City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[rockpond]

How can it be, therefore, that these prophets, seers, and revelators NOT make correct decisions about the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth? And still be prophets, seers, and revelators?

It's happened before. It'll happen again. The difference now is that we aren't given access to the financials so we likely won't know.

And as to those individuals who sacrificed all to cross the plains, you think they are really chapped off right about now about City Creek? What do you think they did when they arrived, anyway? The majority of them received land upon which they proceeded to build homes and farms on, and they planted fruit trees, planted crops, and began raising animals for food and labor. Every single one of them attempted to wrest as much prosperity (and that means MONEY) as they could, as fast as they could, from the land they were given. Do you think that they objected to the Church doing pretty much the same with ITS land? It would seem somewhat hypocritical to do so, in my humble opinion.

I see the role of the church (and its funds) being different from our roles as individual members and our responsibility to work and provide for ourselves.

[rockpond]

"Permitted" or prohibited by whom or what? The church is not the IRS- your tithing status is between you and God, not some bean counter.

You really seem to be going out of your way to be negative.

I would like a Handbook citation for that one on one hand and on the other, it's just a silly idea that the church should pay tithing to itself, which is what you are suggesting would have to happen for the analogy to work.

But all tithing settlement is, is a declaration to the Bishop of our tithing status. Nothing says that it has to be paid even annually. Obviously that is the presumption because anything else would be a bookkeeping nightmare, etc. but I would like to see a citation of anything you can find that says otherwise.

What you do with your tithing is between you and God. If you are lying, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, but you are certainly free to do so, or pay it any way you think is right for you.

Handbook 1, 14.4.1:

"Leaders encourage members to pay tithing as they receive their income. However, members who wish to pay annually may do so."

My point was that as members, we don't take consecrated funds and use them to invest for a profit (on a multi-year basis) because someday we'll do something good with that profit. The suggestion that is being made by some here is that it's great that the church is investing consecrated funds in a shopping mall with that thought that at some point the profits will be used for a greater good. I disagree.

[go_utes01]

Handbook 1, 14.4.1:

"Leaders encourage members to pay tithing as they receive their income. However, members who wish to pay annually may do so."

My point was that as members, we don't take consecrated funds and use them to invest for a profit (on a multi-year basis) because someday we'll do something good with that profit. The suggestion that is being made by some here is that it's great that the church is investing consecrated funds in a shopping mall with that thought that at some point the profits will be used for a greater good. I disagree.

So, the Church should only invest in things that cash-out yearly, is that your point? Or, should the Church not invest at all and make sure every cent is spent with no reserves? Or, maybe the Church should only invest in things that are not profitable?

[rockpond]

The US is not a socialist system. Here we let investors decide what is the best investment for their money, and it is not subject to opinion polls from people who have no understanding of all the issues involved.

In other words, there are those of us who actually trust the leadership, and are actually willing to plunk down 10% of our income and let them do with it what they think best. Those who do not trust them are free to do what they like, and vote with their checkbooks. Perhaps that is the source of the problem right there. Pay it and let them handle it, or don't pay it.

If you don't trust them to do it right, keep your money and stop complaining. The door swings both ways.

Trust, yes. But they aren't monarchs either. That title is reserved for just One. I have no interest in ceasing to pay my tithing. I'd just like to go back to the days when church financials were more transparent.

[rockpond]

So, the Church should only invest in things that cash-out yearly, is that your point? Or, should the Church not invest at all and make sure every cent is spent with no reserves? Or, maybe the Church should only invest in things that are not profitable?

Reserves are important as is reasonable interest on them.

I think I've been fairly clear in this thread that in my opinion the upscale shopping mall does not (as an investment) align well with the mission of the church. Other of the church's investments do. It's just my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.

[blackstrap]

The Church has many investments,a couple of which are large cattle ranches. We are to eat meat sparingly, so according to some,it's time to divest.

[volgadon]

I just noticed this and I am curious if you are talking about "budget" funds, which in the US are determined at least partially by Sacrament attendance and other things OR receiving fast offerings, humanitarian aid, missionary assistance funding etc?

"Budget" is usually used to cover ward activities and not much else- so if a few hundred dollars are necessary for a Relief Society dinner, those would come out of the "Budget" for the ward, but if someone needs help paying the rent, medical bills, utilities, etc. that would come out of "fast offerings" which are ultimately subsidized by the church directly if needed.

I am just curious- because possibly "Budget" is handled differently outside the US.

I won't go into all the details, but budgets and such are handled a little differently according to local conditions.

[Deborah]

Trust in the leaders, yes, I agree. I also believe in the principle of common consent (D&C 26).

