City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[webbles]

My MIL isn't one to shop there. Her mode of shopping, which isn't often would be the D.I. (Deseret Industries). She didn't say it in so many words but I could tell she was a little disappointed about the mall. She is the most frugal person I know. And she and FIL have a church trust fund that when they die will go to the church.

Depending on when and how they set up the trust fund, the church might get very little from the trust fund.

[ERayR]

How do you know that? Have you seen the church's financials?

[Kenngo1969]

I think protecting the environs of Church headquarters and the SLC Temple from urban decay/blight might be a more apt description.

Nah! The resources of the Church of Jesus Christ would be better utilized "buying fish" for the poor (you've heard that old saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." Of course, once the fish run out, then the Church would need more money to buy more fish. It's too bad that City Creek and the other developments in downtown Salt Lake City don't provide any jobs for anyone, which jobs would then provide income for those people, who, if they were LDS, then could pay more Fast Offerings to help the poor (or, they could even contribute to other charities if they were not LDS and were inclined to do so ... [sigh!] If only!!!.

Oh, wait ...

Yeah, they DO!

Sorry. My bad!

It's funny how people who don't live in Salt Lake City or in Utah (no disrespect intended to you, Bishop Alan: I'm not saying you're necessarily doing this) know enough about the situation in the area to demand that those who do live in the area allow it to degenerate into a slum! Something tells me that if the Church had undertaken only half-hearted redevelopment efforts to renovate and revive downtown, it would catch flak from its detractors for that! Danged if it does, danged if it don't!

Edited January 25, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Alvino]

Have you ever considered that some of the profit that comes from building that mall might generate income that can be used to transform the lives of the poor? Maybe the mall will provide jobs that will keep people from becoming poor. If we took all of the money from the wealthy and spent it on the poor, the poor would probably still be there in a year, but there would no longer be any money to give them.

Let's see. The video showed a quote from an article in the December 2012 Ensign that reads, "If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.” That is a quote from, supposedly, a bishop that the whole article seems to support. It also showed that in Brazil the Church received gold from the dental work of members (who I'm sure needed them less than the Church at the time...). Just to put it in perspective, the Church spent more than twice on the CC mall than it spend on humanitarian aid in the 22 years from 1984 to 2006.

The question to you, Bart, is the following: With regards to the City Creek spending, does that seem in accordance with the spiritual attitude that you should give tithing even when you can't feed your family? Do you think I'm justified in NOT paying my tithing and save it for 5 years to invest it to probably have better returns in the future and give more to the Church?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Alvino

[Calm]

Amado, Evelyn, and Michelle were baptized and confirmed in early June 2011. “From the time that we were baptized,” Evelyn says, “I could feel that everything started to change. My family was united in the Church. We had found the restored gospel. We have had trials and sickness since then, but our Heavenly Father has poured many blessings on us.”

Amado observes: “The first change I noticed was unity in our family. It’s not that we were dysfunctional before, but we started to unite more. The doctrines of the gospel helped us. As Church leaders taught us about the sacredness of the family, we thought more about the value we should place on our family.”

The Vigils’ bishop, César Orellana, also saw changes in their lives. Soon after their baptism, Amado approached Bishop Orellana and said, “We want to pay tithing, but we don’t know how.”

Bishop Orellana explained that tithing was 10 percent of their increase. Amado was somewhat concerned. At the time, Evelyn had a job, but he did not. “We always come up short,” Amado explained to his bishop, “but we want to pay tithing.”

Bishop Orellana responded, “Brother, the Lord has made many promises.” Together they read scriptures about the blessings that come from faithfully paying tithing, including the Lord’s words through the prophet Malachi: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, … and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).

After reading these scriptures together, Bishop Orellana looked at the new convert and said, “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

The next Sunday, Amado approached Bishop Orellana again. This time he didn’t ask any questions. He simply handed his bishop an envelope and said, “Bishop, here is our tithing.”

