City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[Maidservant]

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.

But how does it affect you, then?

How does that play into the mission of the church? Because for me, that sounds more like a business and less like a church.

. . . resonates of past errors like the Kirtland Safety Society.

I think there is quite often a fundamental misunderstanding among many of what the grand project IS that Joseph Smith undertook (directed by Jesus Christ if one accepts that element). Joseph Smith was always in the process of creating a society NOT a church. Joseph Smith's project was to transform the earth as it is into the celestial kingdom--NOT to provide some floaty, afterlife salvation. To be a saint always meant to build a city (and farms and etc) and to participate in business, singly and collectively; to be productive. There may have been errors IN the Kirtland Safety Society, but was it an error THAT there was a Kirtland Safety Society? A lot of what Joseph (and Brigham) did were experiments or learning curves--but you can't expect the PEOPLE (not a "church") that made the desert blossom as a rose (an expression of their faith, not an anomaly of it) to NOT build a City Creek Mall. The Church has always has had business from the very beginning and always will. It's not a conflict to our identity, it's a fundamental TO our identity.

I often say that the Church is NOT a church. Only for the necessity of making sense in the world where we call organizations that have bearing on our spirituality a "church", so we use the same term, semantically. But I think this obscures what it's true identity, purpose and structure is. It's an organization. It's a society. It's a covenant. It IS the kingdom (!) of God. It's a priesthood order. It's a family. We're a people. It IS a moneyed/material organization. It's a lot of things far more than a "church" as might be commonly connoted.

Can I just hold onto my tithing money indefinitely? Invest it and enjoy the income with the plan to someday turn it over to church headquarters?

It's a covenant act. It's not the money, in some sense. But money is energy, and money is a VOTE. Whatever we throw our money at is what we want to GROW, is what we want to have power. Giving our money is voting for the kingdom of God (if that is what we understand the Church to be).

Tithing money and offerings of all kinds was always about the church becoming rich, and I say this joyfully and completely concur. Rich enough to build temples and buildings and sponsor universities. Rich enough to talk on the phone with world leaders. Rich enough to not have local groups fund their own church budgets and pay for their own buildings. Rich enough to give educational loans. Rich enough to hand out wheelchairs and immunize and build water projects and be first emergency response in the WORLD. Rich enough build malls, historical monuments, residential properties, bookstores/publishing, television stations. Rich enough to be out of debt. Rich enough that I'm so darned excited to see what's next that they are going to use the money for! Tithing is not about just having enough, it IS about being rich.

As long as we feel the Church is a "them", it's not going to be that comfortable. YES, your money is in the mall. YES, your money is in the Educational fund. YES, your money goes to do art exhibits (BYU). YES, your money went to pay the down payment on a car for me a few years ago (something I could not do for myself). YES, your money goes to making sure missionaries have Books of Mormon. It's US, not THEM. WE did this. It IS your money.

I actually happen to challenge capitalism as a proper system from humans, so I don't really think a mall is an appropriate human structure (except when I want to go shopping there myself, lol), so I could really get upset since "them" has done something I don't want to see happening, I disagree with it on a level of principle; but I still trust that good people have made good decisions and likely inspired ones, since capitalism is the world system we are currently running, so I'm glad the Church is perfectly comfortable in it and has it subject to them and not the other way around.

Which is why I would resonate with this statement of yours:

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.

We still have the principle of common consent

I have an honest question about this, but I'm going to start another thread, because I think it will be a derail.

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,

A repeat of everything above.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Maidservant

[Nathair/|\]

I often say that the Church is NOT a church. Only for the necessity of making sense in the world where we call organizations that have bearing on our spirituality a "church", so we use the same term, semantically. But I think this obscures what it's true identity, purpose and structure is. It's an organization. It's a society. It's a covenant. It IS the kingdom (!) of God. It's a priesthood order. It's a family. We're a people. It IS a moneyed/material organization. It's a lot of things far more than a "church" as might be commonly connoted.

It's also an initiatory and esoteric order, but that's another thread.

[Tacenda]

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"?

No one that I know of. I think the mall being built by the church and the presidency yelling "Let's Go Shopping" might encourage some to overspend. It's all looks sometimes. Especially in Utah amongst certain group's.

[rongo]

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.

According to whom?

Are you seriously suggesting that each and every instance of an internal category going into the red "requires" high-up approval?

Just where is that written? The Unwritten Order of Things? . . .

Why can't the Church simply have one money account (with, say, $6 billion or whatever in it), with several internal categories? Why must "approval by someone with the authority to approve such transfers" kick in "if the fund goes into the red and money from other funds is used to make up the difference?" Can't the money already be there in the big pot, and the separate funds simply be updated to reflect "red/black?"

[webbles]

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?