You do realize by common consent we sustain our leaders and support them in their stewardships to make such decisions.

[Sky]

Reserves are important as is reasonable interest on them.

I think I've been fairly clear in this thread that in my opinion the upscale shopping mall does not (as an investment) align well with the mission of the church. Other of the church's investments do. It's just my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.

Do you think it would have been better if the Church were to build one big soup kitchen or homeless shelter in the place where City Creek is now? I personally would rather have a place where people live and have meaningful and gainful employment. City Creek fits that bill. It does much more for the economic vitality and morale of the community. And I'm sure the residents in downtown Salt Lake City must appreciate having a grocery store.

Anyway, we're probably not going to agree on this, and I guess that's okay.

But I just want to point out that your disagreement is actually with the leaders of the Church, and by disagreeing, you are putting yourself in the same camp with some of the most bitter ex-Mormons, who have nothing good to say about the Church or its followers. I'm not sure that's where you want to be.

[rockpond]

You do realize by common consent we sustain our leaders and support them in their stewardships to make such decisions.

I agree but I also believe that some level of disclosure on those decisions should be disclosed if we are to properly support them.

We don't have a lot of scriptural revelation on the subject of common consent. So, I agree it's difficult to get a good grasp on what it is and is not. I don't purport to be an expert. Section 104 refers to the United Order and yet it's still in the Doctrine & Covenants so maybe we are meant to learn something from it even though we don't fully live the United Order. Verse 71 says that no part of the treasury should be used or taken out except by the voice of common consent.

Obviously, I don't think that we can or should vote on every withdrawal made by the church. But what I read of the principle of common consent, suggests to me that more financial disclosure by the church ought to be made. I recognize the inherent problems and difficulties with financial disclosure but still feel that we ought to strive to move back to the days when church finances were disclosed. For example, I see the recently published statements on our humanitarian aid as a great step in the right direction.

[rockpond]

Do you think it would have been better if the Church were to build one big soup kitchen or homeless shelter in the place where City Creek is now? I personally would rather have a place where people live and have meaningful and gainful employment. City Creek fits that bill. It does much more for the economic vitality and morale of the community. And I'm sure the residents in downtown Salt Lake City must appreciate having a grocery store.

Anyway, we're probably not going to agree on this, and I guess that's okay.

But I just want to point out that your disagreement is actually with the leaders of the Church, and by disagreeing, you are putting yourself in the same camp with some of the most bitter ex-Mormons, who have nothing good to say about the Church or its followers. I'm not sure that's where you want to be.

Yep, I have disagreements with the leaders of the church. I don't see a problem with that. They are men... mortal, imperfect, fallible like the rest of us. Though probably less fallible and closer to perfect than me -- if there were a scale for such things. I think it's a good thing to have some disagreement and discussion. Some of the most fascinating discussions (in my opinion) on the concept of eternal intelligence(s) came from the disagreements and debates between President Brigham Young and the apostle Orson Pratt.

[Tacenda]

Do you think it would have been better if the Church were to build one big soup kitchen or homeless shelter in the place where City Creek is now? I personally would rather have a place where people live and have meaningful and gainful employment. City Creek fits that bill. It does much more for the economic vitality and morale of the community. And I'm sure the residents in downtown Salt Lake City must appreciate having a grocery store.

Anyway, we're probably not going to agree on this, and I guess that's okay.

But I just want to point out that your disagreement is actually with the leaders of the Church, and by disagreeing, you are putting yourself in the same camp with some of the most bitter ex-Mormons, who have nothing good to say about the Church or its followers. I'm not sure that's where you want to be.

My dad would always say he wished the church would build more places for the elderly, this during my mom's illness with dementia/alzheimer's. This was during the building up for the Winter Olympics, not too sure if the church spent money on this or not! But why wouldn't the church building these places be a good thing? Why not shelters? Assisted Living places make a profit don't they? We could have built some beautiful gardens surrounding the temple, or condos, grocery stores etc. as has already been done. Maybe a gym, movie theatres etc. for an Urban feel. We already had the Gateway Mall. Remember the Deseret Gym? So not too crazy to say. But Tiffany's? I guess there are more wealthy people that I wasn't aware of. But someone spending alot on these things could possible put their money somewhere better. It's gluttenous to me. But I know I should be keeping sweet.

[rongo]

Yep, I have disagreements with the leaders of the church. I don't see a problem with that. They are men... mortal, imperfect, fallible like the rest of us. They are probably less fallible and closer to perfect than me -- if there were a scale for such things. I think it's a good thing to have some disagreement and discussion. Some of the most fascinating discussions (in my opinion) on the concept of eternal intelligence(s) came from the disagreements and debates between President Brigham Young and the apostle Orson Pratt.

