City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[rockpond]

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.

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).

I understand that Joseph was all about building Zion here on earth. But I don't see any resemblance between what Joseph was building and City Creek Mall. None whatsoever. Sorry.

I do think that KSS may have been an error. And, I think that I actually *can* expect that the Saints might not build City Creek Mall while still retaining our identity. I don't really see those ultra high end stores as being at all consistent with our identity. And, if they were, why the advertisements that don't represent Mormon standards of dress and abstinence from alcohol?

You said whatever we throw our money at is what we want to grow. So as a church we want to "grow" the gluttonous consumerism that we see in City Creek Mall? How on earth is that consistent with the gospel. I just don't see it.

[rockpond]

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.

I wasn't looking for your approval. Nor immunity. Just refuting the "only true Scotsman" hypothesis put forth that active members don't have concerns about the church finances.

[rockpond]

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

Within a fiscal year, yes. And we do that with our own business entities as well.

But apparently I was not clear in presenting my analogy (or it got lost in the way these boards handle quotations). I was making the point that many here argue that it is okay for the church to take consecrated funds and invest them in business ventures for indefinite (but longer than a fiscal year) amounts of time. As a member, I don't think that I am permitted to invest the funds that I have consecrated to the Lord as tithing and leave them in those investments beyond the annual tithing settlement. We are clearly encouraged to have deposited all tithing funds to the church by December of each year.

[volgadon]

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.

Plus, nobody likes feeling useless and helpless.

[Stargazer]

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.

....

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.

Of course it is true that the Church, as such, started out owning nothing, and because everything given to it by definition was a donation, everything it acquired as time went on, is sourced from those donations. If the Church put some money into a bank and earned interest thereby, the interest is just as sourced from donations as the principal. Same for every cent that it earned after buying land, for example, and renting it, or using it for agriculture, or what have you. So I guess you can make the case that every cent the Church owns is "donated".

OK, if we grant that, then so what? The Church isn't allowed to spend any of its money unless it conforms to the intent of the donors "to build the kingdom of God on earth"? OK, let's grant that; it sounds like a good standard.

Now let's apply this standard to the Mall. Does the construction and operation of the mall in SLC help build the Kingdom of God on earth? You can say NO, if you want. I would say, YES. Which one of us is right? Well, that's neither here nor there because you and I are not the final arbiters, now, are we? The money was donated freely to the Church. The Church has organizational leadership and rules which its leadership uses to decide on what funds to disburse, and what it disburses its funds on. Further, as you well know, the Church claims to have prophetic leadership. In fact, at least twice per year (and more like five, given two stake and one ward conferences per year), the membership (and donors) are given the opportunity to sustain 15 men as "prophets, seers and revelators". It is these men who make the decisions on how to disburse the funds of the Church, and their responsibility is to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

How can it be, therefore, that these prophets, seers, and revelators NOT make correct decisions about the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth? And still be prophets, seers, and revelators?

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?

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?

What, you think that the Church should have built another university there instead? BYU SLC, perhaps?

The problem you and others have is that you have fallen prey to the false theory that economic activity is somehow immoral, crass, and marginally wicked. It is not. In fact, economic activity is the source of life. You think that earning a living, making a profit, or producing and selling goods and services is in contravention to all that is good and right? That is what it sounds like, but if that is what you think you are dead wrong.

And as to those individuals who sacrificed all to cross the plains, you think they are really chapped off right about now about City Creek? What do you think they did when they arrived, anyway? The majority of them received land upon which they proceeded to build homes and farms on, and they planted fruit trees, planted crops, and began raising animals for food and labor. Every single one of them attempted to wrest as much prosperity (and that means MONEY) as they could, as fast as they could, from the land they were given. Do you think that they objected to the Church doing pretty much the same with ITS land? It would seem somewhat hypocritical to do so, in my humble opinion.

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.

I haven't seen any of these ads, resident as I am outside Utah, so I cannot comment or judge.

