City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[ERayR]

Nice tactic.

Nice cynicism

[rockpond]

So, the question is whether you have faith in the leaders of this Church or not. Do you think the leaders are trying to deceive members into donating to humanitarian aid with the knowledge that the funds will actually be used/pocketed by the leaders? Do you think the Church has been an unwise/slothful steward? Compare the general prosperity, and the attendant ability to help members (and non-members) in need, to other denominations. I think the financial track record of the Church is outstanding.

No, I am not suggesting that the leaders are trying to deceive members and I am certainly not suggesting that they are pocketing funds. I was simply pointing out that your statement: "Those humanitarian projects get 100% of the money donated for them" is not necessarily supported by current policy.

I think that there could be a small amount of cross-over among the separate categories though not enough to concern me personally. Others might feel differently.

[rongo]

While you are correct about the checking account the money is accounted for in separate "funds" Each fund is must balance on its own and is separate from the other funds.

But they don't "balance on their own." Fast offering for sure doesn't at this time, and hasn't since 2008. The balance comes out of tithing.

Tithing, and everything else (including interest and profit from investments), is thrown into a big pile. The "funds" or categories are simply for tracking (knowing where we are at).

I am completely fine with "straight-up" tithing money (as opposed to "six degrees of separation" tithing money) being directly used in City Creek, or anything else that the Brethren feel is needed. But, it's all tithing money through "six degrees of separation" logic, anyway, which is what the complainers use to claim that it's tithing money.

Edited January 25, 2013 by rongo

[rockpond]

So, the question is whether you have faith in the leaders of this Church or not.

Trust in the leaders, yes, I agree. I also believe in the principle of common consent (D&C 26).

[ERayR]

No, I am not suggesting that the leaders are trying to deceive members and I am certainly not suggesting that they are pocketing funds. I was simply pointing out that your statement: "Those humanitarian projects get 100% of the money donated for them" is not necessarily supported by current policy.

I think that there could be a small amount of cross-over among the separate categories though not enough to concern me personally. Others might feel differently.

In not-for-profit accounting each category is accounted for in its own fund. To move assets from one fund to another requires approval by someone with the authority to do so.

Church authorities have on more than one occasion stated that humanitarian funds are not assessed overhead charges and that 100% of donations are used in humanitarian endeavors.

[rongo]

Trust in the leaders, yes, I agree. I also believe in the principle of common consent (D&C 26).

If you feel that strongly about it, you can always vote "no" during stake or ward conference when the "Big 15" come up for a vote . . .

We still have the principle of common consent ---- it's just that some want to have line-item veto power on everything from our low position in the heiarchy. That isn't what common consent is about, anyway.

[go_utes01]

No, I am not suggesting that the leaders are trying to deceive members and I am certainly not suggesting that they are pocketing funds. I was simply pointing out that your statement: "Those humanitarian projects get 100% of the money donated for them" is not necessarily supported by current policy.

I think that there could be a small amount of cross-over among the separate categories though not enough to concern me personally. Others might feel differently.

Not my statement, look at ErayR's response above.

Edited January 25, 2013 by go_utes01

[ERayR]

But they don't "balance on their own." Fast offering for sure doesn't at this time, and hasn't since 2008. The balance comes out of tithing.

Tithing, and everything else (including interest and profit from investments), is thrown into a big pile. The "funds" or categories are simply for tracking (knowing where we are at).

I am completely fine with "straight-up" tithing money (as opposed to "six degrees of separation" tithing money) being directly used in City Creek, or anything else that the Brethren feel is needed. But, it's all tithing money through "six degrees of separation" logic, anyway, which is what the complainers use to claim that it's tithing money.

If the fund goes into the red and money from other funds is used to make up the difference the it has to be approved by someone with the authority to approve such transfers.

[rockpond]

Not my statement.

My apologies. I got my replies mixed up (it was ErayR's statement).

[ERayR]

My apologies. I got my replies mixed up (it was ErayR's statement).

fund assets are not moved from one fund to another without approval and must be done within the rules of fund accounting.

[go_utes01]

Trust in the leaders, yes, I agree. I also believe in the principle of common consent (D&C 26).

For every dollar spent? Every decision made? As explained above, the principle of common consent is not a line-item veto. How could members or leaders get anything done - we would be consenting (or dissenting) all day, every day.

