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

[Tepui]

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.

Why would *each* not matter to you when the sum of them cost far more than a mall?

[Cobalt-70]

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

...

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.

It's hard to complain about how the church runs its finances today, if you understand how things used to work. The church used to be a lot more active in running private businesses. You could have described 19th century Utah as a theocratic socialism, as the church/state owned and operated many of the large (and certainly the most prestigious) businesses.

And there didn't use to be such a concern about the use of tithing. Until the turn of the 20th century, both the bishop and the stake president received a percentage of collected tithing as a salary. (Bishops got at least 8% of collected tithing, which would have added up to a lot of money.) Brigham Young used to freely borrow tithing funds for personal use, interest free, although he usually payed the money back. As a 19th century millionaire, I think that Brigham Young was far wealthier, in comparison to the average 19th century Utahn, than the current President of the Church is in comparison to the average 21st century Utahn. As I understand it, the President of the Church and the Twelve only get paid about as much as the CEO of a small- to mid-size corporation. Yes, they are probably in the 1%, but they are not in the 0.0001% like Young probably was. So there's a lot less for people to complain about than there use to be.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Tepui]

So there's a lot less for people to complain about than there use to be.

I've never heard of people complaining. I must run with the wrong crowds (thankfully) - until I discovered "MORMON DIALOGUE.org"

Apparently, all the complainers believe Church finances should be run as outlined in Ether 9:11.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Tepui

[selek1]

I would like to think that some of those funds tht are being used to fund the Mall actually came from me.

The key words in that statement are now bolded.

The fact is that you don't have any idea, and your fervent wish has no basis in fact.

Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall...

Perhaps because it is a malicious falsehood being repeated by those whose goal is to undermine the Church?

Critics on this matter are no better (and in many instances, a fair sight worse) than those who insist the moon landings were faked.

Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used.

The Church's financial records have been audited (at least) yearly- and no discrepancies have been found.

But the tin-foil hat crowd just can't let go of its obsession.

Why does it matter if tithing funds were used...I'm certainly glad that the church wants to improve the core city by investing 5 billion dollars of their money into the downtown area...certainly no private funds were willing to do so...I say good for them for making SLC an even better place to live (although I do wish it were open on Sundays).

This rationale is all well and good except for one pesky little fact- our leaders (and by extension, the auditors) have assured us that NO TITHING FUNDS WERE USED.

Why is it so hard for you to come to grips with that reality?

[selek1]

In my opinion, all organization that receive tax exempt status are subsidized by tax payers, and therefor as a matter of public policy should be required to open their books to the public.

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.

The fact of the matter is that the Church has already met all of its legal and ethical reporting requirements.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Edited March 24, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I've never heard of people complaining. I must run with the wrong crowds (thankfully) - until I discovered "MORMON DIALOGUE.org"

Don't be fooled, Tepui- there is a lot of gold to be found in this mine- once its sorted from the dross.

If you bother to keep track (for a very long time, I didn't), you'll come to realize that its the same faces who complain. They change their screen names and avatars from time to time- but there really is nothing new under the sun.

Even the complaints, the whinges, and the gripes stay the same.

Especially in this thread, you'll note than not a single critic has offered anything more substantive than "I think", "I feel", "I want", or "I suppose". Their arguments are all predicated on what-if's and their own personal agendas a/o political philosophies.

They are- to a man (no female critics have yet chimed in on the subject)- talking out their hats and venting their spleens.

Had the Church truly been concerned about dealing with the overflowing abundance offered by critics, it might have spent the alleged "5 billion" on a waste-water treatment plant, instead.

But somehow the critics always seem to ramp up to any expanded capacity in that regard,

Apparently, all the complainers believe Church finances should be run as outlined in Ether 9:11.

Actually, it is the critics (rather than the Saints) who follow that particular model- and who then turn around and project their sins and pride upon us.

This was, nonetheless, a salient reference. If I hadn't said it before, Tepui- well done, and welcome to the boards.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

I included members who can and do contribute to charitable causes outside of Church structure; or haven't you ever heard of such a thing?

The "downtowns" of many US cities are crumbling and in despirit need of repair. Some are experiencing a kind of mini rebirth. I am glad for and proud of any efforts of the Church to help the city of Salt Lake.

[LDSToronto]

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?

Yes, I believe that if one has the means, then one has the responsibility to care for those who have little means rather than seeking further material possession.

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.

A church that follows Christ necessarily is morally wrong if they put more money into adornment than they do into caring for the poor and needy. I believe that is true of individuals as well.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 March 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

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.

Nope, you don't even have a little right to complain, at least not in the context of the church. You can of course whine all you want in regards to the secular aspects of the church, but as such it reflects your lack of knowledge as to what it means to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would appear you never really knew what tithing was or what it was about. You complain like someone who doesn't understand what tithing is, which may be part of the reason you never understood what it meant to be a member.

