City Creek Mall

[jim_mason]

People work to make the high end stuff, too, and if nobody bought their stuff they would be out of a job.

Or if you don't like that response, how about this one:

It takes more skill to make some of the higher end stuff and if people didn't buy it then people wouldn't make it, or at least not as much of it, and society might lose those higher end skills to make things.

Or if you don't like that response, how about this one:

We teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy the high end stuff.

the racket known as the jewelry market isn't a discussion for this place, needless to say, the making of jewelry and jewels themselves are not inherently expensive, rackets make them such.

[Ahab]

If we can't discuss variances with in our religious community with out regressing to combative ideas such as flawed or lacking in reason then that's a real shame.

You're pointing out what you see as a flaw in his reasoning too, though, so you are in effect criticizing him and his thought.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. If I can see that you're wrong about something I'm going to tell you about it, and you should respond by saying thank you. Otherwise you're going to remain wrong and not come to understand what is both true and good.

[Bikeemikey]

You are disagreeing with me right now, ergo you must think my reasoning flawed. Can it be said that you are looking down on me?

The Church members you speak of who vocally object to the expenditure of funds on a shopping mall are criticizing decisions made by the leaders of the Church. Are they thus looking down on the leaders of the Church?

And you appear to be saying that their objection is driven by emotions instead of reasoning. Do you think they would regard that as a fair assessment? Which is worse, to say that their reasoning is flawed or to say that they are not using any logical reasoning at all?

If it were me, I think I would rather be disagreed with than patronized.

Of course... In the context of a forum established for the purpose of criticizing and debating concepts both you and I have openly stated we are willing for critical feedback. My criticism was of your expression specifically. Your proclamation of limited reasoning was a generalization to a large group of people based on their difference in opinion to you.

I am indeed stating that I think you have missed a major calculation in understanding the motivations of people who may be opposed to the mall building. Your reliance on the lack of rationality behind such a decision is, to me, evidence of your lack if comprehension.

There seems to be an idea that opposition to the mall could not be a religiously motivated (religious-emotional) response. While many I know who were opposed to the mall vocalized it in terms of a misuse of church resource when I inquired further there concern was that it felt wrong at an emotive and religious level.

There are many members who didn't like the decision who have not been vocal about their position... Because the respect they have for the church leadership. Those who are vocal about it are entitled to be vocal to. Just as you are entitled to be vocal about their lack of reasonable thought.

These groups entitlement to be this way does not make it productive.

As for your last thought... When dealing with a religious group on an issue within the religious community, it is fair to assume that some in that group will be engaged in a religious modality. The religious paradigm is not logic and reason first.

As an LDS member and believer when I tell someone I am religious and a mormon I sometimes get the response: that's not very logical, it's not reasonable to believe in god. While it can make interesting conversation such a response to my belief is made out of a lack of understanding as to what drives religious feelings and belief.

Likewise, to criticize the logic of someone having a religious response that causes them to oppose the mall may be interesting... It is however a tangential issue.

[Bikeemikey]

You're pointing out what you see as a flaw in his reasoning too, though, so you are in effect criticizing him and his thought.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. If I can see that you're wrong about something I'm going to tell you about it, and you should respond by saying thank you. Otherwise you're going to remain wrong and not come to understand what is both true and good.

You are correct ... I addressed this in my preceding post.

My assumption is that those in this forum have invited and actively solicited this sort of feedback.

Those in the public domain may or may not have. Our public discourse should be inquiring and loving, not combative and fault finding.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course... In the context of a forum established for the purpose of criticizing and debating concepts both you and I have openly stated we are willing for critical feedback. My criticism was of your expression specifically. Your proclamation of limited reasoning was a generalization to a large group of people based on their difference in opinion to you.

My post specifically challenged a line of reasoning as it pertains to the objection about the Church spending money to build the mall. It was you who personalized it by accusing me of looking down on those who hold this line of reasoning.

I am indeed stating that I think you have missed a major calculation in understanding the motivations of people who may be opposed to the mall building. Your reliance on the lack of rationality behind such a decision is, to me, evidence of your lack if comprehension.

