City Creek Mall

[canard78]

I'm not sure this is true, as i understand that many people gift the church property and other monies at death, or simply as donations.

But do they donate it so the church can in commercial ventures or as a final contribution to the "building up of the kingdom?" It might not be used as "sacred funds," but isn't it given as such?

[bluebell]

But do they donate it so the church can in commercial ventures or as a final contribution to the "building up of the kingdom?" It might not be used as "sacred funds," but isn't it given as such?

I would guess (and that's all it is since no one on here seems to know), that people who donate such to the church, do so with the understanding that the church can use it however they wish, believing that it is all a part of 'building up of the kingdom.'

Most church members know that unless something is donated specifically as 'tithing,' there is no specific way the money has to be used. I can't imagine someone who was concerned with the way the church uses it's money donating large amounts to it in a way that would give the church such free reign.

Also, most donations of this type, if i've heard correctly (and maybe i haven't) are from wealthy members. Most very wealthy people have a much better understanding, in my experience, on how great wealth is actually built than less financially successful people, so they would likely already be aware of the many ways the church, which has great wealth, uses it's money to create more money or opportunity.

[cdowis]

Donations: tithing, fast offering, missionary fund, humanitarian. Now we were told that no tithing was used for the mall, the fast offering does not even cover the needs, so where did the money come from? Missionary.... humanitarian... I don't see a category for "Mall".

It came from the taxable business income of the church. No donation money was involved.

Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis

[rockpond]

So, now that the church has a steady income stream and no debt, we are saying we want it to change the way it does business.

The church had a steady income and no debt long before it started investing in malls.

[rockpond]

This is such a silly position. Do you think you are qualified to review every financial transaction of the Church to determine its ability to manage itself "wisely". Have you ever had any position in the Church that directly involved the management of funds? Please do not foist that bit of gossip mongering on the world; you would not on its face that it is a farce. The investment arm of the church is just that; a professional group that manages investments. It is not an ecclesiastical group, it invests just as any other institutional investor invests. I don't go around announcing to the world my financial worth or how I spend my money nor do I announce to the world the investments I make on behalf of my clients here in the Middle East. The Church has a responsibility to be a good stewart of a wide range of assets. Some are completely secular and others are completely ecclesiastical. It is utter foolishness and ignorance to confuse the two or it is utterly deceitful to attempt to lead others down such a thought process. Just for the record, please don't confuse me with a labels such as TBM or anything of the sort; I am not. What I am and have been for over 30 years is a professional investment manager that has a modicum of understanding of the investment industry. This is one of those topics that makes me roll my eyes repeatedly. There is no church of any size that opens its books to the world so that its members, critics, sympathizers, and any other Tom, ****, or Harry to review every transaction for all of its funds. I look around me and recognize so many rebellious people, it matters not the cause, they are there to protest, to disagree, to find fault, to complain, to whine....incessantly. Why in the world would any organization open themselves up to such on onslaught of time wasting. The Church would need to hire tens of thousands of people simply to respond to the ridiculous questions from every ignorant individual that hasn't a clue about prudent investing. I can hear it now, "You paid that for paper? Gosh, I just saw a sale down at the 5 & 10 for two cents cheaper" "If I was running the show I could do it so much better" "Why do that, do this!" Privacy is for "me" and never for anyone else. If you cannot tell, this is one of those topics that gets my ire up. I am so tired of the mealy mouthed whining by those that can never be satisfied; never at peace, nor do they desire peace. They are those who worship at the alter of contention and fault-finding. No one does it quite as good as they do or could do, but when the time to serve is there they are not found.

I don't know if you are attempting to lump me in with those who "worship at the alter of contention and fault-finding" but I am not. And I do serve, quite extensively in fact.

I pay my tithes because of my belief in that law. What the church chooses to do with the tithes is irrelevant, I will continue to pay tithes and offerings.

I also believe in the principle of common consent. Some feel that financial disclosure is not required to fulfill common consent. I disagree. For a long time the church disclosed its finances. It stopped but never explained why. Men are fallible and without disclosure and common consent we are at risk of having corruption creep in.

Professionally, I am qualified to review finances of investments such as these. It's what I do. But that's not really the point. The point is that this is the church of Jesus Christ and of its members (the Latter-day Saints). You and I financially sustain our church and do not need the finances hidden from us.

[bluebell]

The church had a steady income and no debt long before it started investing in malls.

Given that the church has been investing in the development of SLC(including malls, it appears) long before this one, can we know this for sure?

[Sleeper Cell]

I kind of wish the defenders of the mall would get together and present a united front regarding the degree to which the Church was involved, the nature of their involvement, the origin of the funds used for the mall, and the purpose of LDS church's involvement in the project.

We are the Morg. This glitch will be corrected. And then you will be assimilated.

