City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[ERayR]

Sounds good. And well done in avoiding a specific answer to the gay wedding reception center question.

You obviously are under the impression that the Church is micro-managing the mall. And what is your objection to a gay wedding reception center?

[rockpond]

You obviously are under the impression that the Church is micro-managing the mall. And what is your objection to a gay wedding reception center?

No, I don't think they are micro managing it. I actually imagine that the bulk of managing is coming from Taubmann (sp?). I do, however, think they were wise enough to know what they were getting into.

And I have no objection to a gay wedding reception center. It would seem to be an odd investment for the church but then again, I think City Creek was an odd investment. The benefit of the gay wedding reception center though, would be some good publicity for the church in regards to its relationship with the LGBT community (IMO). That and weddings seem more in line with a church than shopping. But I know you already think I'm crazy so maybe I shouldn't add that line.

[ERayR]

No, I don't think they are micro managing it. I actually imagine that the bulk of managing is coming from Taubmann (sp?). I do, however, think they were wise enough to know what they were getting into.

And I have no objection to a gay wedding reception center. It would seem to be an odd investment for the church but then again, I think City Creek was an odd investment. The benefit of the gay wedding reception center though, would be some good publicity for the church in regards to its relationship with the LGBT community (IMO). That and weddings seem more in line with a church than shopping. But I know you already think I'm crazy so maybe I shouldn't add that line.

I would think gay wedding reception center would be more in line of being part of the mall and not a stand alone investment for the Church. I think that would be too specialized to make it a stand alone investment.

[rockpond]

I would think gay wedding reception center would be more in line of being part of the mall and not a stand alone investment for the Church. I think that would be too specialized to make it a stand alone investment.

Agreed. Especially in downtown SLC.

[Deborah]

where has the church published both the nature of its City Creek investment and the amount invested?

There were multiple articles at the time of the building which discussed this. They discussed the cost by the church, the purpose and goals. And no I'm not going to look them up.

[rockpond]

There were multiple articles at the time of the building which discussed this. They discussed the cost by the church, the purpose and goals. And no I'm not going to look them up.

I read a number of articles which speculated but none which had authoritative statements from the church regarding how much was spent and the nature of the investment.

My CFR to Sleeper Cell still stands.

[Teancum]

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.

The internal audit report is essentially meaningless as far as financial transparency goes. Deloitte audits BYU and the othe for profit arms of the church. The 501©(3) that is where all church donations go is certainly not audited, nor does it legally have to be because it is a church. Nor does it file a Form 990 again because churches are exempt from such filings. So your post above does not prove anything as far as showing financial transparency from the church.

[Deborah]

Ok, I looked up some stuff which anyone really interested in the subject can do. From http://mormonsinbusi...ty-creek-center

The Church also wanted to present a gift to its hometown—a revitalized downtown that would draw in tourists and improve the economy. The construction project employed more than 1700 people, which helped keep unemployment low during the recession. The project was carried out under the supervision of Taubman Centers, Inc., a leading mall developer....

The Presiding Bishop of the Church, H. David Burton, said one goal was to build economic confidence that would encourage other investors to become involved in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah, and this did happen. Once this project began, other investors began building in order to capitalize on the planned revitalization. As always, the Church did not borrow money to carry out the project. They use money already on hand. Church leaders acknowledged the return on investment would not be very large, given the size of the investment. It is a project an ordinary company would never undertake because it would not bring in enough profit. However, the Church embarks on projects for reasons other than merely making money. There must be greater factors involved, such as revitalizing the area and helping it to stay viable. This project emphasized a number of principles common in Mormon business: a greater purpose, no debt, an environmentally-friendly project, and investment in community with an eye toward long-term viability. When many people work together, cities can revitalize, but it requires the assistance of companies that have a commitment to their city and a reason to give back.

Other articles mention that the fact that the mall was built during the recession actually reduced the cost of building it.It seems to me an inspired project.

[rockpond]

Ok, I looked up some stuff which anyone really interested in the subject can do. From http://mormonsinbusi...ty-creek-center

Other articles mention that the fact that the mall was built during the recession actually reduced the cost of building it.It seems to me an inspired project.