But the "disagreements and debates" between President Brigham Young and Gladden Bishop were significantly less so. Which would be a more appropriate analogy with your disagreements with the Brethren than a President and an apostle . . .

[rockpond]

But the "disagreements and debates" between President Brigham Young and Gladden Bishop were significantly less so. Which would be a more appropriate analogy with your disagreements with the Brethren than a President and an apostle . . .

Gladden Bishop claimed that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. He further claimed that he had received a revelation and was to be Joseph Smith's successor. He then (unsuccessfully) tried to lead an uprising to take control of the church from Brigham Young.

Do you think that's an accurate analogy to my feelings that City Creek mall might not have been the most appropriate use of church funds and my suggestion that we should go back to having more financial disclosure in the church? (Just rhetorical, you don't actually have to answer.)

[Teancum]

My point about trusting Church leaders, to be clear, was in response to suggestions that the Church was being dishonest in how money is allocated. When Church leaders specifically state something, I think we should trust that they are not deliberately deceiving the membership. I also specifically stated that people can believe that those whose job it is to prudently invest Church funds (including the real estate arm of the Church) made a mistake on City Creek or make many mistakes, without being "apostate" or evil. I do not believe we are required to accept all actions by the Church as inherently correct. We have the right (responsibility) to question, scrutinize, reason, pray about and find out for ourselves. But, if you believe the Church is systematically trying to deceive the membership, that is a much stronger assertion and I would wonder why you would want to remain a member of such a deceptive organization, let alone continue to donate your money to it.

Thank you for your comments.I don't think there is deliberate deception nor am I worried about financial malfeasence. I am worried about lack of accountability. And I think that without it, it is easy for those handlng the money to make mistakes that they may not if there were transparancy.

[Calm]

We could have built some beautiful gardens surrounding the temple, or condos, grocery stores etc. as has already been done.

There was more than just the mall built and as someone already mentioned there is now a grocery store where there wasn't already. And it hasn't finished in its projects either. This is a great possibility from the wiki:

The City Creek Center project may also eventually include the Global Exchange Place. This building will offer exciting opportunities for Salt Lake City, as a region that is globally aware and engaged. Salt Lake City will benefit by creating a central location to showcase Utah's international abilities and strength into a "Global Exchange Place." A World Trade Center Utah will consolidate the now-scattered government and nonprofit economic development agencies and private sector international service providers as a single premier downtown Salt Lake City location. A conflict resolution and peace studies center will build upon Salt Lake City's Olympic legacy of friendship and goodwill to create a university-associated conflict resolution, mediation and` peace studies center. An International Institute will house an international university campus downtown. This "park-like" campus could include a foreign language institute, international student housing, conference center and central commons area. This project is only a proposal.

I read an engineering magazine's discussion about the building. Quite fascinating in their use of cutting edge technology. I'll see if I can find it. One of the reasons for the high cost was the need to keep the historic buildings intact in the area so they had to build around them requiring some innovative support systems. It was also a 'green' development IIRC....enough so that the Sierra Club praised the project for its care of the environment.

add-on: this is not the article I read IIRC, but it has a lot of the same info in it: http://enr.construction.com/buildings/building_types/2012/0319-65279Joining-Opposite-Sides.asp

Edited January 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

Mfbukowski:

I was generalizing my points for a layman audience but if you want to get into it I am game.

Teancum:

Get into what?

Mfbukowski:

Since when does the church leverage investments?

Teancum:

I don't know if they do or don't. They don't disclose such things.

Mfbukowski:

Do you have examples?

Teancum:

The Church was in significant debt more than once in its history. How they financed the City Creek Mall, whether with debt or just paid it out right I do not know. Nor do you.

Mfbukowski:

Why on earth would the church pay interest to anyone?

Teancum:

Why not? Businesses, and this is a business endeavor, often use debt even if they have cash on hand. It often makes sense to use someone else’s money if the ROI will exceed the interest paid.

Mfbukowski:

How would that be justifiable even to increase investment return?

Teancum:

See above.

Mfbukowski:

And clearly it is doubtful that tithing funds per se are used for such investments or that there really is "one account" for all these investments.

Teancum:

I am not sure what your point is but I sure hope they invest excess tithing funds at least in some sort of safe account like a money market fund so they have some interest earned on it.

Mfbukowski:

For one thing, such investments in a 501c-3 corporation would result in UBI and it would be folly to do that when the church doesn't need to.