As to your points, it is no more morally wrong for the church to build a building as it is for you to purchase a computer in order to type on the internet. You apparently have discretionary income which you have chosen to withhold from the poor. This makes you something of a myopic hypocrite. Scale doesn't change the basic facts.

In so many ways you remind me of Judas Iscariot. You complain about costs which are not of your concern. Why doesn't the church sell its perfume and give the money to the poor you might ask.....

Well Judas, its like this,

The Church is neither ostentatious, nor is it foolish with the Lord's money. But it does invest in things which continue to enhance different areas. Rather than tent for temple purposes it builds rather nice buildings. Who knows how much good will come from that investment.

Now Toronto:

Would the church build an expensive mall knowing it would lose money? Are you perhaps implying the church leaders are financially stupid? If I might, it seems like basic economics escapes more than a few of those who continually complain about the church in this endeavor, I would propose you suffer from the same lack of ability to discern what is profitable and what isn't.

Then there is the question of the size of the investment, is there an appropriate size to invest or not invest? A dollar? A thousand? A million? A billion? Maybe fifty thousand mllion dollars investments? Would that make Toronto happy?

Don't be ridiculous people.... Nothing will make Toronto happy. He is upset, of course. There is the realization he has no right to complain, he also seems to be unaware of what tithing is (hence his desire that members get upset, not knowing it isn't their money), he isn't sure what is a good investment of a bad one, but thinks this is a bad one.

Now Toronto will call such an investment, done honestly, and openly by the church (the church did not use a fake name or corporation, they did not use another persons name or corporation, they simply invested in what they thought to be a project that could offer an excellent long term return in investment that was profitable. But wait, doesn't Toronto sometimes use fake names to access geneological information? Doesn't he kind of manipulate the system (dishonestly) in order to play games? Who really has the moral struggle here. Who is being the hypocrite here?

[Brian 2.0]

As one of the "critics" on this board (even though I'm actually a questioning member), I don't care that the church decided to build the mall. Investments are investments and I've never had a problem with the church, as big as it is, investing some of the capital is has into ventures that could return money.

The only criticism I have is that I wish the church finances were more transparent and I could see more where funds are going.

[Jeff K.]

A church that follows Christ necessarily is morally wrong if they put more money into adornment than they do into caring for the poor and needy. I believe that is true of individuals as well.

That is false. He should read Matthew 26

[Jeff K.]

LDSToronto:

I included members who can and do contribute to charitable causes outside of Church structure; or haven't you ever heard of such a thing?

The "downtowns" of many US cities are crumbling and in despirit need of repair. Some are experiencing a kind of mini rebirth. I am glad for and proud of any efforts of the Church to help the city of Salt Lake.

The church helps as any organization does. Toronto just wants to complain, even when he has no leg to stand on.

[JAHS]

Yes, I believe that if one has the means, then one has the responsibility to care for those who have little means rather than seeking further material possession.

A church that follows Christ necessarily is morally wrong if they put more money into adornment than they do into caring for the poor and needy. I believe that is true of individuals as well.

H.

The church is trying to strike a logical and fair balance between taking care of the spiritual and sometimes physical well-being of its members as well as giving care to the poor and needy non-members of the world. It is doing both quite successfully I believe. Who can really judge what is enough or not enough. All one can do is express their opinion on it.

[JAHS]

As one of the "critics" on this board (even though I'm actually a questioning member), I don't care that the church decided to build the mall. Investments are investments and I've never had a problem with the church, as big as it is, investing some of the capital is has into ventures that could return money.

The only criticism I have is that I wish the church finances were more transparent and I could see more where funds are going.

Why do you need to see the actual numbers of where the funds are going? This implies you don't trust those who are in charge. I think it is quite obvious where the money goes just by looking at the growth of the church throughout the world. Can you imagine how many different micro-managing opinions there would be from the critics if they actually were to see the numbers? The Church has nothing to hide but critics would somehow manage to use it as more fuel for their fire, not understanding the reasons the church has for handling the funds the way they do.

[Skylla]

Nope, you don't even have a little right to complain, at least not in the context of the church. You can of course whine all you want in regards to the secular aspects of the church, but as such it reflects your lack of knowledge as to what it means to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would appear you never really knew what tithing was or what it was about. You complain like someone who doesn't understand what tithing is, which may be part of the reason you never understood what it meant to be a member.

As to your points, it is no more morally wrong for the church to build a building as it is for you to purchase a computer in order to type on the internet. You apparently have discretionary income which you have chosen to withhold from the poor. This makes you something of a myopic hypocrite. Scale doesn't change the basic facts.