[Tacenda]

I mentioned on another post that I'd heard that Michael Quinn is writing a book about church finances. Has anyone heard about it? And how would he know the nitty- gritty of it? In the article below it says something about it on page 2, plus gives an overview of the City Creek Mall project. But this was back in 2012 and during the election process when Mormons were in the limelight.

http://www.businessw...mons-make-money

[ERayR]

Every week i pay tithing that is exactly what I'm doing - unless your telling me that the LDS has a clause that allows you to spend tithing money on landscaping that no one ever told me about.

The LDS church spends tithing money on landscaping every day.

[rockpond]

Given that the church has been investing in the development of SLC(including malls, it appears) long before this one, can we know this for sure?

Steady income stream since the days of President Snow, right?

No debt since the McKay years, correct?

Was our first mall investment the ZCMI center?

[Scott Lloyd]

The church had a steady income and no debt long before it started investing in malls.

And the Church has been involved in commercial ventures going as far back as the Kirtland period. The antecedent of City Creek is arguably ZCMI, which began as a cooperative venture among the settlers of Salt Lake City to ensure the economic survival of the settlement -- and, by extension, the Church. If you need me to connect the dots, from Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution sprang the ZCMI department store, from whence sprang the ZCMI Center, from whence sprang City Creek.

Economic vitality has always been an honored and necessary part of the Church's existence. The name "Deseret" comes from the Book of Mormon, where it is interpreted as honey bee, imagery that has symbolized the industry that has characterized the people of God from the beginning of this dispensation.

Early on, the logo used for ZCMI was the beehive and the slogan was "Holiness to the Lord." That's the same expression that appears on our temples and is a reminder that, to God, all things are spiritual, including the means of temporal survival and prosperity of His church and people.

To claim that this is somehow a tainted use of funds strikes me as sanctimonious and judgmental.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know if you are attempting to lump me in with those who "worship at the alter of contention and fault-finding" but I am not. And I do serve, quite extensively in fact.

I pay my tithes because of my belief in that law. What the church chooses to do with the tithes is irrelevant, I will continue to pay tithes and offerings.

I also believe in the principle of common consent. Some feel that financial disclosure is not required to fulfill common consent. I disagree. For a long time the church disclosed its finances. It stopped but never explained why. Men are fallible and without disclosure and common consent we are at risk of having corruption creep in.

Professionally, I am qualified to review finances of investments such as these. It's what I do. But that's not really the point. The point is that this is the church of Jesus Christ and of its members (the Latter-day Saints). You and I financially sustain our church and do not need the finances hidden from us.

Neither do we need them detailed to us.

Moreover, there are wolves in sheep's clothing among us who would not hesitate, if they thought they could, to use information in detailed financial statements to harm the Church in some way. Personally, my interest in seeing such a thing prevented is far greater than any curiosity I might have that would be assuaged by viewing the Church's financials, or any mistrust I might feel toward the people who are handling them. (And the level of that mistrust I feel is zero.)

Edited July 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

They already have BYU Hawaii and BYU Idaho.

And USU . . . and UofU . . . and ISU . . . and Institutes of Religion all over the place . . .

[Ahab]

Donations: tithing, fast offering, missionary fund, humanitarian. Now we were told that no tithing was used for the mall, the fast offering does not even cover the needs, so where did the money come from? Missionary.... humanitarian... I don't see a category for "Mall".

It came from the taxable business income of the church. No donation money was involved.

As I said in another thread not far up from this one, humanitarian aid includes giving money to people for the work they do, rather than all humanitarian aid being limited to only handouts. Thus, shopping is one way to provide humanitarian aid. It's a very broad category.

[rockpond]

And the Church has been involved in commercial ventures going as far back as the Kirtland period. The antecedent of City Creek is arguably ZCMI, which began as a cooperative venture among the settlers of Salt Lake City to ensure the economic survival of the settlement -- and, by extension, the Church. If you need me to connect the dots, from Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution sprang the ZCMI department store, from whence sprang the ZCMI Center, from whence sprang City Creek.

Economic vitality has always been an honored and necessary part of the Church's existence. The name "Deseret" comes from the Book of Mormon, where it is interpreted as honey bee, imagery that has symbolized the industry that has characterized the people of God from the beginning of this dispensation.

Early on, the logo used for ZCMI was the beehive and the slogan was "Holiness to the Lord." That's the same expression that appears on our temples and is a reminder that, to God, all things are spiritual, including the means of temporal survival and prosperity of His church and people.

To claim that this is somehow a tainted use of funds strikes me as sanctimonious and judgmental.

But do you see the progression there? From a cooperative mercantile to City Creek? I think that is what concerns people as well as the proportions of $$$ (which admittedly, we don't really know... another source of concern).

I think there is also a concern that we can afford $1.5 billion for a mall but decide to fire church janitorial staff at the same time.

