City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[DavidB]

(again)

Right. Because a shopping mall is a direct offering to Jesus.

Yes you are right that it is a tired statement and was so from when Judas asked.

[DavidB]

Mock on

-

I think people underestimate the amount of people who would avoid the mall. Undoubtedly, anti-mormons and apostates would avoid the mall. Even your buddy next door who does not believe in the church, for the simple fact it is the LDS mall. You are kidding yourself if everybody in SLC does not consider that the Mormon Mall.

I would be kidding myself, if I believed that the few stories of "apostates" not going to the mall represented anything more than a few apostates. While I believe a few have said they will not go there, I tend to doubt those people not going there has anything to with the Church.

I think rather, when a practicing LDS person asks an apostate about something associated with the Church, the apostate response will most likely be scorn about the thing related to the Church.

Edited January 25, 2013 by DavidB

[mfbukowski]

[media=]

The implications of this video are ridiculously simplistic.

In order to "do good" one must have the funds to do so.

According to the logic of this video, Bill Gates should stop making money with Microsoft and give away all he has right now and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs to allow him to continue his philanthropies.

You do not understand the dynamics of charitable activities in a capitalistic system. Set up a few charitable trusts as I have and perhaps you will get a glimmer of how philanthropies work.

[go_utes01]

I don't really understand all the hubub around this investment decision by the real estate division of the LDS Church. I think people would agree that the leaders of Church should be good stewards of its financial resources. The Church employs people whose job it is to decide what are the best investments of Church resources. I am not sure what people are complaining about. Do you just disagree with the investment made by the real estate arm of the Church? Or, do you think it was some devious plan to not care about the poor around the globe so that President Monson could go shopping? I don't get it.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for your responses.

What is the difference between an apartment and a Condo?

On the general point, I admit to being rather concerned about this development. I understand the desire to make downtown SLC a nicer place, but a shopping Mall? Is that really the way to do it?

I have been to SLC. I have to admit to being quite underwhelmed by the experience. It did need smartening up. But I have also been to Rome, the Vatican to be more precise. I cannot imagine the Catholic church developing a nearby shopping mall to try to improve the image of the church or tidy up a run down area.

$2billion! We have been waiting for new windows for our chapel for 7 years. Seven years ago we were told they would be fitted the following year. The old ones are rotting and dangerous. Some of them won't shut.

Every year we have been told that we can't have the promised new windows because there is no money. Now I see why.

There is not necessarily any physical difference between an apartment and a condo.

In a condo, you live in a multi-family building and own the space in which you dwell, and have all the property rights of ownership as you would your own home. You can pay it off, borrow against it, sell it, exchange it if rented etc.

An apartment is a rental unit or "flat" which you do not own. You pay rent, and build no equity, you live there at the owner's whim, etc. You have no control over your future.

Condos have association fees which you must pay for upkeep of the building, etc.

[mfbukowski]

I am the Bishop!

This is ultimately up to your stake president not "the church". Stakes deal with property managers who have charge of many buildings- perhaps yours is lax. That does not reflect on "the church"

Edited January 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That made me chuckle. Over here, our ward maintenance is controlled by some mysterious entity that just comes in and does stuff.....apparently on some schedule that doesn't always match need. We had really nice curtains in the RS after the ward was built. One Sunday a few years later, we come in to see these ugly gray shiny polyester curtains with a fluffy valance thing that would have been at home in a funeral parlor. They didn't even match. I suspect that individual problems are not dealt with on a timely schedule though...complaints about maintenance issues are not uncommon, at least online.

Exactly! But bishops know that well- it makes me a tad suspicious.

[Sleeper Cell]

I think people underestimate the amount of people who would avoid the mall. Undoubtedly, anti-mormons and apostates would avoid the mall. Even your buddy next door who does not believe in the church, for the simple fact it is the LDS mall. You are kidding yourself if everybody in SLC does not consider that the Mormon Mall.

If so, then the mall might provide a refuge for the residents of SLC -- a place where both LDS and non-LDS can get away from the anti-Mormon bigots and interact with each other. For that reason alone, building the mall might turn out to be a great humanitarian project.

[mfbukowski]

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?

You have no understanding of the issues here. What is being said between the lines is that if you pay your tithing and have further needs the Lord (church) will take care of you !

This is exactly how it works. If you are a full tithe payer and still have needs for funds, the church will help you, in my experience, which is significant.

How can a bishop turn down a request from a full tithe payer? It's not going to happen unless there is something fishy going on!

If you want to be totally pecuniary about it, tithing is the cheapest and best "insurance" money can buy!