In so many ways you remind me of Judas Iscariot. You complain about costs which are not of your concern. Why doesn't the church sell its perfume and give the money to the poor you might ask.....

Well Judas, its like this,

The Church is neither ostentatious, nor is it foolish with the Lord's money. But it does invest in things which continue to enhance different areas. Rather than tent for temple purposes it builds rather nice buildings. Who knows how much good will come from that investment.

Now Toronto:

Would the church build an expensive mall knowing it would lose money? Are you perhaps implying the church leaders are financially stupid? If I might, it seems like basic economics escapes more than a few of those who continually complain about the church in this endeavor, I would propose you suffer from the same lack of ability to discern what is profitable and what isn't.

Then there is the question of the size of the investment, is there an appropriate size to invest or not invest? A dollar? A thousand? A million? A billion? Maybe fifty thousand mllion dollars investments? Would that make Toronto happy?

Don't be ridiculous people.... Nothing will make Toronto happy. He is upset, of course. There is the realization he has no right to complain, he also seems to be unaware of what tithing is (hence his desire that members get upset, not knowing it isn't their money), he isn't sure what is a good investment of a bad one, but thinks this is a bad one.

Now Toronto will call such an investment, done honestly, and openly by the church (the church did not use a fake name or corporation, they did not use another persons name or corporation, they simply invested in what they thought to be a project that could offer an excellent long term return in investment that was profitable. But wait, doesn't Toronto sometimes use fake names to access geneological information? Doesn't he kind of manipulate the system (dishonestly) in order to play games? Who really has the moral struggle here. Who is being the hypocrite here?

Take a break for name calling, Jeff K.

Skylla

[KevinG]

If any private organization but the LDS church had used cash reserves in order to hire construction companies at a bargain price, who hired private employees, to upgrade their downtown area, provide a new home for two colleges, erect business and housing space, provide ample public parking and erect malls that attracted big anchor stores during a recession...

...I doubt anyone would be complaining.

Now wait for the screaming and wailing if the mall breaks even or increases the churches investment.

Edited March 24, 2012 by KevinG

[Cobalt-70]

The "downtowns" of many US cities are crumbling and in despirit need of repair. Some are experiencing a kind of mini rebirth. I am glad for and proud of any efforts of the Church to help the city of Salt Lake.

But to be fair, it's not like downtown Salt Lake City was a crumbling ruins before the project began. If the City Creek project were really about urban renewal (rather than just a church investment), then there are other parts of Salt Lake City that would need far more attention. What about the Pioneer Park area, a few blocks to the southwest?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[LDSToronto]

The church is trying to strike a logical and fair balance between taking care of the spiritual and sometimes physical well-being of its members as well as giving care to the poor and needy non-members of the world. It is doing both quite successfully I believe. Who can really judge what is enough or not enough. All one can do is express their opinion on it.

And that is all anyone has done.

H.

[MorningStar]

And that is all anyone has done.

H.

But either you believe the Lord is in charge of it or He's not. If He is, there is a good reason for putting money into it and who are we to criticize? If you don't, then you most likely don't pay tithing and it's not your business anyway.

[LDSToronto]

But either you believe the Lord is in charge of it or He's not. If He is, there is a good reason for putting money into it and who are we to criticize? If you don't, then you most likely don't pay tithing and it's not your business anyway.

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

H.

[LDSToronto]

But either you believe the Lord is in charge of it or He's not. If He is, there is a good reason for putting money into it and who are we to criticize? If you don't, then you most likely don't pay tithing and it's not your business anyway.

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?

[LeSellers]

The only criticism I have is that I wish the church finances were more transparent and I could see more where funds are going.

Why... To what end?

Please read Doc&Cov 120. The whole thing is 52 words. It describes the council to whom the Lord gave the charge to dispose of His tithes. My name's not there. I don't see yours, either.

Lehi

[Duncan]

Why... To what end?

Please read Doc&Cov 120. The whole thing is 52 words. It describes the council to whom the Lord gave the charge to dispose of His tithes. My name's not there. I don't see yours, either.

Lehi

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

[JAHS]

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

They did say where it was coming from:

"Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660205772/Downtown-renovation-project.html?pg=2

[Scott Lloyd]

But to be fair, it's not like downtown Salt Lake City was a crumbling ruins before the project began. If the City Creek project were really about urban renewal (rather than just a church investment), then there are other parts of Salt Lake City that would need far more attention. What about the Pioneer Park area, a few blocks to the southwest?

I work downtown. My office used to be right across the street from the ZCMI Center (predecessor to City Creek). Downtown has been pretty bad for quite a few years. And more and more bars were popping up. Some people don't consider that urban blight, but it's definitely out of keeping with a sacred space such as Temple Square.