Bloomberg Does Mormonism

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All this talk about the mall. I for one don't think it an issue and thought it was a really really good idea. I support it. Now what?

What I don't understand is why the nay sayers think this is some sort of smoking gun? So for the mall appears to be a success.

What is wrong with the Church or a Church owning some real estate? That is the question.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Sleeper Cell]

If one refuses to understand or acknowledge that a church is acting like a business when it opens a mall, there is nothing I can say that will change their mind.

I am reminded of the story about the 7 blind men and the elephant.

BTW, what are your feelings about the Church’s 19th century attempts to establish the United Order?

[wenglund]

And churches typically build malls?

The more accurate way to ask this question is: "And privately owned holding companies typically build malls?"

The answer is, many do. Please keep in mind that it was Deseret Management Corp that invested in the mall--among other downtown improvements, and while wholly owned by the Church, is a separate and distinct entity from the Church, with entirely different objectives and priority and methods, and operating in separate domains. To conflate the two is to do both an injustice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[yootaw]

The more accurate way to ask this question is: "And privately owned holding companies typically build malls?"

The answer is, many do. Please keep in mind that it was Deseret Management Corp that invested in the mall--among other downtown improvements, and while wholly owned by the Church, is a separate and distinct entity from the Church, with entirely different objectives and priority and methods, and operating separate domains. To conflate the two is to do both an injustice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In that case I would phrase the question: Is it typical for churches to create privately owned holding companies? I get that many people are comfortable with this, but also acknowledge that it is unusual. Our at least seems to be unusual for many people. I am glad that you are comfortable with this.

[USU78]

In that case I would phrase the question: Is it typical for churches to create privately owned holding companies? I get that many people are comfortable with this, but also acknowledge that it is unusual. Our at least seems to be unusual for many people. I am glad that you are comfortable with this.

It's not only typical, it's pretty much required by the Internal Revenue Code.

If a church were to conflate its church qua church monies and activities with its for-profit monies and activities, it would cease to be a church for IRS purposes.

That would be a bad thing.

Go re-read the ruling on the Deseret Gym employment case. It is instructive.

[why me]

Jesus was a Carpenter. I would imagine that running a carpentry business didn't at all hurt His ability to be our Savior.

Why on earth would His Church owning or promoting a business make it any less a Church?

It's important to take care of the temporal matters so spiritual matters can be addressed.

I think that this has been forgotten. That Christ's father was an independent business owner and that Jesus was helping his father out to support the family. It would seem that Jesus would appreciate small shop owners as found in the mall.

Edited July 16, 2012 by why me

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not only typical, it's pretty much required by the Internal Revenue Code.

If a church were to conflate its church qua church monies and activities with its for-profit monies and activities, it would cease to be a church for IRS purposes.

That would be a bad thing.

Go re-read the ruling on the Deseret Gym employment case. It is instructive.

This needs to be repeated. This is another reason why this is such a non issue.

[yootaw]

Would it be required even if the church wasn't pursuing commercial ventures? I know this question conflates the two entities, but I'm not sure how to separate them in this context. I guess what I'm asking is if the corner church (not lds) has to create a holding company if it is not pursuing commercial for profit business.

[ERayR]

And churches typically build malls?

No not that I know but churches typically invest money. The mall is an investment. An investment that is hoped will provide a decent return on investment. It is also an investment in keeping downtown SLC a clean, attractive and vibrant area.

[USU78]

Would it be required even if the church wasn't pursuing commercial ventures? I know this question conflates the two entities, but I'm not sure how to separate them in this context. I guess what I'm asking is if the corner church (not lds) has to create a holding company if it is not pursuing commercial for profit business.

Well, I suppose a church could just do deposits in banks and earn 0.0065% interest on tithes and offerings not immediately consumed . . .

But I'm unaware of well-run churches who do such things.

A fly-by-night "Joe's Bar and Church" on 650 West North Temple might . . . but not well-run ones.

[ERayR]

I guess you're right, and there isn't any evidence what so ever to support my observations. Case closed. I'm truly sorry I gave my opinion.

Your opinion is fine as long as you realize it is Your opinion and is not binding on the rest of the world.

[ERayR]

In that case I would phrase the question: Is it typical for churches to create privately owned holding companies? I get that many people are comfortable with this, but also acknowledge that it is unusual. Our at least seems to be unusual for many people. I am glad that you are comfortable with this.

Yes it is. The object is to keep for profit holdings separate from church not for profit holdings. Makes it much easier at tax time.

[wenglund]

Yes it is. The object is to keep for profit holdings separate from church not for profit holdings. Makes it much easier at tax time.

This is one of multiple reasons for the separation. Another good reason is so that the Church isn't doing business, but rather doing what it is designed to do--i.e. perfecting the saint, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and helping those in need. The separation exist so that the two entities wont rightly be confused.

Unfortunately, some people either lack the intelligence to grasp this and/or they intentionally and dishonestly conflate the two separate entities for polemical purposes--the Bloomberg article and cover being a case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

This is one of multiple reasons for the separation. Another good reason is so that the Church isn't doing business, but rather doing what it is designed to do--i.e. perfecting the saint, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and helping those in need. The separation exist so that the two entities wont rightly be confused.

Unfortunately, some people either lack the intelligence to grasp this and/or they intentionally and dishonestly conflate the two separate entities for polemical purposes--the Bloomberg article and cover being a case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes that too. They can find good managers and turn over the operation of the for prophet entities to make the operating decisions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I suppose a church could just do deposits in banks and earn 0.0065% interest on tithes and offerings not immediately consumed . . .

But I'm unaware of well-run churches who do such things.

A fly-by-night "Joe's Bar and Church" on 650 West North Temple might . . . but not well-run ones.

Hey USU78, I miss Inego Montoya.

[selek1]

Would it be required even if the church wasn't pursuing commercial ventures? I know this question conflates the two entities, but I'm not sure how to separate them in this context. I guess what I'm asking is if the corner church (not lds) has to create a holding company if it is not pursuing commercial for profit business.

As I understand it- the answer is "yes".

If you look at the very lawsuits between the Anglicans, Episcopals, and the various break-away congregations, they are fighting primarily over properties and real estate held by the various corporations.

The First Baptist Church of Podunk owns its buildings and any appurtenances just like any other corporation. If they are used primarily for non-profit purposes, they are held by one type of corporation. If they are used primarily for non-religious purposes, they are held by another.

The complain that the Church owns for-profit businesses is a red-herring. Lots of church's own colleges, bookstores, farms, and even hospitals.

The real complaint is that we're good at it.

Go back over the thread: every single complaint against the Church is that it is somehow unseemly for a Church to be wealthy (even if that wealth is largely illusory).