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

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Seems a reasonable attitude to me. I don't have standing to be concerned with how somebody else spends his personal funds; people who hate the Church or refuse to contribute to it in any way don't have standing to be concerned with how it expends its funds.

[Calm]

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

I think there is a good reason for finances not being transparent. There are many good people out there, my father for one, that have a problem letting go of control or trusting someone else to do the work, carry the burden, etc, especially when it comes to money. My dad would give us gifts of money and other stuff, but with conditions attached of what it was to be spent on or require receipts. It ended up warping our relationship so I said "thanks but no thanks". With individuals like that, often if there were detailed reports on how the money was being used, they would be studying them and still thinking of their "contribution" to the whole, dwelling a bit too much upon it for their own good; it runs the risk of warping their relationship with their leaders or others who have stewardship over church funds and even ultimately the whole community and the Lord.

I think part of the gospel is learning to trust the Lord enough to completely let go and let him do his work when it is time for that. And letting go of the money that goes into tithing and more or less forgetting about it, turning it completely over to someone else is great practice for letting go of other things that are even closer to one's heart and more difficult to release into someone else's care, even the Lord's. I think it can contribute to a feeling of community, being willing to turn over something you value into the hands of another to care for without a second thought about it. I think the way the Church is set up with overlapping but also defined stewardships contributes to learning this ability to trust to a great extent. I am not saying that this is a primary reason for the way the Church is structured and its various policies of delegation and such, I see it as more of a side benefit.

I think there are a lot of things in the Church that are just little nudges here and there that ultimately shape our behaviours in great ways, things we don't usually think of when looking at the effects of a policy or doctrine but that the Lord in his Wisdom is very much aware of and how even the smallest of actions can affect us.

Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Senator]

.. people who hate the Church or refuse to contribute to it in any way don't have standing to be concerned with how it expends its funds.

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

[Calm]

Also I don't see it as essential to believe the church funds are being perfectly managed, especially in just the way the Lord wants them to be. In fact, I know that mistakes are going to be made since humans are involved. The issue for me is not whether or not mistakes with the money are made, but whether or not safeguards are in place to minimize those mistakes and even more so that those responsible will learn from mistakes and grow even better at caring for the Lord's funds and using them as he wants them to be used to the best of their very human abilities. And that I do take on faith to a great extent, but also I see the evidence that the Church's needs are being met in a timely fashion, that good programs that contribute to the welfare of the greater communities are constantly being expanded and that the Church appears to be getting better and better at responding to disasters plus what financial announcements are made are consistent and appear to be based on a solid long term methodology and not on some brainstorming or kneejerk, crisis response strategy (or rather lack of strategy).

[Calm]

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

One could say that members have the right to be concerned, but that we learn to give up the right willingly, in fact covenant to do so and instead give that right to the Lord---the money is the Lord's in our view, not our own, who then delegates the stewardship of his money to others through his representatives. Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[rongo]

My dad would give us gifts of money and other stuff, but with conditions attached of what it was to be spent on or require receipts.

My family has a good friend from Austria who visits us each summer (he has a high-up position for Siemens, and part of his two months of paid vacation are spent with us). He worked for me many years ago, finds the Church fascinating (especially that intelligent people like me and my wife actually believe in things like actual miracles, angels, etc.), and asks many good questions and ponders what he learns. When he gave each of our children some money and asked them jokingly if they would pay tithing on it, he was shocked when they told him, "Of course." This led to a serious discussion, and he probed in a fascinated way if there were some way around this (such as giving "things" instead of money. Would we tithe the value of the "things?" Etc.).

None of which was negative. He's just never met people quite like us before . . . He did find it scandalous that Austrians have to go to Switzerland (Austrians are far above Swiss or Germans) to the temple, and told us tongue in cheek that he would use all of his influence to see that Austria gets its own temple. We told him that the best thing he could do to help us with this is to join the Church. He was fascinated by the stake/ward system in and around Vienna (we gave him meeting times and locations), and he has attended church with us here in the States ---- all three hours.

[bluebell]

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.

You didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask if you believed a person had a moral responsibility to care for the poor and needy (that seems to be obvious). I essentially asked if a person has a moral responsibility to spend all of their money, except for whatever is necessary to take care of the physical needs of themselves and their families, on caring for the poor and needy.

For example, would be immoral for someone to take a vacation (of whatever length and whatever cost) instead of using that money to care for the poor?

I know you feel very strongly that caring for the poor and needy is of huge importance and i'm wondering where you personally draw the line.

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.