Reflecting on this experience, Bishop Orellana says, “Ever since then, they have been faithful tithe payers.” The family received some commodities from the bishops’ storehouse during their financial difficulties. Beyond that, the Lord blessed them to be able to care for themselves. Evelyn received a promotion, and Amado found a good job. Evelyn later lost her job, but they continued to pay tithing and to receive spiritual and temporal blessings for their faithfulness. Once Bishop Orellana asked Amado how the family was doing financially. Amado responded, “We’re doing all right. Sometimes we don’t have much to eat, but we have enough. And more than anything, we trust in the Lord.”

After paying tithing for some time, Evelyn and Amado spoke with Bishop Orellana about the blessings they had received. Referring to Malachi 3:10, they said, “We have proven the Lord.” And true to Bishop Orellana’s promise, the Lord never abandoned them.

http://www.lds.org/e...g&query=tithing

I have never heard of a leader who has encouraged a family to pay tithing first in order to be prepared to receive a fuller blessing from the Lord who was not willing to support the family in their commitment to pay tithing and if necessary even give back more in welfare support than was ever paid in tithing from the family. There may be some out there considering that our leadership is composed of very human men, some of whom have twisted ideas on how things should work, but if the stories I've heard are representative, they are a very, very small portion of the leaders out there.

Edited January 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

@calmoriah:

I'm sure you are trying to say something but you aren't. Is what the bishop said false because they were helped by the Church?

The idea that is given sometimes is that believers should pay tithing even if they can't make ends meet because God will ultimately help them. The same thing could be said of the Church when the criticism Bart Burk gave is presented: Why doesn't the Church say, "Let's help as much as we can and the Lord will ultimately help us not go broke"? Why doesn't the Church (which we know will NEVER again be removed form the earth for sure) follow that but individual members are supposed to do so (though we don't know each individual may not starve to death)?

[Calm]

It also showed that in Brazil the Church received gold from the dental work of members (who I'm sure needed them less than the Church at the time...).

Would you have refused the widow's mite telling her she needed it more than the Lord (which would certainly be true if one just looked at the financial cost/benefits)?

[Alvino]

Would you have refused the widow's mite telling her she needed it more than the Lord (which would certainly be true if one just looked at the financial cost/benefits)?

Of course.

[Calm]

@calmoriah:

I'm sure you are trying to say something but you aren't. Is what the bishop said false because they were helped by the Church?

See the additional clarification

The idea that is given sometimes is that believers should pay tithing even if they can't make ends meet because God will ultimately help them.

God has created the law of tithing and placed certain blessings in relation to living that law. The Church in general encourages the people to live that law for their benefit, imo. The Church can help out in financial and physical ways, but it does not have the ability to give the spiritual blessings that God can...whether financially or in other ways, such as family unity, personal growth, etc. OTOH, God can and has promised to do so. I don't see it as an issue for the Church to encourage people to do what is necessary to fulfill their covenants with God and to support them in doing so, such as in helping out with welfare assistance when needed.

[Calm]

Of course.

Your choice then to insist that you knew better than she what was important to her, but according to the scriptures God accepted her offering, respecting her agency, treating her as an adult rather than a child. Edited January 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

calmoriah said:

I have never heard of a leader who has encouraged a family to pay tithing first in order to be prepared to receive a fuller blessing from the Lord who was not willing to support the family in their commitment to pay tithing and if necessary even give back more in welfare support than was ever paid in tithing from the family.

Perhaps, but in this case they would be able to feed their family. I really don't understand how you could be arguing this when it is clear from the article and the context of the story that the point was one of faith even when one sees no way out. IOW, give even when you can't feed your family... God will provide.

There may be some out there considering that our leadership is composed of very human men, some of whom have twisted ideas on how things should work, but if the stories I've heard are representative, they are a very, very small portion of the leaders out there.

Then you disagree with the bishop. Let's say you really have no way of paying tithing and feeding your family. Should you trust in the Lord and pay or be prudent and not pay tithing? "Put me to the test" says the Lord. What sayest thou?

Your choice then to insist that you knew better than she what was important to her, but according to the scriptures God accepted her offering, respecting her agency, treating her as an adult rather than a child.