Their motivations were not the subject of my post; their reasoning was. And if someone undertakes in public to criticize the Church for an action, be it here or in some other public venue, he should expect to have that criticism challenged.

There seems to be an idea that opposition to the mall could not be a religiously motivated (religious-emotional) response. While many I know who were opposed to the mall vocalized it in terms of a misuse of church resource when I inquired further there concern was that it felt wrong at an emotive and religious level.

Whatever their emotional objections might be, if they are not rational, then you do them no favor by protecting them from having this pointed out. Again, I would rather be disagreed with than patronized.

There are many members who didn't like the decision who have not been vocal about their position... Because the respect they have for the church leadership. Those who are vocal about it are entitled to be vocal to. Just as you are entitled to be vocal about their lack of reasonable thought.

Again, if they are vocal about it, they should expect to have their opinion challenged, just as I do.

As for your last thought... When dealing with a religious group on an issue within the religious community, it is fair to assume that some in that group will be engaged in a religious modality. The religious paradigm is not logic and reason first.

I believe, as a matter of faith, that the Brethren were acting under inspiration from God with regard to construction of the mall. That doesn't excuse me from considering the matter rationally and trying to express my reasoning to others. I believe that both can be done.

As an LDS member and believer when I tell someone I am religious and a mormon I sometimes get the response: that's not very logical, it's not reasonable to believe in god. While it can make interesting conversation such a response to my belief is made out of a lack of understanding as to what drives religious feelings and belief.

Likewise, to criticize the logic of someone having a religious response that causes them to oppose the mall may be interesting... It is however a tangential issue.

If an argument has been expressed, that asrgument is apt to be countered, regardless of how emotional the arguer may be about it. It does no one any good to leave faulty arguments unchallenged.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are correct ... I addressed this in my preceding post.

My assumption is that those in this forum have invited and actively solicited this sort of feedback.

Those in the public domain may or may not have.

If they have expressed their complaints in public, they are implicitly inviting feedback, whether here or in some other forum.

Our public discourse should be inquiring and loving, not combative and fault finding.

I feel you are combating and finding fault with my rebuttal. But I bear you no ill will for it. It's the price one pays for expressing fervently held opinions in public.

And again, my post was challenging a specific line of reasoning that I have seen expressed repeatedly on the matter of the City Creek Mall. It was not looking down on anyone,.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

If they have expressed their complaints in public, they are implicitly inviting feedback, whether here or in some other forum.

I feel you are combating and finding fault with my rebuttal. But I bear you no ill will for it. It's the price one pays for expressing fervently held opinions in public.

And again, my post was challenging a specific line of reasoning that I have seen expressed repeatedly on the matter of the City Creek Mall. It was not looking down on anyone,.

The idea that someone who expresses something in public is implicitly inviting feedback may be correct... That the feedback ought to be a rational engagement based on contesting logic and fact may not be accurate.

What I am pointing out is that your concern about the logic of those involved in criticizing the mall may be too narrow of a focus.

Of course we are disagreeing and debating - we are on a discussion forum. It this generated ill will for you it would be a very unhealthy place for you.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Deborah]

I guess if you think pointing out the basic absurdity of a point to be an attempt at humor that would be your conclusion we don't build chapels and Temples for economic development purposes, but they may provide some economic stimulus. I don't think that was really the purpose behind City Creek Mall. The purpose there was damage control.

On the contrary. One of the stated purposes for building the mall and getting community involvement was to inspire others to do the same to build up the whole downtown and from what I have seen it's been working.

[Stone holm]

On the contrary. One of the stated purposes for building the mall and getting community involvement was to inspire others to do the same to build up the whole downtown and from what I have seen it's been working.

