City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[rongo]

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.)

Compared to you comparing yourself to Orson Pratt? Yeah, Gladden Bishop would be more accurate. Not saying that you are off the deep end to that extent (you haven't gone that far by a long shot), but your posting history here places you in the anti-City Creek and the pro-Middle Way™ camp. All while pointing out on numerous occasions that you are a counselor in a bishopric.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Perhaps VISA provided promotional considerations to the Church? (After all, the Church has to make back the quintillions of dollars of tithing money it has invested in the mall somehow, doesn't it?

[Kenngo1969]

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

They joke, people get up-in-arms about it. They're too serious, people get up-in-arms about that, too! What'sa guy/gal gonna do?

[rockpond]

Compared to you comparing yourself to Orson Pratt? Yeah, Gladden Bishop would be more accurate. Not saying that you are off the deep end to that extent (you haven't gone that far by a long shot), but your posting history here places you in the anti-City Creek and the pro-Middle Way™ camp. All while pointing out on numerous occasions that you are a counselor in a bishopric.

I did not compare myself to Orson Pratt. I said that disagreements and discussion can be a good thing and that we, as church members, were on the receiving end of some good discussions as a result of the debates between Young and Pratt. I was not comparing myself to Pratt. To say that I was would be concluding that you are analogous to the prophet.

I don't really appreciate the ad hominem response. And, I don't identify as "Middle Way". I apologize for the inappropriateness of noting my calling - as I noted earlier, I was just trying to counter an argument put forth that active members don't question the finances. I'll go edit it out.

[cinepro]

Well, City Creek is finished and open, so let's look to the future.

Assuming the investment arm of the Church has put at leat $1 Billion dollars into the project, is there any degree of failure that would worry you? Suppose the Church decided to be forthright about any losses; how much would it take for you to express concern?

[Nathair/|\]

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.

Or complaining to the Twelve and FP after every time President J. Golden Kimball came to town.

[volgadon]

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

I've met him a couple of times, he certainly does have a sense of humour.

[cinepro]

I've met him a couple of times, he certainly does have a sense of humour.

I wasn't doubting the sincerity of his humor. I was only questioning the appropriateness of a religious leader being put in the position of even thinking to joke about wanting someone to go to any mall and "bring their Visa".

Suppose the Bishop of a ward worked in real estate development and privately invested in a local shopping center. Would it be appropriate for the Bishop to joke with his members in the hallways of the Church to visit his mall and "bring their Visas"?

[Deborah]

I am going to give a quote from JOD v 12 p 322:

“Has God said anything about temporal riches? Yes. He told this Church, before it was one year old that we should become the richest of all people. His words will be fulfilled. The Lord says we shall not only have the riches of eternity, but we shall have the riches of the earth. God does not care how much wealth His people have, provided they obtain it according to the law he has instituted. Do you suppose that the Lord wants His people to be always bound down with the shackles of poverty, distress and suffering? No. He is willing that you should have your hundreds of thousands. But He wants the riches of His people to be, at all times, in a position to be used, not to aggrandize themselves alone, but for the building up of His latter-day Kingdom here on the earth. We have got that to do. The Lord has decreed in this book that He will consecrate of the riches of the gentiles that embrace His Gospel, unto the poor of His people who are of the House of Israel….

If, then, the remnant of Joseph can furnish us a land of promise on which to dwell, and on which to build our buildings and become strong, ought we not in turn to take those riches which we earn by our own industry, and use them for the redemption of that people? We have got to do it. It is the work on our hands. And if we do it we must rid ourselves of this covetous principle that prompts us to take all that we can grasp, and say, “this shall be for me and my family, that I may aggrandize myself, and have things around me far superior to my neighbors.”

It seems to me that the church is fulfilling its purpose by building temples around the world so that all can receive their endowment and then save their dead. The humanitarian work of the church extends to the poor throughout the world and in every disaster the church is one of the first groups to send rescue. They wealth of the saints is being used to build up and beautify his kingdom and to reach out to the poor, thus fulfilling prophecy and our obligation.

