' feet with.

Not untold billions. $1.5 billion since 1985. Less than what was spent on the mall.

Actually it is an effort to make the area around Temple Square more appealing to residents and visitors alike, or would you have Church staff and officers work and live around squawler and fiflth?

What do you mean when you say squalor and filth? Was downtown SLC a slum? And where are the homeless and derelict that were contributing to the squalor and filth?

H.

Edited March 23, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Tepui]

I have lots to say in this matter and I have as much right as anyone else to say it. I could have a long discussion about the blessings of tithing, but that would go astray of the OP.

Maybe I should back up, because ultimately, I couldn't care less how much tithing money the church did or did not use. In fact, I really don't think tithing money was used to pay for the mall. I do think that one could trace back through time and find it was tithing money that funded the businesses that ultimately produced the money to build the mall, but I don't really care about that.

What I contend is that:

1) It is morally wrong for a church to spend billions on a mall (or any structure, for that matter) when that money could be used to help the needy

and

2) Building a mall of such value is an outlandish adornment of the church and boasts of it's wealth.

H.

So when the Lord commanded the Nauvoo House to be built, or that city's Temple, or the Temple in Kirtland, it was morally wrong? I seem to have read the poor were very willing to donate of their time and substance to build those buildings. Much more than 10%. As for backing up in time, you nor I know little of how tithing was managed or how the early SL valley was settled. Land has value, and it could very well be the Church then mortgaged the land to -outside of Utah investors/banks- to obtain cash to build up its businesses which profits from were used to pay back the loans - that is tithing was not involved whatsoever. You know. sort of how you leverage yourself to make your mortgage payments without your neighbors paying you 10% to do so.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Tepui

[LDSToronto]

So when the Lord commanded the Nauvoo House to be built, or that city's Temple, or the Temple in Kirtland, it was morally wrong? I seem to have read the poor were very willing to donate of their time and substance to build those buildings. Much more than 10%.

Are you saying that the mall is equivalent to any of those buildings? And further, are you saying that the poor and needy of the church, or of the world, would have gladly contributed funds to have it built?

H.

[Senator]

Are you saying that the mall is equivalent to any of those buildings? And further, are you saying that the poor and needy of the church, or of the world, would have gladly contributed funds to have it built?

H.

That actually spurs an interesing thought. If the building of the mall had been put a worldwide membership vote, I wonder what the outcome would be, especially demographically.

[Tepui]

Are you saying that the mall is equivalent to any of those buildings? And further, are you saying that the poor and needy of the church, or of the world, would have gladly contributed funds to have it built?

H.

You said any buildings. "It is morally wrong for a church to spend billions on a mall (or any structure, for that matter) when that money could be used to help the needy"

[bluebell]

What do you mean when you say squalor and filth? Was downtown SLC a slum? And where are the homeless and derelict that were contributing to the squalor and filth?

H.

It was getting really bad and rather scary actually (at least from a vistor's perspective) and there were many homeless there (I would assume there still are but the last time i was there i didn't see any-honestly could have been a coincidence since i was only there for a few hours) because it's a great place to pan handle with so many people constantly moving through

[LDSToronto]

You said any buildings. "It is morally wrong for a church to spend billions on a mall (or any structure, for that matter) when that money could be used to help the needy"

I think temples and churches are fine. No problem with those. Of course, the aren't billions *each* which is what I was talking about.

H.

[bluebell]

What I contend is that:

1) It is morally wrong for a church to spend billions on a mall (or any structure, for that matter) when that money could be used to help the needy

and

2) Building a mall of such value is an outlandish adornment of the church and boasts of it's wealth.

H.

This is actually an interesting thought.

Do you believe that it would be morally wrong for a person, who believes they have a moral obligation to care for the poor and the needy (regardless of whether that obligation comes from a belief in God or not) to spend thousands of dollars (or millions over a lifetime) on things that go beyond taking care of the immediate needs of their family?

I know that sounds like a gotcha question but i am sincerely asking. It's obvious you feel very strongly about this and i'm wondering where you feel the line is between the moral responsibilities of a church (which is made up of people trying to live up to a specific moral standard) and the moral responsibilities of a person who is also trying to live their life to a specific moral standard.