I think that does help clear up some questions from earlier on the thread. SLC revitalization and employment seem to be the key motivations.

But, it does not speak to any financial transparency or provide clarity on the nature of the investment.

[Deborah]

What more do you need on financial transparency. It was taken from already established funds set aside for that purpose and paid for before it was built. Another article talked about how the church puts a certain amount from its business investments into savings and this money was just sitting there when it was decided this would be a good project to put its money in.

[rockpond]

What more do you need on financial transparency. It was taken from already established funds set aside for that purpose and paid for before it was built. Another article talked about how the church puts a certain amount from its business investments into savings and this money was just sitting there when it was decided this would be a good project to put its money in.

I don't "need" anything. But I think it is fair to ask how much was invested and under what terms.

Sleeper Cell made the claim that the church was transparent regarding this investment. I'm just asking him/her for a reference to back up the claim.

[ERayR]

I don't "need" anything. But I think it is fair to ask how much was invested and under what terms.

Sleeper Cell made the claim that the church was transparent regarding this investment. I'm just asking him/her for a reference to back up the claim.

rockpond I think there is one thing you don't understand. Once you give your money to the Church (or any other charity or business) it is theirs and you have relinquished the right to question how they use it. The time to question is before the contribution is given. If you don't get answers that satisfy you then don't contribute but once given it is no longer yours to control.

[rockpond]

rockpond I think there is one thing you don't understand. Once you give your money to the Church (or any other charity or business) it is theirs and you have relinquished the right to question how they use it. The time to question is before the contribution is given. If you don't get answers that satisfy you then don't contribute but once given it is no longer yours to control.

That's not my understanding of the principle of common consent under which we are to operate.

Regarding this thread in particular, I'm simply asking for a reference for Sleeper Cell to back up the claim he/she made. That is not out of bounds for the way this board operates.

It seems that you and I agree... The church is not financially transparent and you feel that is as it should be.

[Deborah]

Then you misunderstand common consent. It isn't a vote and it doesn't require full disclosure. It is saying you will support the person in his calling in whatever office that may be. From LDS.org on common consent:

The principle whereby Church members sustain those called to serve in the Church, as well as other Church decisions requiring their support, usually shown by raising the right hand.

Jesus Christ stands at the head of his Church. Through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he directs Church leaders in important actions and decisions. However, all Church members have the right and privilege of sustaining or not sustaining the actions and decisions of their leaders.

I think you are confusing common consent in the sustaining of church leaders with united consent under the United Order.

[rockpond]

Then you misunderstand common consent. It isn't a vote and it doesn't require full disclosure. It is saying you will support the person in his calling in whatever office that may be. From LDS.org on common consent:

I think you are confusing common consent in the sustaining of church leaders with united consent under the United Order.

I recognize that our understandings of common consent are different. And I know that you and ERayR both feel that the church does not need to have financial transparency.

But Sleeper Cell claims that they have been transparent with respect to City Creek. And you seemed to agree, citing the newspaper articles.

If you want to agree with me that there has not been financial transparency, great. But Sleeper Cell is still required to reference his/her claim or retract it.

[Sleeper Cell]

CFR that the church has published both the nature of its investment in the City Creek development and the amount of money invested.

I did not say that the Church disclosed this information in an “official publication” -- although it may well have done so. I said:

The Church was open about the nature of its investment and the amount of money it invested in the mall

Although technically this answers your CFR, I will give a couple of examples in support of my actual statement.

In the Deseret News (17 March 2012):

The $1.5 billion mixed-use project was developed by City Creek Reserve Inc. (CCRI) — a for-profit real estate company owned by the LDS Church. Including the City Creek project, roughly $4 billion to $5 billion of economic development is currently under way in the downtown area, Bishop Burton said.

In the Deseret News (12 Jan 2012):

Fewer than 60 days remain until the scheduled March 22 grand opening of City Creek Center, a $1.5 billion downtown project that is expected to revitalize Salt Lake City's central business district. …

Taubman will operate the retail portion of the project, which will contain approximately 80 stores and restaurants. …To date, Taubman has invested about $76 million into the project.