[Cr@ig P@xton]

As an Englishman I confess to having superficially heard of this development in SLC, and that the church was involved financially, but it is difficult to get at the truth from 6,000 miles away.

So I have some questions.

1. What was the reason for the development?

2. How much did the church invest?

3. What did the development entail? (I know there is a Mall, but I also heard something about apartments)

4. Does the Mall operate on a Sunday?

5. Is it nice?

6. Any other information you think relevant

01. To improve the area around temple square which was in decline.

02. It's been reported by church owned Deseret News at upwards of 5 (FIVE) Billion US dollars

03. Complete tear down and rebuild of a 2 block area of downtown SLC into a multi use complex of high end shops, restaurants (open on Sundays) condos and apartments

04. As stated earlier the shops are closed but the restaurants are open AND serve alcoholic drinks (the church being the good businessmen that they are realized early that for this project to be successful they would have to make some consessions in principle)

05 .Yup very nice. At 5 billion...its perhaps the finest of its kind in America. No other mall in America has a trout stocked stream running through the center...

06. Be assured that NONE of your tithing dollars were used in this complex....Evidently the church has other sourses of income other than tithing or interest/investment income from tithing...just don't know what that might be however

[Cr@ig P@xton]

Did I say.....that I love this Mall and am very happy that the church invested so heavily in improving down town SLC...In fact I can't think of a better place for the church to invest their money...and hope that Mormon Mall's will someday dot the earth...

[Deborah]

02. It's been reported by church owned Deseret News at upwards of 5 (FIVE) Billion US dollars

06. Be assured that NONE of your tithing dollars were used in this complex....Evidently the church has other sourses of income other than tithing or interest/investment income from tithing...just don't know what that might be however

More like 1.5 billion. Yes the church does have other sources of income including real estate holdings, business enterprises and donations.

I see you are as snarky as ever.

[rockpond]

More like 1.5 billion. Yes the church does have other sources of income including real estate holdings, business enterprises and donations.

I see you are as snarky as ever.

I believe that P@xton's point in his final point was that those real estate holdings and businesses had to have, at one point, been derived from money/land/materials/labor that was once consecrated to the church.

I have a hard time imagining that people ever donated to the church with the provision that their funds were not being consecrated and could instead be used for commercial or business ventures. That said, I recognize that quite a few people on this board feel that building a mall is a worthy use of consecrated funds because it is building the wealth of the church.

[go_utes01]

I believe that P@xton's point in his final point was that those real estate holdings and businesses had to have, at one point, been derived from money/land/materials/labor that was once consecrated to the church.

I have a hard time imagining that people ever donated to the church with the provision that their funds were not being consecrated and could instead be used for commercial or business ventures. That said, I recognize that quite a few people on this board feel that building a mall is a worthy use of consecrated funds because it is building the wealth of the church.

The Church has always had real estate holdings. Do you think that those who donated would be offended by any use of the interest off their investments be used to solidify the Church's financial position? Do you feel that those who donated would be offended by the wise stewardship of their investments and would want the Church on the verge of bankruptcy at all times? Do you find real estate holdings by the Church per se objectionable, or just believe that investment in downtown SLC is objectionable? Or is it investment in commercial real estate that is the problem? I am positive that the City Creek mall is not the only piece of commercial real estate that the Church has invested in - are all these investments objectionable (or is all investment objectionable)? Just curious what your position is.

[rockpond]

The Church has always had real estate holdings. Do you think that those who donated would be offended by any use of the interest off their investments be used to solidify the Church's financial position? Do you feel that those who donated would be offended by the wise stewardship of their investments and would want the Church on the verge of bankruptcy at all times? Do you find real estate holdings by the Church per se objectionable, or just believe that investment in downtown SLC is objectionable? Or is it investment in commercial real estate that is the problem? I am positive that the City Creek mall is not the only piece of commercial real estate that the Church has invested in - are all these investments objectionable (or is all investment objectionable)? Just curious what your position is.