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?

So you are among the congregation of ark-steadiers who though they sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, feel they cannot trust them with the Lord's money? Are you also one with Judas who objected to Mary's anointing of Jesus's feet with the spikenard, in favor of donating it to the poor? That's your call, of course.

[volgadon]

Someone has already said that how much a stake/ward gets is dependant on their activity level. Or in my opinion, possibly tithing revenue. Could this be the case?

No, my home branch recieved far more than we ever gathered in tithing. I was one of the councillors, so know of what I speak.

[Storm Rider]

Nope, that is not accurate. The Church has been in businesses from the beginning and those businesses did not begin by the use of tithing monies. Frankly, bluntly, people can find something to complain about anytime they choose. They can rethink, reassess, re-contextualize, and critique anything and everything. At the end of the day the facts are that "you" were not involved in the decision making process and your opinion actually does not mean a great deal. The decision has already been made long ago. Now, you can choose to the incessant yammering about how you would do it differently, how you could do it better, OR you can choose to have a good day and you can make extra sure that you govern your own finances in the same manner in which you want the Church and everyone else to live by. As for me and my house, I would choose to be concerned about the things that I can control and I choose not to waste energy on things that are none of my business and are not within an area of my own stewardship.

[Stargazer]

No, because tithings are not direct offerings to Christ.

They aren't? Who are you to say? I believe that you are among those who think that Jesus, if he existed at all, is a dead man and thus cannot be given anything. I don't see that you have any part of this discussion.

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.

There is no equivalence in that. The equivalence is in the use of the spikenard, donated effectively to the Church and its use as anointing oil approved by Christ -- which is equivalent to donations of funds to the Church and Christ's representatives on earth, the First Presidency and the Q12, approving the use of some of it to build an income-producing property.

You might remember that Christ gave a parable in which he represented himself as a King who left assets in the charge of three servants during an extended absence. Upon his return, he rewarded the two who had increased those assets (doubled them in both cases), but FIRED the one who just saved his portion. Were this only figurative, it seems to me that he should have used a different metaphor. I contend that he approved (and approves) of the notion of making a profit as a thing to be encouraged.

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.

What do you know about what Christ approved? You have made it quite clear that you don't believe in Christ. I don't see you have much in the way of ground to complain about it.

And I have said that I believe it was a wise decision for the Church to contribute to the building of City Creek. I believe that the mall contributes positively to the life of the citizens of Salt Lake City and the community generally. Of course, unlike some people, I do not regard economic activity as marginally wicked.

[Stargazer]

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.

You think Utah's bankruptcy rate will improve if nobody builds anything new, and if economic activity is tamped down to nothing? How does the mall feed the bankruptcy rate, anyway? Can you perhaps support that with facts? Or is it just what it sounds like, someone's opinion who doesn't understand economics? I mean no disrespect, Tacenda, but growth (and reduction of economic distress) requires a certain amount of risk and investment. If your experience in economics consists of working for an hourly wage and nothing more, it is likely that you don't really understand how money is MADE as opposed to merely earned.

[mfbukowski]

As a member, I don't think that I am permitted to invest the funds that I have consecrated to the Lord as tithing and leave them in those investments beyond the annual tithing settlement. We are clearly encouraged to have deposited all tithing funds to the church by December of each year.

"Permitted" or prohibited by whom or what? The church is not the IRS- your tithing status is between you and God, not some bean counter.

You really seem to be going out of your way to be negative.

I would like a Handbook citation for that one on one hand and on the other, it's just a silly idea that the church should pay tithing to itself, which is what you are suggesting would have to happen for the analogy to work.

But all tithing settlement is, is a declaration to the Bishop of our tithing status. Nothing says that it has to be paid even annually. Obviously that is the presumption because anything else would be a bookkeeping nightmare, etc. but I would like to see a citation of anything you can find that says otherwise.

What you do with your tithing is between you and God. If you are lying, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, but you are certainly free to do so, or pay it any way you think is right for you.