[rockpond]

If you feel that strongly about it, you can always vote "no" during stake or ward conference when the "Big 15" come up for a vote . . .

We still have the principle of common consent ---- it's just that some want to have line-item veto power on everything from our low position in the heiarchy. That isn't what common consent is about, anyway.

Nah... I still prefer to sustain them.

I also wouldn't suggest anything close to a line-item veto by millions of active members. Disclosing high-level financial data... well, that I wouldn't complain about. And, I can't imagine it changing my sustaining vote. But I do think that going back to that disclosure would be a good thing.

[ERayR]

Nah... I still prefer to sustain them.

I also wouldn't suggest anything close to a line-item veto by millions of active members. Disclosing high-level financial data... well, that I wouldn't complain about. And, I can't imagine it changing my sustaining vote. But I do think that going back to that disclosure would be a good thing.

It wouldn't change a thing. It is my observation that 99.99% of members don't care and most of those clamoring for it are critics of the church and really have no right to the information anyway.

[Kenngo1969]

I think there is a problem here in Utah with keeping up with the Jones's. And our high bankruptcy cases. The mall just feeds that, sorry.

Who went into bankruptcy so the mall could be built, and in what way is it a manifestation of trying to "keep up with the Joneses"?

[DavidB]

Who went into bankruptcy so the mall could be built, and in what way is it a manifestation of trying to "keep up with the Joneses"?

You clearly missed her point.

A shopping center with many stores which carry only costly apparel, just feeds the misconception that the Jones family must be kept up with.

Edited January 26, 2013 by DavidB

[rockpond]

It wouldn't change a thing. It is my observation that 99.99% of members don't care and most of those clamoring for it are critics of the church and really have no right to the information anyway.

That's cool that your observations are able to go all the way into the hundredths of a percent. I'm impressed.

Just for the record, I am an active member of my ward. I don't think I fall into the category of "critic of the church". So I guess I am the one in 10,000 people from your observations.

Edited January 26, 2013 by rockpond

[ERayR]

That's cool that your observations are able to go all the way into the hundredths of a percent. I'm impressed.

Just for the record, I am an active member of my ward and in the bishopric. I don't think I fall into the category of "critic of the church". So I guess I am the one in 10,000 people from your observations.

Finely tuned sensors. It just takes time and effort. Spend less time developing cynicism and and you too can develop that finely honed sense.

[rockpond]

Finely tuned sensors. It just takes time and effort. Spend less time developing cynicism and and you too can develop that finely honed sense.

Not cynicism. Just math. Somehow I doubt that you have personally observed 10,000 people (the number required to get to a 99.99% figure) and recorded their position on this matter.

If you want to participate in an intellectually honest discussion, I think it's important not to overgeneralize, stereotype, or make up data.

[Nathair/|\]

Good to know I wonder if the church could conquer this and world hunger!

If the Church could invest in projects like City Creek in every community, there wouldn't be poverty anywhere for long, other than those who choose to live that way.

[ERayR]

Not cynicism. Just math. Somehow I doubt that you have personally observed 10,000 people (the number required to get to a 99.99% figure) and recorded their position on this matter.

If you want to participate in an intellectually honest discussion, I think it's important not to overgeneralize, stereotype, or make up data.

I didn't count them but I have had a lot of years to observe and have moved around a bit and until I started on this board I had never run across a church member, active or inactive, that was worried about how church finances were handled.

If you want to participate in an intellectually honest discussion, I think it's important that you get the chip off your shoulder and recognize that a little hyperbole is a legitimate way to make a point.

[rockpond]

I didn't count them but I have had a lot of years to observe and have moved around a bit and until I started on this board I had never run across a church member, active or inactive, that was worried about how church finances were handled.

If you want to participate in an intellectually honest discussion, I think it's important that you get the chip off your shoulder and recognize that a little hyperbole is a legitimate way to make a point.

Not a chip on my shoulder. You are welcome to use hyperbole but, obviously, I'm gonna call you on it as a means of making my point.

The assertion underlying your hyperbole is that active members don't have a problem with the church spending consecrated funds on an upscale shopping mall. Your evidence for that is simply your observation. I am calling you on the weakness of that argument. I won't argue your level of certainty (99.99%) since you have declared that to be hyperbole. But, your observation does not provide an adequate and unbiased sample of the population of the church. So I dismiss your assertion.