The church has "always" had real estate holdings? Define always. At some point those holdings were donated to the church or acquired by the church through the sacrifice/labor of members (ex. homesteading).

Do I think that those who donated would be offended by any use of the interest off their investments be used to solidify the Church's financial position? I don't know. Neither of us can know. We also are not permitted to know which investments solidify the Church's financial position and which don't.

I don't find real estate holdings (commercial or otherwise) objectionable. I do struggle with City Creek mall as an investment by the Church given that it does not seem to fit well with many of our values.

My position is that I disagree with the assertion (by some, not all) that the funds used from the church are somehow separate from what I consider to be consecrated assets. For me, all the wealth held by the church is consecrated and should be used to further the mission of the church (my opinion).

And my position is that there ought to be more financial transparency. Especially in areas where the church is going to operate as a commercial business.

[Calm]

I have a hard time imagining that people ever donated to the church with the provision that their funds were not being consecrated and could instead be used for commercial or business ventures.

I disagree. In the past (not that long ago, I remember knowing this as a kid when visiting Grandma in Utah and talking about Utah with my Californian based, Utah born and bred grandparents) with the very public business and welfare holdings the Church has recently divested themselves of all through Utah (ZCMIs, the hospitals, welfare farms, etc.) the knowledge that the Church had a business side would have been quite widespread among those familiar with Utah and anyone donating business real estate, stock, etc. would have likely been aware of that and thus likely could have figured out that such a donation might end up on the business side of the Church's holding and felt perfectly fine about it....the attitude that the Church should separate itself from business things is a recent one (at least in my years) as it was just accepted that the Church had a 'temporal' arm from what I saw. Perhaps others aware of attitudes toward such church business can report if they saw the same.

[rockpond]

I disagree. In the past (not that long ago, I remember knowing this as a kid when visiting Grandma in Utah and talking about Utah with my Californian based, Utah born and bred grandparents) with the very public business and welfare holdings the Church has recently divested themselves of all through Utah (ZCMIs, the hospitals, welfare farms, etc.) the knowledge that the Church had a business side would have been quite widespread among those familiar with Utah and anyone donating business real estate, stock, etc. would have likely been aware of that and thus likely could have figured out that such a donation might end up on the business side of the Church's holding and felt perfectly fine about it....the attitude that the Church should separate itself from business things is a recent one (at least in my years) as it was just accepted that the Church had a 'temporal' arm from what I saw. Perhaps others aware of attitudes toward such church business can report if they saw the same.

Yeah, I can accept that attitude. I guess it's just that the upscale shopping mall rubs me the wrong way (in terms of a church developed business). Whereas hospitals, farms, educational institutions, and even the original form of ZCMI seemed more appropriate for a church. But I do admit to and recognize the subjective nature of what I'm saying.

[Calm]

Yeah, I can accept that attitude. I guess it's just that the upscale shopping mall rubs me the wrong way (in terms of a church developed business). Whereas hospitals, farms, educational institutions, and even the original form of ZCMI seemed more appropriate for a church. But I do admit to and recognize the subjective nature of what I'm saying.

My grandmothers considered shopping at the ZCMI in Salt Lake City as going to the luxury center of Utah. I remember being taken on trips to it by relatives who considered it a special treat.

[Tacenda]

Sometimes I wonder if some members join the church because it's very wealthy and they feel safer in it. It is like a big Mama and Papa church. There is security in it. Especially if our church steps in if America goes bankrupt. Makes me wonder if that's what the church is building up to do, just in case. Atleast my returned missionary son feels this way. Also, the beautiful temples and now the best Mall in America may be dazzling to some. It probably makes one feel pretty special to be able to bask in surroundings such as these. Food for thought...