That she was willing to sacrifice the well-being of her children for God is the wrong way to go for me. I think it is immoral to ask that of anyone and it is immoral to not instruct people that it is wrong. Once Christ knew she was going to give the money, then he should have told her that that was enough; that he had seen her good intentions but that she shouldn't put in such jeopardy the well-being of herself and her children.

calmoriah said:

God has created the law of tithing and placed certain blessings in relation to living that law. The Church in general encourages the people to live that law for their benefit, imo.

which doesn't tell me anything relevant if it is true because you could go either way and accept this as true. One could say testing your faith by having to give when you have very little is for your spiritual good, also.

The Church can help out in financial and physical ways, but it does not have the ability to give the spiritual blessings that God can...whether financially or in other ways, such as family unity, personal growth, etc. OTOH, God can and has promised to do so. I don't see it as an issue for the Church to encourage people to do what is necessary to fulfill their covenants with God and to support them in doing so, such as in helping out with welfare assistance when needed.

Same. None of this is in contradiction with anything relevant I've been saying.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Alvino

[Calm]

One of the many blessings that I have seen given to people for paying a full tithe even in hardship cases is the gift of dignity and a sense of control over oneself and one's situation, something that is sorely lacking for many who exist in poverty, including those that live a relatively decent life due to the charity given to them by governments or other people though their own efforts are not enough to provide such a life.

The law of tithing with its benefits is not something that can be proved to others any more than a testimony of the gospel.

That she was willing to sacrifice the well-being of her children for God is the wrong way to go for me.

That is an assumption based on your own prejudices. I highly doubt she saw it that way myself and I see no reason to privlege your view over hers considering it was her and her family's life and not yours that was impacted by her choice. There are many of us who believe tithing and offerings are an essential part of caring for the wellbeing of our children because by doing so we are inviting God to a partner in that care. If you don't have that trust or don't want to develop that trust, then don't tithe and don't give offerings. Edited January 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Then you disagree with the bishop.

You are misreading me.

As to what anyone should do, that is for them to decide if they are adults and not in the care of others. In my case I would do what I believed the Lord instructed me to do after having prayed and counseled with my family about it. For me and mine, trusting in the Lord is being prudent.

Edited January 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

None of this is in contradiction with anything relevant I've been saying.

I get it. You think you know better than the people who actually have to live the results of their choices, somehow you know what is best for them, what is important to you is what matters, not what is important to them even if it is their lives. You are the mature adult, they are the child for believing something different than you do and they should just do as you say rather than take chances on their own ideas and beliefs and what is important to them.

[Alvino]

One of the many blessings that I have seen given to people for paying a full tithe even in hardship cases is the gift of dignity and a sense of control over oneself and one's situation, something that is sorely lacking for many who exist in poverty, including those that live a relatively decent life due to the charity given to them by governments or other people though their own efforts are not enough to provide such a life.

The law of tithing with its benefits is not something that can be proved to others any more than a testimony of the gospel.

That is an assumption based on your own prejudices. I highly doubt she saw it that way myself and I see no reason to privlege your view over hers considering it was her and her family's life and not yours that was impacted by her choice. There are many of us who believe tithing and offerings are an essential part of caring for the wellbeing of our children because by doing so we are inviting God to a partner in that care. If you don't have that trust or don't want to develop that trust, then don't tithe and don't give offerings.

Wait, now you seem to agree with the bishop. Do you agree or not, then?

The point about not accepting her offering if I were Christ was that people have sometimes rather wicked ideas of what God wants. For example, some believed killing infidels is the right way to go or that human sacrifice of innocent and pure children will do it, etc. These are obviously wrong and immoral things to do even if they believed they were correct. It doesn't matter whether the widow would have thought it was the right way to go; it wasn't.

[Calm]

Please go back and read what I said if you care enough, I am not going to repeat myself.

It doesn't matter whether the widow would have thought it was the right way to go; it wasn't.

Like I said, what is important to you is all that matters, not what is important to the widow. Her faith, her beliefs are meaningless, she is nothing but a child who needs to forget all that matters to her and live by your rules along with the rest of the world; your beliefs and values are the ones that matter and are how things should be done. Edited January 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

You are misreading me.