I just noticed this thread and saw a couple of posts about this and just wanted to add my 2 cents. I have a family story about my great-great-great grandmother. She was a widow and living on a farm with her children. Her husband had died in a mining accident. One year, at the end of the year, they calculated the tithing they owed (they only paid once they harvested since that was when they got their money). It happened to be about equal to the amount of cash they had on hand. But they also needed to pay the rent on the farm and that was about equal to the amount on hand. So they had a dilemma, pay tithing or pay the rent. In the end, they choose to pay tithing and leave it in the Lord's hands. Some days later, a stranger knocked on their door and told them that he was a former colleague of her husband. Before his untimely death, he had taken out a loan from her husband and had never paid it back. Since the husband had died, he didn't think that he needed to pay it as no one knew about it. Yet, recently, it had started to bug him about this and so he tracked her down and paid her. And it so happened that there was enough money to pay for the rent.

So if it came down between paying tithing and feeding my family, I'd pay tithing. The Lord will take care of the rest (either through the church, family members, or just random strangers).

[rongo]

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".

What does that have to do with anything? There are many who turn to the "Dark Side" who trade on their past ecclesiastical standing. Generally, these are counselors, or elders quorum instructors, etc. Not saying that you are an apostate, although your posts here definitely put you in the "don't-you-dare-call-me-TBM" category.

But, simply being in the bishopric isn't a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" that gives you diplomatic immunity.

[go_utes01]

No one that I know of. I think the mall being built by the church and the presidency yelling "Let's Go Shopping" might encourage some to overspend. It's all looks sometimes. Especially in Utah amongst certain group's.

Do you think this consumerist attitude is only prevalent in Utah? Why the extra jab at Utahns?

[Tacenda]

Do you think this consumerist attitude is only prevalent in Utah? Why the extra jab at Utahns?

My bad, did I leave other states out? I guess I only know Utahns.

[Tacenda]

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.

Thanks DavidB.

[go_utes01]

My bad, did I leave other states out? I guess I only know Utahns.

You said ESPECIALLY in Utah - as if there is something specially wrong with Utahns. I get annoyed by the overwhelmingly negative stereotyping of Utahns on this board. I have lived in and out of Utah - grew up in Utah, went to law school in New York, started working in California and now live in Florida - and I can easily say that some of the smartest, kindest, most charitable, and faithful people I have ever had the good fortune of meeting are in the great state of Utah. I don't understand the hate (or at least unjustified harsh words) for Utahns.

[Tacenda]

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.

I don't think the majority of the members of our church would like to shop there. Most of them are just trying to survive, especially in 3rd world countries. Even many that live in Utah can't afford to shop at City Creek.

[Maidservant]

I don't think the majority of the members of our church would like to shop there. Most of them are just trying to survive, especially in 3rd world countries. Even many that live in Utah can't afford to shop at City Creek.

So does this mean that the worldly rich people are shopping and funneling funds back into the Church? Sneaky . . .

[Tacenda]

You said ESPECIALLY in Utah - as if there is something specially wrong with Utahns. I get annoyed by the overwhelmingly negative stereotyping of Utahns on this board. I have lived in and out of Utah - grew up in Utah, went to law school in New York, started working in California and now live in Florida - and I can easily say that some of the smartest, kindest, most charitable, and faithful people I have ever had the good fortune of meeting are in the great state of Utah. I don't understand the hate (or at least unjustified harsh words) for Utahns.

I never said I hated Utahns. I agree with what you said about Utahns. I just said alot of us want to look like we're doing everything right. Fit in with each other. Look the part. And I said some groups. I've lived in afluent areas before, of course we lived in a very modest home and built on a lot that no one wanted. But nearby were these groups of people that had to have the nicest vehicles, atv's, clothing. And a lot had maxed out credit cards. These aren't terrible people they're wonderful but so many fall into the trap of keeping up.

ETA: One friend that lived in a beautiful home with a pool charged $10, 000.00 on her credit card and her husband was so mad she had to pay it all back herself. She started babysitting several children to pay it off.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Sky]

You said ESPECIALLY in Utah - as if there is something specially wrong with Utahns. I get annoyed by the overwhelmingly negative stereotyping of Utahns on this board. I have lived in and out of Utah - grew up in Utah, went to law school in New York, started working in California and now live in Florida - and I can easily say that some of the smartest, kindest, most charitable, and faithful people I have ever had the good fortune of meeting are in the great state of Utah. I don't understand the hate (or at least unjustified harsh words) for Utahns.

It's probably because of all those dang, self-righteous Mormons! <Tongue-in-cheek>

But seriously, I like Utah. There are a lot of nice people there. And beautiful scenery. But probably much more conservative than I would like.

Just know that when people think of Utah, the first thing that tends to come to mind is Mormons and Mormonism, for better or for worse. So that just gives you that much more of an incentive to be the kind of person that others would think kindly of!

[Sky]

I don't think the majority of the members of our church would like to shop there. Most of them are just trying to survive, especially in 3rd world countries. Even many that live in Utah can't afford to shop at City Creek.

But I bet that most people could afford to go there for special occasions, like a nice dinner or a night downtown or something like that. If I lived in Utah, I probably wouldn't regularly shop there. I would probably go there more for the thrill than to actually do a lot of shopping. For most things, I would probably shop at Target or Kohl's or JC Penney, just like I do here in Colorado.

