Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Just didn't want to leave any doubt (since neither of us can prove what the early saints would want). I didn't say proof. I said weight of evidence. And it wasn't I who hinted that the memory of the Pioneers is being dishonored. Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 The state and private enterprise can do whatever they want (within legal bounds). The way I see it, if a church investment requires the promotion of activity that is contrary to the standards of the church, maybe we shouldn't be making such an investment.I feel this strange sense of deja vu. Have you mentioned this before?
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Please don't lump all us Utahns in together with the likes of rockpond.(Assuming he's from Utah; I don't know where he's from.)Sorry.
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure who mfbukowski was speaking to with that. I am not from Utah and don't live there.His comment also seems to put up the strawman that somehow the church is controlling visitor impressions of Utah and therefore must run ads that appear to endorse behavior contrary to church standards. At least that's how I read his statement: "Either you want people to feel at home, in a real urban environment, that they are used to, or you want them to think that Utah is a theocracy run by the church where lingerie and alcohol ads are strictly controlled." in the context of our discussion on City Creek. But he is welcome to clarify.Not worth the effort. Sorry for any confusion. I am in favor of advertising the mall to reach its selected audience.I certainly was not saying what you thought I was.I think I'm done. Edited February 1, 2013 by mfbukowski
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Nope. That's a strawman. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.Then I'll say for the record I trust that the Church did a better job of striking a balance and creating an economically viable project than any of the faultfinders would have done. 1
ERayR Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Glad that you know what their wishes were.Its not hard. They gave it to the Church. It is obvious they wanted the Church to use it or they would have given it to somebody else or spent it themselves.
ERayR Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 For those who think the decision to build the City Creek Mall involved some degree of revelation to the leaders of the Church, can you explain how this revelation works?For example, did the leaders pray for guidance, and in response receive divine guidance that a mall and housing development was what God wanted them to do? How detailed was the revelation regarding the size, scope and cost of the project?For example, if God had envisioned something nice but small, and it was error that led to something huge and "high end", how would we know? If God envisioned something nice but closed on Sundays with no alcohol being served, and it was temporal error that led to some tenants being open on Sunday and serving alcohol, how would we know? Could the spirit tell us?And if revelation were involved in the creation of the mall complex, and the final result wasn't what God had in mind, is that a form of apostasy?They all just came to work one day and said gee lets build a mall and things just kind of got out of hand from there. Your questions are inane.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 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.What lack of financial transparency? The Church was open about the nature of its investment and the amount of money it invested in the mall.Ethnocentric? As far as population goes, SLC is probably the least Mormon city in Utah. IIRC, the majority are non-Mormon (even not taking into consideration the fact that many of those on the church membership rolls no longer self-identify as Mormons). A few years ago, SLC had a mayor who wasn’t exactly reticent in publicly taking cheap shots (IMO) against the LDS church.Although the LDS church has always aspired to be a global church, it has only become such fairly recently. I believe that the first stake outside North America was organized only 50 years ago. The first stake in the second most populous country in the world (India) was organized only a few months ago). Until a few years ago, the majority of Mormons still lived in the US. Considering the low activity rates in some of the “high LDS population” countries outside the US, it is possible that there are still more self-identified Mormons in the US than outside.Under the circumstances, one would expect that the Church’s humanitarian aid has grown considerably over the last 20 years. And it apparently has. It is hardly fair to use a 20 year total to judge what the church is doing today. If, for example, it turns out that the church has given more in the last 5 years than in the previous 15, why not simply say that the “mall investment was more than the church spent on humanitarian causes over the past 5 years,” rather than “over the last couple of decades.”Given the trend, I expect that 5 years from now, the church will be spending considerably more in humanitarian aid. I also expect that over the expected lifetime of the mall, the church will spend far more on humanitarian aid that it spent on the mall. And that humanitarian aid will, in part, come from those who, indirectly, benefited from the mall’s vital roll in the economic revitalization of downtown SLC.Comparing the amount of humanitarian aid given by one organization to that given by another is kind of like comparing church membership figures with those of other churches. There is no mutually agreed upon definition of “church member.” Each church has its own definition. Similarly, there is no standard definition of “humanitarian aid.” Apparently, the humanitarian aid figures of the LDS church excludes the considerable aid it gives to its own members. If we are going to do comparisons, aid to members should be included. A needy person is a needy person, regardless of church membership. Then, there is the question of administrative costs and other overhead. Just as one may legitimately question comparative church membership statistics by pointing out that different churches have different activity rates, one may legitimately question comparative humanitarian aid figures by pointing out that different organizations have different overhead costs and their humanitarian programs have different degrees of effectiveness. In short, the question is not how much you spend, it is how much actually gets to the needy and how many of the able bodied recipients are still needy 5 years later. 2
ERayR Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Given the trend, I expect that 5 years from now, the church will be spending considerably more in humanitarian aid. I also expect that over the expected lifetime of the mall, the church will spend far more on humanitarian aid that it spent on the mall. And that humanitarian aid will, in part, come from those who, indirectly, benefited from the mall’s vital roll in the economic revitalization of downtown SLC.And a portion of said aid might very well come from the returns on the mall project.