I believe that these and many other sources were quoted in one or more of the lengthy City Creek threads that seem to crop up every few months.

　

　

Regarding your comments on SLC... City Creek is a regional mall. It serves the Salt Lake valley, not just the city proper.

My comment was in response to your statement:

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

Of course, it serves the region -- primarily by attracting non SLC residents to shop in SLC, rather than elsewhere (thus creating SLC jobs and generating SLC sales tax revenue, which presumably benefits the residents of SLC more than the non-residents).

You admit that it beautified downtown SLC. Are you suggesting that the benefits (economic or aesthetic) received by those living 20 miles away are comparable to those received by those living in or near downtown SLC?

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.

I don’t believe that I (or the church) ever said that the reason was to benefit local members.. On the contrary, my point was it benefited the predominately non-LDS residents of SLC as well as the LDS minority. The Church has said it undertook this project for a number of reasons -- not just one.

From the 17 March 2012 Deseret News:

The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said one of the main goals of the City Creek project has already been met.

"One of the paramount objectives was to try to instill a sense of economic confidence in investors (interested) in Salt Lake City, and that others would come forward (to) invest in jobs and homes in the downtown area," said H. David Burton, the Presiding Bishop of the church. …

Success of the project will be measured in long-term economic development rather than strictly financially. He said CCRI took on a fair amount of risk in underwriting the development using its own financial resources rather than borrowing, particularly given the limited expected return on investment.

"No one would undertake the City Creek project if the financial rewards were the only thing they were looking at because it will not "pencil out" to great return numbers," Bishop Burton said.

[emphasis added].

Not bad for a bunch of Mammon worshippers.

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear:

[6] And it came to pass in the eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen, and because of their many flocks and herds, and their gold and their silver, and all manner of precious things, which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel.

Alma 4

[53] And now my beloved brethren, I say unto you, can ye withstand these sayings; yea, can ye lay aside these things, and trample the Holy One under your feet; yea, can ye be puffed up in the pride of your hearts; yea, will ye still persist in the wearing of costly apparel and setting your hearts upon the vain things of the world, upon your riches?

Alma 5

[28] Behold, O my God, their costly apparel, and their ringlets, and their bracelets, and their ornaments of gold, and all their precious things which they are ornamented with; and behold, their hearts are set upon them, and yet they cry unto thee and say -- We thank thee, O God, for we are a chosen people unto thee, while others shall perish.

Alma 31

[24] And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

4 Nephi

We're saying the same God whose prophets said these things is the one who wanted His church to build a multi-billion dollar luxury shopping mall across the street from His Temple?

[Sky]

We're saying the same God whose prophets said these things is the one who wanted His church to build a multi-billion dollar luxury shopping mall across the street from His Temple?

So, because the Church made an investment in its community, that means it's puffed up with pride, obsessed with costly apparel and riches, and trampling under its feet the Holy One? Geez.

[Senator]

We're saying the same God whose prophets said these things is the one who wanted His church to build a multi-billion dollar luxury shopping mall across the street from His Temple?

I believe it's in line with the strategy of "making unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness".

.....I think

Edited February 3, 2013 by Senator

[ERayR]

Just so I'm clear:

We're saying the same God whose prophets said these things is the one who wanted His church to build a multi-billion dollar luxury shopping mall across the street from His Temple?

Yep. The same one that had the Children of Israel to take all the riches they could carry out of Egypt when they left.

[rockpond]

I did not say that the Church disclosed this information in an “official publication” -- although it may well have done so. I said:

Although technically this answers your CFR, I will give a couple of examples in support of my actual statement.

In the Deseret News (17 March 2012):

In the Deseret News (12 Jan 2012):

I believe that these and many other sources were quoted in one or more of the lengthy City Creek threads that seem to crop up every few months.

　

　

My comment was in response to your statement:

Of course, it serves the region -- primarily by attracting non SLC residents to shop in SLC, rather than elsewhere (thus creating SLC jobs and generating SLC sales tax revenue, which presumably benefits the residents of SLC more than the non-residents).