Edited January 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

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.

You are wasting your time. Those who strain at the gnat of the widow's mite will not be swayed by the camel of Cilty Creek.

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

Given that you know very well that nobody knows, I don't even know why you bring it up. You don't know if she was rewarded by God for her selflessness, or if she starved to death because that mite was the only money she had. Well, here's what I think happened:

A widow, according to Israelite custom, would have had the right of assistance from her husband's family, and probably lived with her husband's mother and (if he lived) with her husband's father, as well. The family community certainly had an income and a place to live, and the widow likely as not got that mite as profit from making and selling an item of clothing. The scripture never said the widow was homeless and starving, just that that was all she had she could donate. And I think that after she donated her mite, and because of her great selflessness, as a blessing from God, one of her husband's near male relatives took her on in a Levirate marriage, and she lived happily ever after.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Stargazer

[cinepro]

So you are among the congregation of ark-steadiers who though they sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, feel they cannot trust them with the Lord's money?

The Church has been on the brink of insolvency several times before. If we have faith that God has called fallible men to lead His church and He allows them to make mistakes, even with the money, then it is not necessarily a matter of trustworthiness. It's more a matter of recognizing the reality of the situation.

Besides, it's usually the most trustworthy people that have the least to hide.

[Stargazer]

The Church has been on the brink of insolvency several times before. If we have faith that God has called fallible men to lead His church and He allows them to make mistakes, even with the money, then it is not necessarily a matter of trustworthiness. It's more a matter of recognizing the reality of the situation.

Besides, it's usually the most trustworthy people that have the least to hide.

So, your theory is that trustworthy people hide nothing about their lives from the public? I find that unsupportable.

But it is not a matter of trustworthiness, it is a matter of trust. And I trust in God, not men. Not even divinely-appointed men. Hence I pay my tithes and offerings, trusting that the Lord will work through them to accomplish the best they can accomplish. I do not expect perfection, and am not sure I would recognize it in any case. Being imperfect myself.

[Tacenda]

I think we need to get back to the reason Alan made the OP. Partly to ask about the mall and also wondering why their ward was unable to get windows for the wardhouse. Another poster said they didn't have enough chairs and my ward didn't have a decent copier. Not even a stake copier to make several copies. And I'll throw in one more. The firing of several janitors and making the members do all of the cleaning including the toilets etc. My husband was in the HP Presidency and in charge of this for 3 months. It fell to my family several times because of lack of volunteering and no shows. It was pretty bad cleaning the ladies room, much worse was the men's. I don't mind doing most of the cleaning but would think that it would be just as great to keep the janitors from losing their jobs. Plus our gym floors are filthy on Sundays but my family is helping clean tomorrow so hopefully it'll get cleaner. There are are other recent lay offs too, so I'm not buying that the mall was built to help give jobs. I'm not even that upset it was built, let people blow their money. I'm more upset that tithing isn't going where needed sometimes.

[Calm]

Nothing says that it has to be paid even annually.

Last I heard my dad did it every other year for some tax advantage, didn't ask for details. Never heard of him having a problem with his recommend either.

[Stargazer]

I think we need to get back to the reason Alan made the OP. Partly to ask about the mall and also wondering why their ward was unable to get windows for the wardhouse. ... I'm not even that upset it was built, let people blow their money. I'm more upset that tithing isn't going where needed sometimes.

Alan lives in the UK. As I understand it, tithing money sourced in a country generally stays in that country. The UK is having a more diffiicult financial time than the US, so it wouldn't surprise me that they are having to be more selective on what gets fixed.

Tacenda, neither you nor I know how much tithing is being collected, what financial obligations must be met using it, what priorities there are, or anything else beyond what we see in our immediate environs. I don't see that either of us have much basis for being upset, other than having a general wish that things would go the way we think they should.