rockpond Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 And a portion of said aid might very well come from the returns on the mall project.A portion. That would be good. Don't you think we should be sure to re-invest some of the returns in additional commercial development? After reading the Marriott hotel story, I was thinking that maybe the church should follow their lead. If the Supreme Court decides to strike down DOMA and Prop 8, we could do some additional beautifying of downtown SLC by building a nice reception center that caters to gay weddings. If gay marriage becomes legal there will, no doubt, be a lot of pent up demand for such a facility. Could be both profitable and beautiful.
rockpond Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 What lack of financial transparency? The Church was open about the nature of its investment and the amount of money it invested in the mall.Ethnocentric? As far as population goes, SLC is probably the least Mormon city in Utah. IIRC, the majority are non-Mormon (even not taking into consideration the fact that many of those on the church membership rolls no longer self-identify as Mormons). A few years ago, SLC had a mayor who wasn’t exactly reticent in publicly taking cheap shots (IMO) against the LDS church.Although the LDS church has always aspired to be a global church, it has only become such fairly recently. I believe that the first stake outside North America was organized only 50 years ago. The first stake in the second most populous country in the world (India) was organized only a few months ago). Until a few years ago, the majority of Mormons still lived in the US. Considering the low activity rates in some of the “high LDS population” countries outside the US, it is possible that there are still more self-identified Mormons in the US than outside.Under the circumstances, one would expect that the Church’s humanitarian aid has grown considerably over the last 20 years. And it apparently has. It is hardly fair to use a 20 year total to judge what the church is doing today. If, for example, it turns out that the church has given more in the last 5 years than in the previous 15, why not simply say that the “mall investment was more than the church spent on humanitarian causes over the past 5 years,” rather than “over the last couple of decades.”Given the trend, I expect that 5 years from now, the church will be spending considerably more in humanitarian aid. I also expect that over the expected lifetime of the mall, the church will spend far more on humanitarian aid that it spent on the mall. And that humanitarian aid will, in part, come from those who, indirectly, benefited from the mall’s vital roll in the economic revitalization of downtown SLC.Comparing the amount of humanitarian aid given by one organization to that given by another is kind of like comparing church membership figures with those of other churches. There is no mutually agreed upon definition of “church member.” Each church has its own definition. Similarly, there is no standard definition of “humanitarian aid.” Apparently, the humanitarian aid figures of the LDS church excludes the considerable aid it gives to its own members. If we are going to do comparisons, aid to members should be included. A needy person is a needy person, regardless of church membership. Then, there is the question of administrative costs and other overhead. Just as one may legitimately question comparative church membership statistics by pointing out that different churches have different activity rates, one may legitimately question comparative humanitarian aid figures by pointing out that different organizations have different overhead costs and their humanitarian programs have different degrees of effectiveness. In short, the question is not how much you spend, it is how much actually gets to the needy and how many of the able bodied recipients are still needy 5 years later.CFR that the church has published both the nature of its investment in the City Creek development and the amount of money invested.I used the two decade humanitarian aid number because that is what the church has published. If I knew what the church was doing today, I would compare it to that. If you are aware of the church having published additional details, please advise.Regarding your comments on SLC... City Creek is a regional mall. It serves the Salt Lake valley, not just the city proper.If the reason for the investment was to benefit local members, then hopefully such developments in the future will be seen in other communities outside of the Wasatch Front.