[rockpond]

As I said in another thread not far up from this one, humanitarian aid includes giving money to people for the work they do, rather than all humanitarian aid being limited to only handouts. Thus, shopping is one way to provide humanitarian aid. It's a very broad category.

Got it: City Creek Mall is providing humanitarian aid.

[Ahab]

But do you see the progression there? From a cooperative mercantile to City Creek? I think that is what concerns people as well as the proportions of $$$ (which admittedly, we don't really know... another source of concern).

I think there is also a concern that we can afford $1.5 billion for a mall but decide to fire church janitorial staff at the same time.

Who knows, those people who used to be janitors may now be making something that is being sold at one of the stores in that mall. If not now, it could be later. What would you rather see? The Church just giving those ex-janitors money for doing nothing when instead they could pay them for doing some kind of work to make something or provide some other service? Edited July 18, 2013 by Ahab

[rockpond]

What would you rather see? The Church just giving those ex-janitors money for doing nothing when instead they could pay them for doing some kind of work to make something or provide some other service?

No, what I would have rather seen is for the janitors to not have lost their jobs.

[Ahab]

Got it: City Creek Mall is providing humanitarian aid.

And the shoppers, too. The money they're paying to buy things is going to people who helped to make things or provide a service. Just imagine all of the stuff there is in there to buy and then realize that somebody made it.

[Ahab]

No, what I would have rather seen is for the janitors to not have lost their jobs.

Jobs come and go, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, and someone needs to do it.

Let's just help to pay for the things people do with their time, whether they're making something or providing a service.

Handouts are okay in some situations, but it's better when people can be productive and others can appreciate the value of that work while paying for it.

And you know what else? What we really need is more shopping, more buying, more circulation of the money we have. That's how an economy gets better with people exchanging goods and services with each other.

[why me]

No, what I would have rather seen is for the janitors to not have lost their jobs.

I do believe that in most church buildings throughout the world, there is a voluntary workforce. For example, wards clean the temple and ward members clean the chapel and surroundings. This gives people the opportunity for service. I also believe that the church would not throw the janitors to the wolves and would help those workers to find new jobs.

[why me]

All true... However, at some point after making money there has to be a point where you start giving it to the poor. Otherwise the idea of making more money to help the poor just isn't valid.

The best way to help the poor is not through a handout but by offering people work. The Mall does this. And I am sure that many people are now working because of church investments. If the church can create jobs, I would call this the best help that any church can give people. With the catholic church and other churches providing soup kitchens and the lds church creating jobs, it is a win win.

[USU78]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Since I had my offices on 1st South and Main for almost 20 years, I think I'm somewhat qualified to comment on the refit of downtown, which includes but is certainly not limited to City Creek.

2. Property taxes, which are used by counties and cities for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to providing services (housing, food, employment training) for the poor, are determined by looking at the kind of use property is being put to. Since Temple Square and the Church Office Building and several other Church buildings, both on campus and off, are not income producing and are part of the Church qua Church, they are not taxed: The Church pays a "user fee" to providers of police, fire, and such services, but not taxes for such buildings. Properties that are used as residences pay taxes, but at a much lesser rate than commercial properties. Commercial enterprises are taxed at rates determined by their profitability. I daresay the majority of those who object to the City Creek project likewise object to the Church not paying taxes on their qua Church buildings. To object also to City Creek on the basis that the money should be used elsewhere is, as far as I can see, a great big "MYOB" proposition, but also ignores the fact that the Church took the same dirt that was producing income, and therefore taxes, at the rate of $X per acre and changed it into property that has increased its tax rate to $aX per acre, where "a" is a multiplier, not yet ultimately determined but will be . . . and will be subject to GRAMA requests for the boobirds, any time they want to look. Increasing the taxes paid by wholly-owned Church subsidiaries must be seen as a positive and unvarnished good to said boobirds. More taxes is better than less taxes. Or one would think.

3. The tenants of downtown businesses all tend to belong to the Downtown Alliance, which is one of the greatest contributors to homeless shelters and such charities operating in Utah's state capital. The reason you don't see all that many panhandlers in downtown is the Downtown Alliance directs its members to donate rather to programs than individuals, and direct those individuals to where they can receive services. Absent higher-scale retailers and lessees of office buildings making those donations, those programs go largely unfunded, or just scrape by.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I said in another thread not far up from this one, humanitarian aid includes giving money to people for the work they do, rather than all humanitarian aid being limited to only handouts. Thus, shopping is one way to provide humanitarian aid. It's a very broad category.

And I gave you a rep point for that post. You are not being ignored.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do believe that in most church buildings throughout the world, there is a voluntary workforce. For example, wards clean the temple and ward members clean the chapel and surroundings. This gives people the opportunity for service. I also believe that the church would not throw the janitors to the wolves and would help those workers to find new jobs.

From what I know of how the Church and its associated businesses handle things, I'm confident that would have been the case.