City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[Calm]

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.

At the time, the Feds passed a law that a church could only own so much and out of fear that the church's property would be taken away, there was a trustee appointed IIRC. I don't remember if BY was the first one and then George Cannon? was appointed, who later died so Brigham had to take over or whether Cannon? was the first appointee, but yes, by the time Brigham died it was rather confusing and some of his heirs were very upset.

There was also the issue of some of the leaders having the ability to use church funds for their own investments which may have been considered their own personal property or the Church's after their deaths (or at least Brigham's since he was apparently the one who most availed himself of that) and then repaying the loan without interest....I am grateful the Church figured out better, more efficient and organized ways to run the financial side of things.

Now if I can just remember where I read this the other day, I will provide a link...was it on this board? maybe even this thread...?

Edited January 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stargazer]

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.

Actually, I took him at his word, that he really liked it. Surprising from Mr. Paxton (and how many banned user accounts does he have, anyway?).

[Stargazer]

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.

Your attitude rubs me the wrong way, sorry about that! Would you prefer that the church develop a downscale shopping mall? And what is it about ZCMI that it is somehow more acceptable? That it looks more, what, downscale? Who'd want to go to a downscale mall, anyway? And I am still having trouble imagining what this "upscale" stuff even looks like. They have gold brick pathways or something? Or does it just look clean and well-architected with quality materials? Somebody should go through it daily blowing dust all over everything so it looks more middle class and distressed.

Don't mind me, I just get tired of petty grousing about things.

And this is petty.

[Deborah]

The original ZCMI was the upscale store of its day, so we have followed that model.

[Tacenda]

The original ZCMI was the upscale store of its day, so we have followed that model.

Was the Crossroads Mall also owned by the church? I remember working downtown and shopping at both (spent my paychecks there, young and dumb). They were the big thing in their day!

[Deborah]

Was the Crossroads Mall also owned by the church? I remember working downtown and shopping at both (spent my paychecks there, young and dumb). They were the big thing in their day!

I don't know though I suspect that the real estate belonged to the church. Someone else may know.

[Walden]

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.

You like the church's approach to humanitarian aid? Have you seen the appalling statistics regarding the :LDS churc'sh rate of donation to humanitarain efforts, in comaprison to their vast wealth, versus that of other major Christian religions in this country? It is sad, and nothing to be proud about. I readily admit that the church does a fine job of taking care of their own, but when it comes to humanitarain aid outside the religion, their efforts are weak, to say the least.

And I am sure that if god returns some day to this earth, he will be very pleased that "his" church spent 1.5 billion dollars to beautify SLC and provide employment for SLC natives, while countless millions go hungry throughout the third world. Yes, that sounds right in line with the teachings of his son.

[rockpond]

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.

I love and admire the beauty of City Creek Mall. I definitely would not want the church to make something ugly... and they rarely (if ever) do.

I tend to think the vitriol (if it rises to that level) comes from the magnitude of the investment compared to the published number for humanitarian aid. It appears the the mall investment was more than the church spent on humanitarian causes over the past couple of decades. That is tough for some people to swallow.

And while many rightfully counter that this created jobs and beautified downtown SLC, that is a rather ethnocentric activity for a global church.

For me, it's always been about the nature of the investment and the lack of financial transparency.

[rockpond]

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.

The church could have sold the ZCMI center to a developer.

[go_utes01]

The church could have sold the ZCMI center to a developer.

For a profit? I thought profitable investments were objectionable. Plus, I believe the Church has a vested interest in what is developed next door to temple square - and retaining control over that property into the future is important.

[rockpond]

Your attitude rubs me the wrong way, sorry about that! Would you prefer that the church develop a downscale shopping mall? And what is it about ZCMI that it is somehow more acceptable? That it looks more, what, downscale? Who'd want to go to a downscale mall, anyway? And I am still having trouble imagining what this "upscale" stuff even looks like. They have gold brick pathways or something? Or does it just look clean and well-architected with quality materials? Somebody should go through it daily blowing dust all over everything so it looks more middle class and distressed.

Don't mind me, I just get tired of petty grousing about things.

And this is petty.

I was referring to the original incarnation of ZCMI back in the very early days of the SL valley... the cooperative mercantile.

By upscale I am referring not to the architecture but to the types of tenants and the advertisements showing a woman drinking what appears to be a glass of champagne in a backless dress. The restaurants are open on Sunday. There are multi-million dollar condos that don't have enough bedrooms for your average LDS family. Is all of this what we want our church investing in? If it makes money is that all that matters?

I think there are many, many great benefits derived from the City Creek development. And maybe there were sacrifices that had to be made for those benefits.

[Deborah]

You people who are crying about humanitarian aid apparently aren't living in the real world. The church is often limited in what it can do in many nations due to the governments of those nations. Even with something like Sandy the church was stopped from doing all that it wanted to do. One can't pour money into certain areas of the world because the aid simply wouldn't reach the people and instead goes into the pockets of greedy officials.

[rockpond]

For a profit? I thought profitable investments were objectionable. Plus, I believe the Church has a vested interest in what is developed next door to temple square - and retaining control over that property into the future is important.

Nope, I never said that profitable investments were objectionable. Quite the opposite.