Edited January 31, 2013 by Tacenda

[go_utes01]

Yeah, I can accept that attitude. I guess it's just that the upscale shopping mall rubs me the wrong way (in terms of a church developed business). Whereas hospitals, farms, educational institutions, and even the original form of ZCMI seemed more appropriate for a church. But I do admit to and recognize the subjective nature of what I'm saying.

So, if the mall were a bit uglier, that would be more in line with your idea of how the Church should invest its money? I agree there is subjectivity in both our opinions, but I like the idea that the Church invests in beautifying downtown SLC - and the new mall is about a billion times more attractive and inviting than the ZCMI center was (I understand this is my subjective opinion). Beauty seems to be an important value for the Church (of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder) - for instance, our temples are some of the most striking architecture in many of the locations they are in. But, if in the end, it all comes down to a subjective opinion that a person does not agree with the Church's investment in the mall, I just don't understand the vitriol that surrounds the topic. Far too many people make far too big a deal out of this issue (at least in my opinion) - and it just adds fuel to the fire for those that already dislike our Church.

[cinepro]

The odd thing is that some members are acting like malls can't be built without a church being heavily involved.

Believe it or not, malls have been built all over the world without a church helping out, and I suspect they will continue to be built in the future without local churches providing financial support. The world of real estate investment and construction is well developed, and the free market has done a great job of rewarding those who make wise investments and punishing those who make foolish investments in malls. If City Creek was a good idea, why was the Church's help needed?

[go_utes01]

The odd thing is that some members are acting like malls can't be built without a church being heavily involved.

Believe it or not, malls have been built all over the world without a church helping out, and I suspect they will continue to be built in the future without local churches providing financial support. The world of real estate investment and construction is well developed, and the free market has done a great job of rewarding those who make wise investments and punishing those who make foolish investments in malls. If City Creek was a good idea, why was the Church's help needed?

The question is whether or not the City Creek Mall would have been built without Church support. The answer is obviously not. The Church owned the ZCMI center mall - you know where City Creek Center is now located.

[Deborah]

Perhaps others aware of attitudes toward such church business can report if they saw the same.

I remember the same. And in fact in the days of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith the business enterprises of the church were very much entwined with the offerings of the members. The purpose was to build a society and help everyone to prosper. And so in fact early church members who contributed and whose funds might have been the foundation of investments would not have minded that they were used to help the area to prosper.

This in fact was part of the conflict Brigham had with Emma because Joseph's personal wealth was tied into the church's wealth and there was no real separation.

[ERayR]

I remember the same. And in fact in the days of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith the business enterprises of the church were very much entwined with the offerings of the members. The purpose was to build a society and help everyone to prosper. And so in fact early church members who contributed and whose funds might have been the foundation of investments would not have minded that they were used to help the area to prosper.

This in fact was part of the conflict Brigham had with Emma because Joseph's personal wealth was tied into the church's wealth and there was no real separation.

It has been my understanding this also caused some problems with Brigham's heirs as his wealth was tied into the church's wealth in the same way.

[halconero]

If Joseph's mercantile business had boomed would that have negated his calling as a prophet?

I had the opportunity to eat a the mall the other day. While there I interacted with people of various ages, nationalities and even religions (I talked with a Hindu refugee), all employed by the mall. As the son of immigrants to Canada I can tell you how important this is for newly arrived people from another country.

As for the idea that all this wealth should have been donated to humanitarian causes? Bad idea.

As I've studied the humanitarian movement the more and more cautious I've become with regards to the idea that throwing money at these organizations or projects solves things in the long run. I like the church's approach to humanitarian aid and community development.

A park would've looked pretty, but it wouldn't have employed very many people. An office building would've generated business but done little to uplift the aesthetic view of downtown SLC. This is a compromise between the two.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, why can't the Church do both things? Be involved in humanitarian and community/business development projects.

As to the secular nature of some aspects of the mall...I can understand concerns, but I disagree with them. I'll get to those later. Bed time.