You admit that it beautified downtown SLC. Are you suggesting that the benefits (economic or aesthetic) received by those living 20 miles away are comparable to those received by those living in or near downtown SLC?

I don’t believe that I (or the church) ever said that the reason was to benefit local members.. On the contrary, my point was it benefited the predominately non-LDS residents of SLC as well as the LDS minority. The Church has said it undertook this project for a number of reasons -- not just one.

From the 17 March 2012 Deseret News:

[emphasis added].

Not bad for a bunch of Mammon worshippers.

The article doesn't provide a quote of how much the church invested in the project. There is reference to the $1.5B mixed used project (a number I've seen used in many places) but that's not quite disclosure. Are we to assume that CCRI invested the entire $1.5B? Where did CCRI get $1.5B? Or did they just invest $1.5B less the ~$80M that Taubman invested? What about Harmons? Did they invest? Were there other partners besides Harmons & Taubman? And what of the profit split?

I guess the simple answer is to look at it as a non-tithing $1.5B investment by the church which apparently will not product a great return (per Bishop Burton in Sleeper Cell's quoted article). But, it improves the beauty and economic vitality of downtown SLC. That answer obviously works for a lot of people. Great. I wish it worked for me but having worked in commercial development, I guess I strive for a bit more depth.

Even then I'm back to feeling like it doesn't do a whole lot to support our LDS values and it still seems rather ethnocentric for a global church (whether it serves members or non-members and whether they are in or out of downtown SLC).

Oh well. In any case, I appreciate the references you provided. There were interesting and enlightening. Thanks.

[ERayR]

The internal audit report is essentially meaningless as far as financial transparency goes. Deloitte audits BYU and the othe for profit arms of the church. The 501©(3) that is where all church donations go is certainly not audited, nor does it legally have to be because it is a church. Nor does it file a Form 990 again because churches are exempt from such filings. So your post above does not prove anything as far as showing financial transparency from the church.

To reiterate: Once you give your money to the Church (or any other charity or business) it is theirs and you have relinquished the right to question how they use it. The time to question is before the contribution is given. If you don't get answers that satisfy you then don't contribute but once given it is no longer yours to control.

Somehow I get the impression you do not contribute to the LDS Church anyway.

[rockpond]

To reiterate: Once you give your money to the Church (or any other charity or business) it is theirs and you have relinquished the right to question how they use it. The time to question is before the contribution is given. If you don't get answers that satisfy you then don't contribute but once given it is no longer yours to control.

I recognize this as the current policy of our church. And I acknowledge that I don't get to know what happens to my tithes and offerings after giving them to the church. But I believe that financial transparency serves to protect both the church and the leaders. That is why I continue to state my opinion as being in favor of such disclosure.

I don't think Teancum's tithing status should be brought into the discussion.

Edited February 4, 2013 by rockpond

[Alan]

In my view the church is going to have to disclose it's finances to the members before long. It should never have stopped doing so as it is required, according to the D&C.

I think when we see the figures we will be astounded at how much it costs to build and maintain a temple, or even a chapel. For example, I understand the Preston England Temple cost around £50million. That was around $100million at the time.

[cinepro]

Yep. The same one that had the Children of Israel to take all the riches they could carry out of Egypt when they left.

The second great reason why we must make the Book of Mormon a center focus of study is that it was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.

Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. Nephi said: “The Lord God promised unto me that these things which I write shall be kept and preserved, and handed down unto my seed, from generation to generation” (2 Ne. 25:21). His brother Jacob, who succeeded him, wrote similar words: “For [Nephi] said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation” (Jacob 1:3). Enos and Jarom both indicated that they too were writing not for their own peoples but for future generations (see Enos 1:15–16, Jarom 1:2).

Mormon himself said, “Yea, I speak unto you, ye remnant of the house of Israel” (Morm. 7:1). And Moroni, the last of the inspired writers, actually saw our day and time. “Behold,” he said, “the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

“Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing” (Morm. 8:34–35).

If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, “Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?”

The Book of Mormon — Keystone of Our Religion

President Ezra Taft Benson (emphasis added)

Our day indeed...

Edited February 4, 2013 by cinepro