As to what anyone should do, that is for them to decide if they are adults and not in the care of others. In my case I would do what I believed the Lord instructed me to do after having prayed and counseled with my family about it. For me and mine, trusting in the Lord is being prudent.

....OK. So the Lord might tell some to pay, others not to pay, right? and I'm sure you would say the Lord instructed your leaders to not help the poor with all that money but construct a mall, I would imagine. am I wrong?

[Stargazer]

.

Obviously no I have not seen the financials. Nor did i say the info was complete fabrication. Dont put words in my mouth thank you. And I noted I don't know either way what the church does with its money or how the church mangages it's money. I also noted I have no issue with prudent conservative investments. In fact the churhc would be foolish not to build up assets to protect it for down times and to use such resources for its operations as it sees fit.

As for the money not coming from tithing I did not say that was not true. I said that money is fungible so it does not matter. The church has a big pot of money and can do whatever it wants with it as far as funding its operations. Short in one place? Well take a surplus from a other place. The tithing slip even tells you the church can use your donation for whatever it wants to even though you may put it in one category or another.

Fungible. Every dollar is pretty much identical to any other.

In my state, gasoline taxes are by law ear-marked for highway maintenance and other transportation-related expenses, including the State Patrol. These funds go into a special account in the state treasury, and are spent for the purpose. The state is not allowed to take monies from this account and say, fix the capitol dome. It may take other monies and use them to fix roads. Not vice versa. But money is fungible, you say. Do you then subscribe to the money pit theory of accounting? That the separation of funds is just eye-wash? There are tens of thousands of accountants out there who would laugh themselves silly to hear this. In your own life maybe there is just a money pit. But your life is not the life of a complex entity, and to try to liken one to the other is pretty darned misleading.

II think it quite understandable: the Church used money generated from economic activities, placed into special accounts for the purpose, to finance its share of the project. The money in the account which is filled with tithing money was not tapped. You seem to think that the money in the special activities account is identical with that in the tithing account. But there is no money pit. If the Church didn't have any money in the special activities, then it would not have tapped tithing funds to finance the project. That is how that works.

I am reminded of the story where Judas complains bitterly that some expensive spikenard (worth about 300 denarii, or a year's wages for a workman) should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor, instead of being used by Mary to honor the Savior. WWJD? Well, the Savior rebuked Judas, not Mary. I am sure there are some out there STILL complaining about it. It is possible that some of those are also complaining about that mall.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Stargazer

[Judd]

Once Christ knew she was going to give the money, then he should have told her that that was enough; that he had seen her good intentions but that she shouldn't put in such jeopardy the well-being of herself and her children.

If only He possessed an element of your insight.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Judd

[Alvino]

I am reminded of the story where Judas complains bitterly that some expensive spikenard (worth about 300 denarii, or a year's wages for a workman) should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor, instead of being used by Mary to honor the Savior. WWJD? Well, the Savior rebuked Judas, not Mary. I am sure there are some out there STILL complaining about it. It is possible that some of those are also complaining about that mall.

Oh, brother. I hope you see what you just did here. You treated building a mall just like a direct offering to Christ.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

If only He possessed an element of your insight.

FYI, I'm not a believer. Don't you think it would be better for you to explain why my proposal is not better than Christ's? I won't accept appeals to authority and neither should you if you are looking for understanding.

[Judd]

FYI, I'm not a believer. Don't you think it would be better for you to explain why my proposal is not better than Christ's? I won't accept appeals to authority and neither should you if you are looking for understanding.

Because not being a believer you're requesting this be explained purely on intellectual terms. It would make as little sense to leave out the spiritual component in the discussion as it would for you to surrender all intellect and enter discussion in only spiritual terms. I don't neglect the intellect nor would I tease apart the spiritual. If you're only wanting to discuss the intellect of a spiritual matter, to where do we find common ground to exchange ideas?

i.e. you're requesting an appeal to reason alone This is perfectly fine, but about as appropriate as me requesting an appeal to authority alone, though I'm not sure you're seeing that argument as such.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Judd

[Stargazer]

Oh, brother. I hope you see what you just did here. You treated building a mall just like a direct offering to Christ.

Only if you consider tithing funds the same thing as business income. Which I am sure you do.