Teancum:

NFPs invest all the time without generating Unrelated Business Income. Have you ever heard of an endowment fund? As long as the earnings are uses in relation to the NFPs stated purpose there will be no UBI.

Mfbukowski:

Clearly there must be multiple layers of accounts and entities, and clearly the funds contributed directly to the 501-c-3 entity, or the "tithing funds" whatever entity that is, is not the entity actually making the investments despite what statements have been offered regarding "everything being in one account".

Teancum:

I am not sure what your point is but it is clear you don’t know what you are talking about.

Mfbukowski:

If that is even true, it would only be the central 501c-3 entity which has one huge general account from which all checks are written for day to day operations of the church. Having it all in one entity would make no sense whatsoever, which is what you are implying.

Come on dude, a CPA should know better.

Tenacum:

Huh? I never implied there was one account. There could be one, ten or a hundred. If there are many funds can be transferred from one to another. So what is your point? And I have not studied out the corporate structure of the LDS Church and whether say there is one 501©(3) or more or whether the one owns all other entities both not for profit if there are others, or for profit. And yes and NFP can own the stock of a for profit company as well. So DUDE, this CPA does know better but honestly your post is blowing a lot of smoke. One should not do that and then imply the other does not know what they are talking about.

[Teancum]

That works for the operating funds but not for investment funds due to the tax problems it would cause. So those have to be separate.

Incorrect. Look i have 501©(3) clients. Your understanding of UBI is not correct.

[Teancum]

Nope, that is not accurate. The Church has been in businesses from the beginning and those businesses did not begin by the use of tithing monies. Frankly, bluntly, people can find something to complain about anytime they choose. They can rethink, reassess, re-contextualize, and critique anything and everything. At the end of the day the facts are that "you" were not involved in the decision making process and your opinion actually does not mean a great deal. The decision has already been made long ago. Now, you can choose to the incessant yammering about how you would do it differently, how you could do it better, OR you can choose to have a good day and you can make extra sure that you govern your own finances in the same manner in which you want the Church and everyone else to live by. As for me and my house, I would choose to be concerned about the things that I can control and I choose not to waste energy on things that are none of my business and are not within an area of my own stewardship.

This is sort of like me saying and people can follow like blind sheep and live by the adage of when the leaders speak the thinking has beens onde. That is as offensive as your comments above really.

[Tacenda]

This is sort of like me saying and people can follow like blind sheep and live by the adage of when the leaders speak the thinking has beens onde. That is as offensive as your comments above really.

He better not repeat that statement to Stargazer! Edited January 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Dbl

Edited January 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

Further, as you well know, the Church claims to have prophetic leadership. In fact, at least twice per year (and more like five, given two stake and one ward conferences per year), the membership (and donors) are given the opportunity to sustain 15 men as "prophets, seers and revelators". It is these men who make the decisions on how to disburse the funds of the Church, and their responsibility is to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

How can it be, therefore, that these prophets, seers, and revelators NOT make correct decisions about the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth? And still be prophets, seers, and revelators?

On that point, if you're right, then the Church budget is on par with other less temporal revelations, so let it be known and not just assumed.

[cinepro]

Last year, a good friend in a stake leadership calling relayed this conversation to me:

"I got to speak with Bishop Burton for just a moment. I thanked him for coming and for all he has done for the Church. And, I told him, “Nice job on City Creek.” He said, “Thanks, and be sure to take your VISA card when you go there.”

Even in jest, that just seemed like a really odd comment for a religious leader to make. Even a temporal-religious leader.

[go_utes01]

Last year, a good friend in a stake leadership calling relayed this conversation to me:

"I got to speak with Bishop Burton for just a moment. I thanked him for coming and for all he has done for the Church. And, I told him, “Nice job on City Creek.” He said, “Thanks, and be sure to take your VISA card when you go there.”

Even in jest, that just seemed like a really odd comment for a religious leader to make. Even a temporal-religious leader.

No joking. We need our leaders to be austere and serious at all times.

[rongo]

Last year, a good friend in a stake leadership calling relayed this conversation to me:

"I got to speak with Bishop Burton for just a moment. I thanked him for coming and for all he has done for the Church. And, I told him, “Nice job on City Creek.” He said, “Thanks, and be sure to take your VISA card when you go there.”

Even in jest, that just seemed like a really odd comment for a religious leader to make. Even a temporal-religious leader.

Oh, come on. Sounds like Bishop Burton has a sense of humor.

They can't win, can they? It's like people complaining about Joseph Smith wrestling with kids in the street.