Edited January 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

Indeed you are. They also have the "interest" on those funds which as wise stewards are used to create more funds so it is not necessary to, for example, mortgage church buildings.

Do you know how many church buildings of other denominations are now in foreclosure? I know of many in the area in which I live. Why are they in foreclosure? Because their leadership are not wise stewards of the moneys given to them

[mfbukowski]

Just now watching the video that Alvino posted, wow, this might make me step back again into my crisis. Must turn head and keep walking!

Don't let it.

It totally misses the point and is very misleading. Suppose you are working for a living and also work in a homeless shelter as a volunteer. Would it be better for you to stop working, give up your job and become homeless yourself, or stay working and help the homeless as much as you are now?

Suppose the video showed you working, and your new car, and your nice house, and left out all you were doing for the poor BECAUSE of your job, and still put in the pictures of the homeless, implying you were doing nothing to help them?

That is exactly, on a personal level what the video does. It shows nothing the church is doing for the world's people, and only shows the worst of the problems and the fact that the church is making money on their investments.

Should you give up a 401-k and eat dogfood for your retirement, or should you have a comfortable retirement, as a dentist friend of mine has done, and go on a mission to help do dental work for the people of Central America?

That is exactly what he is done- he is in Guatemala right now helping others because he can afford to. If he physically handed all his money to the poor, would it have done more good? Leaving himself homeless?

The whole idea is ridiculous! The church needs money to help others, and one of the ways it gets its money is by investments. There is nothing at all remotely wrong with that, and a lot right with it!

[rockpond]

Indeed you are. They also have the "interest" on those funds which as wise stewards are used to create more funds so it is not necessary to, for example, mortgage church buildings.

Do you know how many church buildings of other denominations are now in foreclosure? I know of many in the area in which I live. Why are they in foreclosure? Because their leadership are not wise stewards of the moneys given to them

As a real estate investor and developer I understand the concept of using money to make more money. And the church can keep using investment income to make additional investment income but at what point does that cycle stop?

The way I see it, every last penny the church has is consecrated. It was all donated in one way or another for the building up of the kingdom of God. When consecrated funds are invested and produce income, that income should still be considered as consecrated funds.

With that in mind, are we to conclude that the very best investment of those consecrated funds is City Creek Mall? What kind of rate of return do we expect and how will that be used? To what end are we investing? I see no evidence that the City Creek investment provides a safety net for the financial well being of the church. Can you provide evidence that it does?

[mfbukowski]

The welfare resources of the church come from fast offerings, not from tithing. So the Bishop's storehouse system you discribe may have worked that way in the past, but not now; even monetarily.

I find that when people come to me for assistance, it is a very difficult thing for them to do. Maybe it's pride, maybe just privacy, or perhaps fear. But they come reluctantly in most cases. I hate to see them going through this discomfort. They apologise repeatedly and often appear to consider themselves to be failures, perhaps even second class Saints. In my view this is unsatisfactory, but i don't know what to do about it. I am also quite sure that some do not come because of this. They can't face it. But then they feel guilty because they literally cannot afford to pay their tithing. No parent would really pay their tithing and watch their children go without food. In fact, the scriptures tell us that anyone who would choose not to feed his family is worse than an infidel.

One of the responsibilities of a Bishop is to "seek out the poor and needy", but I don't really know how to do this. It is nearly always the needy seeking me out! Therefore, I feel I am not fulfilling my responsibilities because some keep quiet and struggle and I don't know about it.

I wonder if the Saints would now live the law of consecration, and whether it is possible in the current babylonian economic system we are forced to live under. I feel it is possible in theory. Everyones salary would be paid directly to the church, and all needs would be met from church funds.

This would work well for me and most of my ward. I think the wealthy would struggle with it though.

Bold added.

Perhaps you should give a talk on the subject and mention to them that there is no shame in relying on the Lord's promises, if they are doing all they should be doing, including paying tithing. It is also important that when assistance is given, that you ask them to do some other thing for the church so they can feel that to some degree satisfied that they contributed work for what they received. Have them send out a mailer to inactives, or perhaps even go on splits with missionaries etc if that's possible.

We are all working toward a time when we will practice the law of consecration when all we have will be given to the church and all we receive will be from the church.

We all need practice in learning how to do this, and when the time comes, I am sure it will be those who have had this practice will be more ready than those who have not.

[mfbukowski]

My FIL is a Branch President and he told me help is not strictly for tithing members. That he helps anbody who comes to him. With a condition that they help out at church or something else. A bishop or branch president does not just preside over members but the whole area.

As far as I know.

True.

[Alvino]

The implications of this video are ridiculously simplistic.