I agree. I believe the LDS church agrees as well. I don't believe that a characterization of the city creek mall as just 'adornment' is accurate so i don't really see any reason to defend the church against it.

[Reflexzero]

Well, the church I know and love has a reputation for seeking value for dollars spent. Some may call it being cheap, considering the state of some of our meeting houses, needing to rinse and re- use paper towels when on cleaning detail, etc.

When I look at that very expensive mall, I don't really see value for money allegedly spent, unless it's made out of titanium and was assembled with $400.00 hammers. ( that's a reference to government spending.)

At any rate, if the funding came strictly from the corporate arm of the church, than I suppose we have no need real need for common consent on this line item. The little devil on my left shoulder does point out that while we shouldn't criticize or question our leaders, even if correct, the mall is a business venture, not an ecclesiastical one, aimed to attract spending to downtown SLC. It is fair game for scrutiny, just as any other capital project should be.

[rodheadlee]

The way I see it, supplying jobs for people is caring for the poor. As a life long constuction worker I always enjoyed building stuff for wealthy honest people. If I get hired, my crew gets hired and several families get fed for the duration of the job.

[LDSToronto]

You didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask if you believed a person had a moral responsibility to care for the poor and needy (that seems to be obvious). I essentially asked if a person has a moral responsibility to spend all of their money, except for whatever is necessary to take care of the physical needs of themselves and their families, on caring for the poor and needy.

For example, would be immoral for someone to take a vacation (of whatever length and whatever cost) instead of using that money to care for the poor?

I know you feel very strongly that caring for the poor and needy is of huge importance and i'm wondering where you personally draw the line.

I don't believe it's immoral for a person to take a vacation instead of giving that money to the poor. When you ask me to draw a line, I'm not really certain what you are looking for - are you seeking a percentage, a rule, a dollar value?

I don't believe that individuals need to sacrifice quality of life to feed the poor. What I do believe is that one should not live a life of excess while others live in abject poverty. Next, I'm certain you will ask what I mean by 'life of excess' - for this I point to the scriptures:

“Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.”

While I no longer believe in any covenant I made while I was in the Church, and I don't believe in in eternal torment or hell, I do believe, and always have believed, that individuals are obliged to use abundance to help those who have no abundance. It is a moral obligation to stop suffering especially if that suffering comes because an essential of life is missing in someone's life

Most of us live with modest incomes and thus our excess is limited. We have to make economical decisions regarding how we help those in need. Those who have higher incomes ought to remove excess indulgence from their lives and use that extra to alleviate suffering. It's not an all or nothing question - donate all of one's abundance or you are morally bankrupt.

There is a difference, in my mind, between a private individual with limited means, and an organization with unlimited means. The church itself teaches that one of the most important duites is to care for the poor. And, comparable to most private individuals, the Church has unlimited means. If the Church is Christ's organization, then it follows that the Church should not spend it's abundance on luxury condo's and a shopping mall. Sure, downtown SLC is beautified and a few Utahn's will have work. But is that wise stewardship over that much abundance?

It's not a line, not for me - it's a principle. The Church behaved in a way that is morally unprincipled because it used it's means and abundance

H.

[wenglund]

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

Jeepers, you apparently lack the capacity to realize i was responding to your over-the-top insults (just as I am doing know). Unwitting beams and motes all over again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

It's not a line, not for me - it's a principle. The Church behaved in a way that is morally unprincipled because it used it's means and abundance

H.

Thank you for your explanation. I better understand where you are coming from now. And while i don't believe you are seeing the picture at all clearly, i can certainly respect your opinion (and add an aside that even though you couched the phrase above as a fact, it is of course only an opinion and one i do disagree with).

[bluebell]

The way I see it, supplying jobs for people is caring for the poor. As a life long constuction worker I always enjoyed building stuff for wealthy honest people. If I get hired, my crew gets hired and several families get fed for the duration of the job.

Especially during a recession that has devastated the construction industry, i can only imagine how much the city creek mall project has blessed the lives of hundreds of families that likely would otherwise be un or under employed right now.

I think sometimes people forget that there are many different ways to care for the poor and the needy.

[LDSToronto]

Especially during a recession that has devastated the construction industry, i can only imagine how much the city creek mall project has blessed the lives of hundreds of families that likely would otherwise be un or under employed right now.

I think sometimes people forget that there are many different ways to care for the poor and the needy.

And I think that people sometimes forget that a few billion dollars can go a long way in helping more than just a few thousand Utahns.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Thank you for your explanation. I better understand where you are coming from now. And while i don't believe you are seeing the picture at all clearly, i can certainly respect your opinion (and add an aside that even though you couched the phrase above as a fact, it is of course only an opinion and one i do disagree with).