[Tacenda]

But I bet that most people could afford to go there for special occasions, like a nice dinner or a night downtown or something like that. If I lived in Utah, I probably wouldn't regularly shop there. I would probably go there more for the thrill than to actually do a lot of shopping. For most things, I would probably shop at Target or Kohl's or JC Penney, just like I do here in Colorado.

That would be me also, and it was a treat to take my daughters to the Cheesecake Factory at the mall. Edited January 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

According to whom?

Are you seriously suggesting that each and every instance of an internal category going into the red "requires" high-up approval?

Just where is that written? The Unwritten Order of Things? . . .

Why can't the Church simply have one money account (with, say, $6 billion or whatever in it), with several internal categories? Why must "approval by someone with the authority to approve such transfers" kick in "if the fund goes into the red and money from other funds is used to make up the difference?" Can't the money already be there in the big pot, and the separate funds simply be updated to reflect "red/black?"

Yes I am sure the that to use assets from one fund to makeup shortfalls in another fund without being approved and documented by someone having authority to do would be picked up by the independent auditors.

The bank account is immaterial. The money is accounted for in what is called funds.

For the Church that would be like Fast offerings, Humanitarian Aid, Perpetual Education Fund etc. Where the dollars are kept is immaterial but any money designated as FO or Humanitarian aid etc has to be accounted for in the separate funds and used for what they are designated for.

Edited January 26, 2013 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

No, large scale construction projects are definitely much better than constant handouts.

No question. And helping with first and last month's rent when someone is presently living in a motel is also a no-brainer, and I did that many times.

[omni]

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.

I'm pretty sure that's what Madoff was promising his investors. Seriously though, if a major high end retail development was a sure bet for a 10% return than why was it the only one completed last year? The church has said they aren't doing this to make money and don't really expect to do so. I think it's beautiful and really enjoy visiting it, but was it worth 2 billion to improve the surrounding area of the church headquarters? I'm not sure, I guess time will tell.

On a side note, it seems to me that tithing should easily cover the church's expenses ( other churches do it with a paid clergy and much less than a 10% tithe). I would love to see the church donate all proceeds from its for-profit enterprises to charity. It would bless the lives of those who receive it and it would quiet a lot of critics.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I was generalizing my points for a layman audience but if you want to get into it I am game.

Since when does the church leverage investments? Do you have examples? Why on earth would the church pay interest to anyone? How would that be justifiable even to increase investment return?

And clearly it is doubtful that tithing funds per se are used for such investments or that there really is "one account" for all these investments. For one thing, such investments in a 501c-3 corporation would result in UBI and it would be folly to do that when the church doesn't need to. Clearly there must be multiple layers of accounts and entities, and clearly the funds contributed directly to the 501-c-3 entity, or the "tithing funds" whatever entity that is, is not the entity actually making the investments despite what statements have been offered regarding "everything being in one account". If that is even true, it would only be the central 501c-3 entity which has one huge general account from which all checks are written for day to day operations of the church. Having it all in one entity would make no sense whatsoever, which is what you are implying.

Come on dude, a CPA should know better.

[mfbukowski]

.

They might care, if it was made available.

Two conditionals in a row.

[mfbukowski]

Can I just hold onto my tithing money indefinitely? Invest it and enjoy the income with the plan to someday turn it over to church headquarters?

That's your business, though many entrepreneurs pay after they have calculated their taxes, and pay, honestly, after tax as most wage earners do. When you own a business there is no way to know what your "increase" has been until an accounting of everything in and out has been made and many of those expenses are undetermined until they are paid

[mfbukowski]

Why can't the Church simply have one money account (with, say, $6 billion or whatever in it), with several internal categories? Why must "approval by someone with the authority to approve such transfers" kick in "if the fund goes into the red and money from other funds is used to make up the difference?" Can't the money already be there in the big pot, and the separate funds simply be updated to reflect "red/black?"

That works for the operating funds but not for investment funds due to the tax problems it would cause. So those have to be separate.

[mfbukowski]

You said ESPECIALLY in Utah - as if there is something specially wrong with Utahns. I get annoyed by the overwhelmingly negative stereotyping of Utahns on this board. I have lived in and out of Utah - grew up in Utah, went to law school in New York, started working in California and now live in Florida - and I can easily say that some of the smartest, kindest, most charitable, and faithful people I have ever had the good fortune of meeting are in the great state of Utah. I don't understand the hate (or at least unjustified harsh words) for Utahns.

I agree.

Some of my best friends are Utardshns.

[Traela]

The City Creek project provided jobs to a lot of people in the middle of a very bad recession. How is that not a humanitarian endevour? Just because they didn't simply make the money a handout?

I lose patience when people decide that the Church doesn't pay out enough in humanitarian funds, because they almost never take into account all the things that are NOT paid for with that line on the tithing slip. Things like overhead for humanitarian, fast, and PEF funds; literacy specialists; employment specialists; Relief Society and other auxillery projects (which if they don't include service and education, you're doing it wrong); Church schools; plus the heavy emphasis on literacy and education that make the members' lives better, and the emphasis on service that blesses everyone.