In order to "do good" one must have the funds to do so.

According to the logic of this video, Bill Gates should stop making money with Microsoft and give away all he has right now and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs to allow him to continue his philanthropies.

You do not understand the dynamics of charitable activities in a capitalistic system. Set up a few charitable trusts as I have and perhaps you will get a glimmer of how philanthropies work.

All the video points out is a clear disproportion between the teachings and Church practices. If you read what I posted about the widow's mite you'll see I think it was wrong for her to give everything she had precisely because I don't believe it is right to put her children in such a risk. I don't believe God will help you or that God will provide anything because I don't think he exists. However, if the Church and Christianity teaches this attitude of faith and trust in the Lord even when you see very little way out and it spends so much on a shopping mall, then you have a conflict.

[Deborah]

With that in mind, are we to conclude that the very best investment of those consecrated funds is City Creek Mall? What kind of rate of return do we expect and how will that be used? To what end are we investing? I see no evidence that the City Creek investment provides a safety net for the financial well being of the church. Can you provide evidence that it does?

Actually at the time this was opened the church spokesman said the intent is not primarily to make money but to encourage others in the area to make improvements and beautify the city as well as making a pleasant place to walk around close to temple square. The only investment return I can see is on the real estate holdings. Many people like to walk through the mall with its fountains and little brook running through it. You see many families there. It's a park as much as it is a shopping center.

[Alvino]

You have no understanding of the issues here. What is being said between the lines is that if you pay your tithing and have further needs the Lord (church) will take care of you !

Right. Who helped the widow in the story of the widow's mite, mf?

This is exactly how it works. If you are a full tithe payer and still have needs for funds, the church will help you, in my experience, which is significant.

How can a bishop turn down a request from a full tithe payer? It's not going to happen unless there is something fishy going on!

If you want to be totally pecuniary about it, tithing is the cheapest and best "insurance" money can buy!

Not dental insurance for the Brazilian members who gave their gold fillings to help build the temple, though.

[rockpond]

I don't really understand all the hubub around this investment decision by the real estate division of the LDS Church. I think people would agree that the leaders of Church should be good stewards of its financial resources. The Church employs people whose job it is to decide what are the best investments of Church resources. I am not sure what people are complaining about. Do you just disagree with the investment made by the real estate arm of the Church? Or, do you think it was some devious plan to not care about the poor around the globe so that President Monson could go shopping? I don't get it.

I don't see this as a devious plan.

I take issue with this statement of yours "The Church employs people whose job it is to decide what are the best investments of Church resources."

How does that play into the mission of the church? Because for me, that sounds more like a business and less like a church. When we talk about an upscale shopping mall being part of the real estate division of the church it resonates of past errors like the Kirtland Safety Society.

I take issue with that fact that it appears we have spent more on the mall than we have in the past two decades of our humanitarian aid. I take issue with apparently having billions to spend on a shopping mall but members of my ward can't hear sacrament meeting talks for lack of chairs in our chapel. There are those who will say that I am murmuring. But since we have abandoned the principal of common consent with respect to our finances, I am left to question those decisions even as I sustain our leaders.

[rockpond]

Actually at the time this was opened the church spokesman said the intent is not primarily to make money but to encourage others in the area to make improvements and beautify the city as well as making a pleasant place to walk around close to temple square. The only investment return I can see is on the real estate holdings. Many people like to walk through the mall with its fountains and little brook running through it. You see many families there. It's a park as much as it is a shopping center.

I think that reasoning makes sense to those of you who live in and around the Salt Lake area. For many of us in other states/countries, it falls a bit flat and seems somewhat ethnocentric (for lack of a better word).

[mfbukowski]

As a real estate investor and developer I understand the concept of using money to make more money. And the church can keep using investment income to make additional investment income but at what point does that cycle stop?

The way I see it, every last penny the church has is consecrated. It was all donated in one way or another for the building up of the kingdom of God. When consecrated funds are invested and produce income, that income should still be considered as consecrated funds.

With that in mind, are we to conclude that the very best investment of those consecrated funds is City Creek Mall? What kind of rate of return do we expect and how will that be used? To what end are we investing? I see no evidence that the City Creek investment provides a safety net for the financial well being of the church. Can you provide evidence that it does?

I am in commercial real estate and help people decide how best to dispose of their estates and help them create the proper estate planning strategies, including charitable giving when appropriate, and work with attorneys in setting it all up. Maybe we should get together and talk

But seriously, as you probably know NNN real estate is one of the best cash flow investments available today, especially when it is not leveraged, as I am sure this mall was built without the need for loans. There are no expenses because in triple net investments, as you know, the tenants pay all their own expenses.