Questions of morality are always open questions with many complexities. You are correct - I didn't use tentative language any more than those who stand up for the Church use tentative language. I have confidence in my position, just as those who stand opposite me have confidence in their position.

H.

H.

[wenglund]

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.

I think the principle intended to be conveyed here, aside from the church having an obligation, if not greater obligation to care for the spiritually poor and needy as those with temporal needs, is that this investments by the church ought not be considered as money taken from gifts to the poor and needy, but rather as leveraging of gift money so as to increase the churches capacity to provide for the poor and needy (spiritually and temporally), if not also to enable the poor and needy to better provide for themselves. In other words, some of the money used to give fish, has been invested so as to yield more fish and enable the poor and needy to fish.

However, like with Judas Iscariot's complaint that money for the expensive oil used to anoint the Saviors head could have been better spent to feed the poor, it is expected that the chronic busy-bodies and naysayers wont get what I said above, but will find ample occasion to grind their axes on any good the Church may attempt to do, and this even when the Church's doings are really none of the griper's business.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

Questions of morality are always open questions with many complexities. You are correct - I didn't use tentative language any more than those who stand up for the Church use tentative language. I have confidence in my position, just as those who stand opposite me have confidence in their position.

H.

H.

Obviously.

[bluebell]

And I think that people sometimes forget that a few billion dollars can go a long way in helping more than just a few thousand Utahns.

H.

Not when you consider the money that the mall project will bring in for years to come, which can then be spent on other projects (humanitarian and otherwise).

[LDSToronto]

I think the principle intended to be conveyed here, aside from the church having an obligation, if not greater obligation to care for the spiritually poor and needy as those with temporal needs, is that this investments by the church ought not be considered as money taken from gifts to the poor and needy, but rather as leveraging of gift money so as to increase the churches capacity to provide for the poor and needy (spiritually and temporally), if not also to enable the poor and needy to better provide for themselves. In other words, some of the money used to give fish, has been invested so as to yield more fish and enable the poor and needy to fish.

How do we know profit from the mall will be used to help the poor? Please provide a reference.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Not when you consider the money that the mall project will bring in for years to come, which can then be spent on other projects (humanitarian and otherwise).

How do we know that profit from the mall will go towards humanitarian efforts? Please provide a reference.

H.

[wenglund]

How do we know profit from the mall will be used to help the poor? Please provide a reference. H.

Not that it is any of your business, but my reference is the four-fold mission of the Church. Obviously!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

A friend just reminded me of the irony in taking time away from giving to the poor and using it instead to gripe about what the Church is doing in relation to the poor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

How do we know that profit from the mall will go towards humanitarian efforts? Please provide a reference.

H.

I'm simply going off of the church's history in regards to humanitarian efforts. In that regard, i believe that the evidence in favor of my position is stronger than your's, though neither your position nor mine is backed up by proof.

It's all just 'opinion' at the end of the day.

[Brian 2.0]

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.

The men that work in the chruch, handling finances, are still men. Scandals can happen. I know we have an audit every year to prove it's all good, but I think it's good practice for organizations asking for donations to make public those records, it's a fairly standard and common practice. The Catholic chruch does this and it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/transparency-in-church-finances-gives-the-faithful-satisfaction-says-cardinal/

I am NOT saying that everyone needs to have a say in how the finances are distibuted. I'm not advocating voting in gerernal conference on the annual budget. There will be critics that pour over the audit trying to find things here and there, but I don't think it would cause much of a stink. At least one that would be heard beyond boards like these and reach the pews of the general church population.

[JAHS]

The men that work in the chruch, handling finances, are still men. Scandals can happen. I know we have an audit every year to prove it's all good, but I think it's good practice for organizations asking for donations to make public those records, it's a fairly standard and common practice. The Catholic chruch does this and it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

http://www.catholicn...-says-cardinal/

I am NOT saying that everyone needs to have a say in how the finances are distibuted. I'm not advocating voting in gerernal conference on the annual budget. There will be critics that pour over the audit trying to find things here and there, but I don't think it would cause much of a stink. At least one that would be heard beyond boards like these and reach the pews of the general church population.

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-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/DocumentList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=242451&SubsidiaryNumber=0&DocType=AccountList

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/DocumentList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=274605&SubsidiaryNumber=0&DocType=AccountList

Canada (Canada Revenue Agency):

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/basicsearchresult-eng.action?s=registered&k=latter-day&b=true&p=1#pageControl