I remember that one of my daughters held a grudge against me because our family never went on nice vacations. When apprised of the fact that because of our large family our income was pretty close to our outgo, leaving little extra for "nice vacations", she then complained that we shouldn't have had so many children. But she had nothing further to say after I pointed out that she was the next-to-last, and if we had stopped at the point which would have permitted "nice vacations" she wouldn't have been there to enjoy them. There's a parable in there somewhere.

[williamsmith]

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.

It would be best if people focused on the actual facts instead of opinion.

"The Church" did not build this mall, church owned businesses and investments did.

Further, from what I've seen of the Churches financial statements in Britain, the Church actually subsidizes you because you all don't pay enough tithing. Tithing money fixes your windows. If you need your windows fixed, I would recommend your people paying more Tithing. Tithing money of the Church did not build the mall.

As to the Catholic Church, they own businesses also, and do things with those businesses to also benefit their interests. Thus, you saying they wouldn't build a shopping mall near the Vatican is a bit historically false.

[williamsmith]

I think we need to get back to the reason Alan made the OP. Partly to ask about the mall and also wondering why their ward was unable to get windows for the wardhouse. Another poster said they didn't have enough chairs and my ward didn't have a decent copier. Not even a stake copier to make several copies. And I'll throw in one more. The firing of several janitors and making the members do all of the cleaning including the toilets etc. My husband was in the HP Presidency and in charge of this for 3 months. It fell to my family several times because of lack of volunteering and no shows. It was pretty bad cleaning the ladies room, much worse was the men's. I don't mind doing most of the cleaning but would think that it would be just as great to keep the janitors from losing their jobs. Plus our gym floors are filthy on Sundays but my family is helping clean tomorrow so hopefully it'll get cleaner. There are are other recent lay offs too, so I'm not buying that the mall was built to help give jobs. I'm not even that upset it was built, let people blow their money. I'm more upset that tithing isn't going where needed sometimes.

And I'm upset that this blatant falsehood keeps being repeated as if it's the truth.

"Tithing" money wasn't used at all to build the mall. And before someone tries to change the goalpost, ignoring that blatant falsehood and say that "at some point" tithing was used, that would be false also. Members have been donating their holdings of all types to the Church from the beginning, outside of Tithing. These holdings are what built the Churches business holdings, not Tithing. Tithing was always sacred funds used for sacred purposes, which has been Church functioning purposes.

[Alan]

williamsmith,

You are right that technically, tithing was not used. But you surely can't deny that sacred funds were used.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the church using these funds as it sees fit, but I guess what I am really saying is are we sure that a shopping mall, of all things, was the way to smarten up downtown SLC?

What, in the opinion of posters here, would have been a reasonable alternative?

[rpn]

Alan, there was an old mall in the same place. And almost no retail at all in a place with lots of residents. (Someone mentioned Gateway having a problem with citicreek draining its business, but the stores that are in citicreek wouldn't have and didn't go to Gateway anyway. And Gateway opened about the same time as the mall that became citi-creek closed down for construction. City creek has the only grocery story in downtown now, too, which the old mall didn't have.

A community needs retail with residences. You don't have to be wealthy to want the quality that comes from a Nordstrom, for instance.

[mfbukowski]

No, my home branch recieved far more than we ever gathered in tithing. I was one of the councillors, so know of what I speak.

I just noticed this and I am curious if you are talking about "budget" funds, which in the US are determined at least partially by Sacrament attendance and other things OR receiving fast offerings, humanitarian aid, missionary assistance funding etc?

"Budget" is usually used to cover ward activities and not much else- so if a few hundred dollars are necessary for a Relief Society dinner, those would come out of the "Budget" for the ward, but if someone needs help paying the rent, medical bills, utilities, etc. that would come out of "fast offerings" which are ultimately subsidized by the church directly if needed.

I am just curious- because possibly "Budget" is handled differently outside the US.

[mfbukowski]

They aren't? Who are you to say? I believe that you are among those who think that Jesus, if he existed at all, is a dead man and thus cannot be given anything. I don't see that you have any part of this discussion.