ERayR Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 A portion. That would be good. Don't you think we should be sure to re-invest some of the returns in additional commercial development? After reading the Marriott hotel story, I was thinking that maybe the church should follow their lead. If the Supreme Court decides to strike down DOMA and Prop 8, we could do some additional beautifying of downtown SLC by building a nice reception center that caters to gay weddings. If gay marriage becomes legal there will, no doubt, be a lot of pent up demand for such a facility. Could be both profitable and beautiful.No I think they ought to build a Scrooge McDuck money storage bin and hoard it all. 1
ERayR Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 CFR that the church has published both the nature of its investment in the City Creek development and the amount of money invested.I used the two decade humanitarian aid number because that is what the church has published. If I knew what the church was doing today, I would compare it to that. If you are aware of the church having published additional details, please advise.Regarding your comments on SLC... City Creek is a regional mall. It serves the Salt Lake valley, not just the city proper.If the reason for the investment was to benefit local members, then hopefully such developments in the future will be seen in other communities outside of the Wasatch Front.The LDS Church maintains an internal audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that LDS Church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with LDS Church policy. In addition, the LDS Church engages a public accounting firm (currently Deloitte & Touche) to perform annual audits in the United States of its not-for-profit, for-profit, and some educational entities. 2
rockpond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 No I think they ought to build a Scrooge McDuck money storage bin and hoard it all.I thought that was a fair question as I try to understand your position. From what I gather, you are in favor of the church investing for a profit and the investment can encourage activity that does not conform with church standards. So is there something wrong with my hypothetical?
rockpond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 The LDS Church maintains an internal audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that LDS Church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with LDS Church policy. In addition, the LDS Church engages a public accounting firm (currently Deloitte & Touche) to perform annual audits in the United States of its not-for-profit, for-profit, and some educational entities.Yep, I've been watching conference for a good 30 years now (except for the two mission years when it wasn't broadcast to my area of the globe) so I'm familiar with that oft repeated process. While I fully trust that said audit has been performed, it only verifies that church finances have met accounting standards and the church's own policy which is not published to us. So, my CFR for Sleeper Cell still stands: where has the church published both the nature of its City Creek investment and the amount invested?
ERayR Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 I thought that was a fair question as I try to understand your position. From what I gather, you are in favor of the church investing for a profit and the investment can encourage activity that does not conform with church standards. So is there something wrong with my hypothetical?Yes
rockpond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 It was inane and insincere.It was neither. It was very sincere, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
ERayR Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 It was neither. It was very sincere, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.In that case yes they should reinvest some in additional investments. It only makes sense.I had some doubts about your sincerity because of that little snide remark about gay marriage reception centers. Just seemed inappropriate and insincere.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 In that case yes they should reinvest some in additional investments. It only makes sense.I had some doubts about your sincerity because of that little snide remark about gay marriage reception centers. Just seemed inappropriate and insincere.The gay marriage reception center was an important piece of the question. I'm trying to understand what you feel is a valid investment for the church to make. Is it solely based on profitability? Or are their other considerations?
ERayR Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) The gay marriage reception center was an important piece of the question. I'm trying to understand what you feel is a valid investment for the church to make. Is it solely based on profitability? Or are their other considerations?Why is it a problem with you that the Church has investments? Edited February 3, 2013 by ERayR
rockpond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Deleted because of contentSo you basically just draw the line at illegal activities, right? Okay.
ERayR Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 So you basically just draw the line at illegal activities, right? Okay.No I draw the line at moral business ethics. I also draw the line at trying to cram LDS standards down the throats of non LDS. Immoral(by community standards) and illegal activities are definitely out but a coffee shop in the mall doesn't bother me.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 No I draw the line at moral business ethics. I also draw the line at trying to cram LDS standards down the throats of non LDS. Immoral(by community standards) and illegal activities are definitely out but a coffee shop in the mall doesn't bother me.Sounds good. And well done in avoiding a specific answer to the gay wedding reception center question.
Recommended Posts