Mary took her personally owned spikenard and used it to honor Jesus. Judas chided her for it, when the spikenard wasn't his and had not been donated for the purpose of taking care of the poor in the first place.

The Church took its business-generated income and used it to invest in another business and also beautify the Church's headquarters city, for the benefit of all who live in SLC and who visit it, regardless of religious persuasion. Some people here and there decry this action in the same spirit as Judas decrying Mary's use of expensive spikenard.

In no way have I treated building a mall as the equivalent of an offering to Christ. I cannot control if you nevertheless insist upon seeing an equivalence.

[rockpond]

Fungible. Every dollar is pretty much identical to any other.

In my state, gasoline taxes are by law ear-marked for highway maintenance and other transportation-related expenses, including the State Patrol. These funds go into a special account in the state treasury, and are spent for the purpose. The state is not allowed to take monies from this account and say, fix the capitol dome. It may take other monies and use them to fix roads. Not vice versa. But money is fungible, you say. Do you then subscribe to the money pit theory of accounting? That the separation of funds is just eye-wash? There are tens of thousands of accountants out there who would laugh themselves silly to hear this. In your own life maybe there is just a money pit. But your life is not the life of a complex entity, and to try to liken one to the other is pretty darned misleading.

II think it quite understandable: the Church used money generated from economic activities, placed into special accounts for the purpose, to finance its share of the project. The money in the account which is filled with tithing money was not tapped. You seem to think that the money in the special activities account is identical with that in the tithing account. But there is no money pit. If the Church didn't have any money in the special activities, then it would not have tapped tithing funds to finance the project. That is how that works.

I am reminded of the story where Judas complains bitterly that some expensive spikenard (worth about 300 denarii, or a year's wages for a workman) should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor, instead of being used by Mary to honor the Savior. WWJD? Well, the Savior rebuked Judas, not Mary. I am sure there are some out there STILL complaining about it. It is possible that some of those are also complaining about that mall.

The problem I see with your gasoline tax analogy and your argument that the church has special funds that *aren't* tithing is that ultimately everything the church has was donated to it through individuals who we assume were contributing to build the kingdom of God on earth.

Maybe I'm assuming to much. Are there individuals who sacrificed all to cross the plains so that the church could own land in the Salt Lake valley that would eventually provide it with the wealth to build an upscale mall?

I believe the Brethren when they say that no tithing was spent. But what was spent was donated either in cash or in kind at some point in the history of the church.

I get the argument about preventing deterioration of downtown SLC. But I struggle with the thought that a mall was the best idea that the one true and living church could come up with. What about education, research, international outreach?

The mall doesn't represent the values we hold dear. It doesn't promote them to the world. City Creek billboards & ads are already known for containing pictures that clearly don't represent LDS standards.

And I don't think it's fair to argue the mall as an investment that will pay dividends in future. First, because in the absence of church financials, we will never know. And second, at what point are we to know that those dividends will be used to help the less fortunate as opposed to just being reinvested in the next project?

[Alvino]

Only if you consider tithing funds the same thing as business income. Which I am sure you do.

No, because tithings are not direct offerings to Christ. You used the example of an expensive direct offering to Christ while he was here (which he specifically says it is justified because he is bodily there) to imply similar treatment applies to building a shopping mall. That's the equivalence.

Mary took her personally owned spikenard and used it to honor Jesus. Judas chided her for it, when the spikenard wasn't his and had not been donated for the purpose of taking care of the poor in the first place.

The Church took its business-generated income and used it to invest in another business and also beautify the Church's headquarters city, for the benefit of all who live in SLC and who visit it, regardless of religious persuasion. Some people here and there decry this action in the same spirit as Judas decrying Mary's use of expensive spikenard.

In no way have I treated building a mall as the equivalent of an offering to Christ. I cannot control if you nevertheless insist upon seeing an equivalence.

And I explained why the Christ case can't be used to imply people who complaint about the Church's shopping mall are wrong or going against something Christ approved. If you say you didn't mean to use it that way then I don't know why in the world you would even bring it up. You might as well say Christ was the son of a carpenter and be just as relevant.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Alvino