That means that every penny of the rent they pay goes directly to the "profit" column of the landlord. Stocks don't do that, bonds don't do that, nothing else does that with as little risk as you see here.

All of these business, which are based on the spending habits of relatively wealthy individuals, are solid companies with good track records. This is about the safest, most profitable investment available in these bad times.

I have not researched the cap rates for that area in high end retail, but I would bet that the return is probably around a 10 cap, with virtually no risk. So that mean probably around a 10% return or more with practically no risk.

A little better than CD's or what you are getting on your ira these days I would wager.

Additionally, the entire area is "lifted" and made more economically sound, other and other businesses in the entire city are benefited. Jobs are created, and those jobs recycle funds into the general economy. The SLC downtown area is no longer a slum

It is impossible to calculate all the good this is doing for SLC, Utah, and the entire country eventually. Anything we can do to benefit this economy should be absolutely treasured!

[mfbukowski]

Right. Who helped the widow in the story of the widow's mite, mf?

Not dental insurance for the Brazilian members who gave their gold fillings to help build the temple, though.

Read on.

I know a dentist working in Guatemala right now. And the church did not exist when the widow paid her mite.

Sorry- that argument is a bust.

[Alvino]

Don't let it.

It totally misses the point and is very misleading. Suppose you are working for a living and also work in a homeless shelter as a volunteer. Would it be better for you to stop working, give up your job and become homeless yourself, or stay working and help the homeless as much as you are now?

Suppose the video showed you working, and your new car, and your nice house, and left out all you were doing for the poor BECAUSE of your job, and still put in the pictures of the homeless, implying you were doing nothing to help them?

That is exactly, on a personal level what the video does. It shows nothing the church is doing for the world's people, and only shows the worst of the problems and the fact that the church is making money on their investments.

Should you give up a 401-k and eat dogfood for your retirement, or should you have a comfortable retirement, as a dentist friend of mine has done, and go on a mission to help do dental work for the people of Central America?

That is exactly what he is done- he is in Guatemala right now helping others because he can afford to. If he physically handed all his money to the poor, would it have done more good? Leaving himself homeless?

The whole idea is ridiculous! The church needs money to help others, and one of the ways it gets its money is by investments. There is nothing at all remotely wrong with that, and a lot right with it!

For Tacenda's sake, put this in perspective and mention that the Church spent in that mall more than it spent in 22 years of humanitarian aid. The bigger issue here is not economics, mf, the issue is the lack of... well, Christianity in such a move.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Alvino

[mfbukowski]

I don't see this as a devious plan.

I take issue with this statement of yours "The Church employs people whose job it is to decide what are the best investments of Church resources."

How does that play into the mission of the church? Because for me, that sounds more like a business and less like a church. When we talk about an upscale shopping mall being part of the real estate division of the church it resonates of past errors like the Kirtland Safety Society.

I take issue with that fact that it appears we have spent more on the mall than we have in the past two decades of our humanitarian aid. I take issue with apparently having billions to spend on a shopping mall but members of my ward can't hear sacrament meeting talks for lack of chairs in our chapel. There are those who will say that I am murmuring. But since we have abandoned the principal of common consent with respect to our finances, I am left to question those decisions even as I sustain our leaders.

Tithing money goes nowhere but where it is supposed to.

This is from investment return on tithing money. Big difference.

[mfbukowski]

I take issue with apparently having billions to spend on a shopping mall but members of my ward can't hear sacrament meeting talks for lack of chairs in our chapel. There are those who will say that I am murmuring. But since we have abandoned the principal of common consent with respect to our finances, I am left to question those decisions even as I sustain our leaders.

You said you are a developer.

Do you personally take the calls when someone's toilet overflows at 3 am or do your managers take the call?

If there is a problem with a manager, that is something you need to deal with, but your only fault was getting the wrong manager. Someone needs to be fired if the problem is serious enough. It is only very indirectly your fault in the sense that the "buck stops here".

The problem is most likely with the stake person who oversees the buildings- probably a high councilor. Even the stake president has little they can do to motivate the managers. If there is a problem it is with the building managers. If anything THAT is where the attention needs to be focused, not on "the church".

[Alvino]

Read on.

I know a dentist working in Guatemala right now.

Read what on?

And the church did not exist when the widow paid her mite.

Which is the point. There is no Church above the Church but God. I would assume you think the widow did right by giving all she had and that probably God helped her but, why are you not against the Church not giving in such a way? Why would God help the widow but not His Church? We know the Church won't be taken from the Earth again but an individual widow may starve.