The primary purpose was to protect Temple Square. Had the purpose been to simply find an anchor development for the gentrification of downtown SLC, then even I probably could not have supported the project. This type of development is not real economic development, its displacement development that drives up the real estate values and forces the former occupants to go elsewhere. Not that such development wasn't a good thing in this instance because a decrepit and decaying SLC is an embarrassment to the Church since to most Americans SLC is symbolic of Mormonism and the good life and prosperity that faithful saints bring to an area. Pragmatically, this is all about image. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but we need to be realistic.

[why me]

Pragmatically, this is all about image. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but we need to be realistic.

This can be true. But let me put it this way: who would want to go to downtown detroit in the evening to do temple sessions? Who would feel safe walking around the city in the evening, enjoying the downtown atmosphere? I think that the vibrant downtown atmosphere may be a good thing for salt lake.

[Tacenda]

Here's something interesting I just heard about today, someone paid for their mission up front, over $10,000.00 worth and now, for some reason cannot go. He wanted the money returned but the church won't give it back. Plus my neighbors were told by someone they know, not to pay more than the required amt per month or they wouldn't get it back. Does anyone know why the church keeps something that doesn't belong to them, isn't that dishonest? How do they get away with that?

[why me]

Here's something interesting I just heard about today, someone paid for their mission up front, over $10,000.00 worth and now, for some reason cannot go. He wanted the money returned but the church won't give it back. Plus my neighbors were told by someone they know, not to pay more than the required amt per month or they wouldn't get it back. Does anyone know why the church keeps something that doesn't belong to them, isn't that dishonest? How do they get away with that?

I think that we would need something more than someone hearing. I don't think that the church would get away with it. It is someone's life savings. But who knows. Lets see what people say. But this is off topic a liittle. You may wish to edit it and start a new thread.

[Tacenda]

I think that we would need something more than someone hearing. I don't think that the church would get away with it. It is someone's life savings. But who knows. Lets see what people say. But this is off topic a liittle. You may wish to edit it and start a new thread.

Well, I was as dumbfounded as anyone. I can't start new threads, sorry to derail your thread, I'll bow out. ETA: I submitted a question on LDS.tech about this and will possibly post the answer on a thread more appropiate. After reading on the discussion board it appeared to be true that overages aren't refunded but redistributed into say tithing or ? So maybe it will be a big prepayment of tithing for him. Edited July 20, 2013 by Tacenda

[Deborah]

Here's something interesting I just heard about today, someone paid for their mission up front, over $10,000.00 worth and now, for some reason cannot go. He wanted the money returned but the church won't give it back. Plus my neighbors were told by someone they know, not to pay more than the required amt per month or they wouldn't get it back. Does anyone know why the church keeps something that doesn't belong to them, isn't that dishonest? How do they get away with that?

Ah the rumor mill is so strong. In the first place I've never heard of anyone paying for a mission "up front." In the second place a 2 year mission would never cost that much. I'm not sure how much parents are expected to pay now, but it was $350 per month and at that rate for 2 1/2 years the total cost would be $10,500. In the third place if the money was given as a donation on the tithing slip it will go to the general missionary fund, never to an individual for a "future" mission. If a person wants to save for his mission he opens a personal savings account.

Tacenda, you really need to stop listening to rumors and hearsay.

[Duncan]

Here's something interesting I just heard about today, someone paid for their mission up front, over $10,000.00 worth and now, for some reason cannot go. He wanted the money returned but the church won't give it back. Plus my neighbors were told by someone they know, not to pay more than the required amt per month or they wouldn't get it back. Does anyone know why the church keeps something that doesn't belong to them, isn't that dishonest? How do they get away with that?

I talked to my bro who is a stake clerk. he said the Church strongly discourages anyone from paying for their mission up front for these reasons and they would have have been told that before, once you give money to the Church it's theirs and up to their discretion.That money for their mission comes out of the ward fund and so the ward has to reimburse itself every month so that's where the payer for the mission comes to reimburse the ward money pot. He said that it's a donation if you did and they don't give back donations. it's like trying to hold down a thousand ping pong balls in a pool, it can't be done

[Tacenda]

Ah the rumor mill is so strong. In the first place I've never heard of anyone paying for a mission "up front." In the second place a 2 year mission would never cost that much. I'm not sure how much parents are expected to pay now, but it was $350 per month and at that rate for 2 1/2 years the total cost would be $10,500. In the third place if the money was given as a donation on the tithing slip it will go to the general missionary fund, never to an individual for a "future" mission. If a person wants to save for his mission he opens a personal savings account.