There is no equivalence in that. The equivalence is in the use of the spikenard, donated effectively to the Church and its use as anointing oil approved by Christ -- which is equivalent to donations of funds to the Church and Christ's representatives on earth, the First Presidency and the Q12, approving the use of some of it to build an income-producing property.

You might remember that Christ gave a parable in which he represented himself as a King who left assets in the charge of three servants during an extended absence. Upon his return, he rewarded the two who had increased those assets (doubled them in both cases), but FIRED the one who just saved his portion. Were this only figurative, it seems to me that he should have used a different metaphor. I contend that he approved (and approves) of the notion of making a profit as a thing to be encouraged.

What do you know about what Christ approved? You have made it quite clear that you don't believe in Christ. I don't see you have much in the way of ground to complain about it.

And I have said that I believe it was a wise decision for the Church to contribute to the building of City Creek. I believe that the mall contributes positively to the life of the citizens of Salt Lake City and the community generally. Of course, unlike some people, I do not regard economic activity as marginally wicked.

Excellent points we have been ignoring.

[mfbukowski]

I think we need to get back to the reason Alan made the OP. Partly to ask about the mall and also wondering why their ward was unable to get windows for the wardhouse. Another poster said they didn't have enough chairs and my ward didn't have a decent copier. Not even a stake copier to make several copies. And I'll throw in one more. The firing of several janitors and making the members do all of the cleaning including the toilets etc. My husband was in the HP Presidency and in charge of this for 3 months. It fell to my family several times because of lack of volunteering and no shows. It was pretty bad cleaning the ladies room, much worse was the men's. I don't mind doing most of the cleaning but would think that it would be just as great to keep the janitors from losing their jobs. Plus our gym floors are filthy on Sundays but my family is helping clean tomorrow so hopefully it'll get cleaner. There are are other recent lay offs too, so I'm not buying that the mall was built to help give jobs. I'm not even that upset it was built, let people blow their money. I'm more upset that tithing isn't going where needed sometimes.

Tacenda, love you but this has been answered before a few times. This is up to the managers who manage the building(s) you are talking about. You need to ask your stake president about that or the person in your stake who's calling it is to oversee the buildings so he can get after them. It has nothing to do with tithing funds and how they are spent.

And it sounds like your ward needs some lessons on service and being good stewards of what the Lord has provided for them Or maybe some meetings in a tent in the middle of winter.

[mfbukowski]

Last I heard my dad did it every other year for some tax advantage, didn't ask for details. Never heard of him having a problem with his recommend either.

Exactly- it is all between you and the Lord. If your fiscal year IS a "fiscal year" it doesn't run between January and December anyway. So there is now way you would know how much your tithing even should be in December if your fiscal year is not the same as the calendar year. And if you are receiving dividends and payments out of bonds etc which run over multiple years, calculating your tithing every December would be worse than preparing your tax return. I don't think the Lord wants it that complicated.

That's all we need. Forms from the church to calculate your tithing every December! If you are not current Dec 31, or checks in the mail by midnight, no recommends will be issued.

I don't think it is supposed to work that way.

[mfbukowski]

williamsmith,

You are right that technically, tithing was not used. But you surely can't deny that sacred funds were used.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the church using these funds as it sees fit, but I guess what I am really saying is are we sure that a shopping mall, of all things, was the way to smarten up downtown SLC?

What, in the opinion of posters here, would have been a reasonable alternative?

The US is not a socialist system. Here we let investors decide what is the best investment for their money, and it is not subject to opinion polls from people who have no understanding of all the issues involved.

In other words, there are those of us who actually trust the leadership, and are actually willing to plunk down 10% of our income and let them do with it what they think best. Those who do not trust them are free to do what they like, and vote with their checkbooks. Perhaps that is the source of the problem right there. Pay it and let them handle it, or don't pay it.

If you don't trust them to do it right, keep your money and stop complaining. The door swings both ways.