I believe the church does have a vested interest in the vicinity of temple square. And you are clearly happy with how they have exercised their control.

[rockpond]

You people who are crying about humanitarian aid apparently aren't living in the real world. The church is often limited in what it can do in many nations due to the governments of those nations. Even with something like Sandy the church was stopped from doing all that it wanted to do. One can't pour money into certain areas of the world because the aid simply wouldn't reach the people and instead goes into the pockets of greedy officials.

Awesome. Let's go shopping at Tiffany's! I need to do some real world living!

[go_utes01]

Nope, I never said that profitable investments were objectionable. Quite the opposite.

I believe the church does have a vested interest in the vicinity of temple square. And you are clearly happy with how they have exercised their control.

You suggested that the Church sell its ownership in the ZCMI center - how does that comport with your agreement that the Church has a vested interest in controlling the areas around temple square?

[rockpond]

You suggested that the Church sell its ownership in the ZCMI center - how does that comport with your agreement that the Church has a vested interest in controlling the areas around temple square?

I did not suggest that the Church sell its ownership in ZCMI center. Please don't put words in my mouth. The question was asked: How could another entity have developed City Creek if the church owned ZCMI center? I answered that the church could have sold ZCMI center. (emphasis added)

I did not say that they should have sold it as that is not my opinion.

[Tacenda]

You people who are crying about humanitarian aid apparently aren't living in the real world. The church is often limited in what it can do in many nations due to the governments of those nations. Even with something like Sandy the church was stopped from doing all that it wanted to do. One can't pour money into certain areas of the world because the aid simply wouldn't reach the people and instead goes into the pockets of greedy officials.

Not too long ago, they had a story on the news of those affected by Sandy that were living in homes that didn't have finished walls or roofs. They were running their heaters constantly to stay warm or just walking around in blankets etc. I kept thinking it'd be nice for our church to open our church buildings, come what may, for emergency situations where people wouldn't be living under the those circumstances. Maybe just a place to get out of the cold.

[go_utes01]

I did not suggest that the Church sell its ownership in ZCMI center. Please don't put words in my mouth. The question was asked: How could another entity have developed City Creek if the church owned ZCMI center? I answered that the church could have sold ZCMI center. (emphasis added)

I did not say that they should have sold it as that is not my opinion.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Selling the land would have been one option - a bad one, I'm glad we agree on that.

[Deborah]

I kept thinking it'd be nice for our church to open our church buildings, come what may, for emergency situations where people wouldn't be living under the those circumstances. Maybe just a place to get out of the cold.

They did and do.

[mfbukowski]

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.

This is contradictory. It says you have a "hard time imagining X" and then say in the second sentence that X happens all the time- even right here on this board. Are you just saying you have a hard time imagining events which happen all the time? I am not sure what that means.

I am glad the church uses my contributions for whatever it sees fit to do with them, including make money. In fact I hope they use my "consecrated funds" to do so. That means they are good stewards of the Lord's money. It appears others here also feel as I do.

[Tacenda]

They did and do.

Oh good but there were several people in NY that didn't seem to have anywhere to go. I was surprised the people of NY could let this happen.

[rockpond]

This is contradictory. It says you have a "hard time imagining X" and then say in the second sentence that X happens all the time- even right here on this board. Are you just saying you have a hard time imagining events which happen all the time? I am not sure what that means.

I am glad the church uses my contributions for whatever it sees fit to do with them, including make money. In fact I hope they use my "consecrated funds" to do so. That means they are good stewards of the Lord's money. It appears others here also feel as I do.

Yes, clearly contradictory. Not sure what I was thinking as I wrote it. I think I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of consecrating funds so our church can use them in commercial ventures unrelated to the church mission (obviously my opinion).

[Deborah]

Oh good but there were several people in NY that didn't seem to have anywhere to go. I was surprised the people of NY could let this happen.

Not everyone lives near an LDS building and transportation was a problem.

[Calm]

Not too long ago, they had a story on the news of those affected by Sandy that were living in homes that didn't have finished walls or roofs. They were running their heaters constantly to stay warm or just walking around in blankets etc. I kept thinking it'd be nice for our church to open our church buildings, come what may, for emergency situations where people wouldn't be living under the those circumstances. Maybe just a place to get out of the cold.

Who says they don't? I remember when 9/11 happened and people were stranded at airports in Canada for a couple of days and hotels were full, churches including LDS IIRC opened their doors to allow people to stay. I called the number given to offer our home as a place to stay and was told that there was no need left, people had responded so quickly.

In Haiti, there was a misunderstanding with a local leader who understood that the building was supposed to be used only by the emergency responders, not as a refuge, but it was cleared up pretty quickly and the building was opened up like the rest in the area while still serving as an emergency center. However, friends who went down to help stated that the refugees would move outside to sleep at night because they didn't trust any building.

I have heard of church buildings here in Utah and elsewhere being used as evacuation centers in the case of fires and earthquakes and floods. It is one reason that the Church builds their buildings so well, so that they can be used as such.

Edited January 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[Nathair/|\]

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.

Didn't the Church acquire some of it's own land when it first settled Utah? From what I understand, the Salt Lake Valley wasn't even part of any native tribe's territory because nobody wanted it until the Saints built irrigation ditches.