[Teancum]

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.

.

First, I am a CPA. I understand segregating funds. But your example is a poor one. Governments can bind by law funds for specific uses and restrict them in such a way. A business or a church is not necessarily bound by this. . But you unsurprisingly miss my point. I did not argue, not not once, that tithing was used for this project. I don't know. Nor do you know or can you whether the church operated the way you say unless you work for the church in its financial division.

But my point is all the church monay has ultimately its source from donations. Sometime, long ago perhaps, the church took surplus something or another and invested it in businesses and other money making endeavors, Oh and please pay attention, I said I think that is fine. I just personally think this one was a mistake and not really in line with a church that claims to be the church of Christ, I could be wrong, I am not leaving the church over this. I still participate. I don't think holding this opinion makes me an evil apostate. I see many wringing their hands about how awful it is that I just don't trust the leaders of the church. But they are fallible are they not? And as for finances it is pretty clear LDS church leader have botched it more than once. And now there is no transparency at all for finances so there is no accountability to those who donate. So you bet, I don't trust the LDS leaders in all things and this is one of them.

Two more points. I don't say the church does nothing for the poor. In fact I often argue against those who do noting that they usually leave out fast offering assistance. Could it do more? Maybe. Lastly, your comparison of the mall and my arguments about this are simply absurd. No need to say more.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Tithing money goes nowhere but where it is supposed to.

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

You know tithing money goes only where it is supposed to how? And where or what is the supposed to? How is this a return on tithing money if tithing was not invested? As for your comments above about rental property being wonderful investments I think you aree rather mistaken. It can be. But you don't know whether this is leveraged or not. Nor do you know the lease terms. May e some high end stores were given incentives to put a store in City Creek. Who knows. Plus malls nationwide are struggling. Got to have occupancy to generate cash. And downtown SLC already had one upscale mall. It sure did not need another. Crossroads/ ZCMI seemed to be struggling before they abut down. Wonder how the owners of Gateway feel about City Creek.

[Teancum]

It wouldn't change a thing. It is my observation that 99.99% of members don't care and most of those clamoring for it are critics of the church and really have no right to the information anyway.

.

They might care, if it was made available.

[go_utes01]

.

First, I am a CPA. I understand segregating funds. But your example is a poor one. Governments can bind by law funds for specific uses and restrict them in such a way. A business or a church is not necessarily bound by this. . But you unsurprisingly miss my point. I did not argue, not not once, that tithing was used for this project. I don't know. Nor do you know or can you whether the church operated the way you say unless you work for the church in its financial division.

But my point is all the church monay has ultimately its source from donations. Sometime, long ago perhaps, the church took surplus something or another and invested it in businesses and other money making endeavors, Oh and please pay attention, I said I think that is fine. I just personally think this one was a mistake and not really in line with a church that claims to be the church of Christ, I could be wrong, I am not leaving the church over this. I still participate. I don't think holding this opinion makes me an evil apostate. I see many wringing their hands about how awful it is that I just don't trust the leaders of the church. But they are fallible are they not? And as for finances it is pretty clear LDS church leader have botched it more than once. And now there is no transparency at all for finances so there is no accountability to those who donate. So you bet, I don't trust the LDS leaders in all things and this is one of them.

Two more points. I don't say the church does nothing for the poor. In fact I often argue against those who do noting that they usually leave out fast offering assistance. Could it do more? Maybe. Lastly, your comparison of the mall and my arguments about this are simply absurd. No need to say more.

My point about trusting Church leaders, to be clear, was in response to suggestions that the Church was being dishonest in how money is allocated. When Church leaders specifically state something, I think we should trust that they are not deliberately deceiving the membership. I also specifically stated that people can believe that those whose job it is to prudently invest Church funds (including the real estate arm of the Church) made a mistake on City Creek or make many mistakes, without being "apostate" or evil. I do not believe we are required to accept all actions by the Church as inherently correct. We have the right (responsibility) to question, scrutinize, reason, pray about and find out for ourselves. But, if you believe the Church is systematically trying to deceive the membership, that is a much stronger assertion and I would wonder why you would want to remain a member of such a deceptive organization, let alone continue to donate your money to it.