Tacenda, you really need to stop listening to rumors and hearsay.

This isn't hearsay. My neighbors who have a son out now were told by the bishop to not pay over the monthly rate because they won't get it back. Yeah, that wasn't the smartest thing for this guy to have done, I get that. I hope the LDS Tech people can give a reply. Also, this happened maybe 3 yrs. ago and I know personally, the monthly fee was $400 per month. ETA: Here is one reply so far....."The Tithing and Other Offerings donation slip makes it clear that "all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion." It is the longstanding policy of the Church that donations cannot be refunded. In particular, missionary donations cannot be refunded, since doing so would mean it's not really a charitable donation, and would put at risk the tax deductibility of all missionary donations.

Note, however, that although donations cannot be refunded, they can be recategorized. So if a donation is not needed for missionary purposes anymore, its category could be changed to tithing or fast offering, or some other charitable donation category."

What is this doing in this thread? This is why your posting privileges have been limited and you are removed from threads that you hijack.

[Deborah]

My neighbors who have a son out now were told by the bishop to not pay over the monthly rate because they won't get it back.

That is common sense. Again if someone wants to save for a mission open a savings account.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Deborah

[bluebell]

This isn't hearsay. My neighbors who have a son out now were told by the bishop to not pay over the monthly rate because they won't get it back. Yeah, that wasn't the smartest thing for this guy to have done, I get that. I hope the LDS Tech people can give a reply. Also, this happened maybe 3 yrs. ago and I know personally, the monthly fee was $400 per month. ETA: Here is one reply so far....."The Tithing and Other Offerings donation slip makes it clear that "all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion." It is the longstanding policy of the Church that donations cannot be refunded. In particular, missionary donations cannot be refunded, since doing so would mean it's not really a charitable donation, and would put at risk the tax deductibility of all missionary donations.

Note, however, that although donations cannot be refunded, they can be recategorized. So if a donation is not needed for missionary purposes anymore, its category could be changed to tithing or fast offering, or some other charitable donation category."

Looks like there's no need to wait for anyone else to answer, as you've quoted the answer to your question right here.

No one can pay for 'their' mission up front. It's not like each missionary has an account at church headquarters where such money would be placed. Payments for missions are donations to the church. Everyone pays a flat sum into one 'pot' (so to speak) and then the money is divided up between everyone according to their needs. They use the money however and wherever it's needed and not every missionary receives back the same amount they paid in.

That means that if you have a son that's called to serve in some mission where it costs 150 dollars a month to sustain him, all money that you pay over that amount goes towards someone else's expense (like the missionary serving in some super expensive place where it costs 600 a month to handle all of his needs, for example). The money that you (hypothetical 'you', not you personally) pay doesn't belong to your son to use for his mission. It belongs to the church to be used for everyone's mission.

This is explained right on the donation slip as well as would very likely be explained to anyone attempting to pay for a mission upfront (since the ward would have had to have been notified on why such a large amount of money was being given to them). Anyone trying to get the money back after knowing all of this would have to be delusional. (Not trying to say anything bad about the people you are talking about, but really, it makes a person wonder....)

[Deborah]

That means that if you have a son that's called to serve in some mission where it costs 150 dollars a month to sustain him, all money that you pay over that amount goes towards someone else's expense (like the missionary serving in some super expensive place where it costs 600 a month to handle all of his needs, for example).

My son was in a very expensive mission and I wish they'd had this program in place when he was. The amount asked is minimal, and hopefully the missionary himself has saved most of it.

[cinepro]

Here's something interesting I just heard about today, someone paid for their mission up front, over $10,000.00 worth and now, for some reason cannot go. He wanted the money returned but the church won't give it back. Plus my neighbors were told by someone they know, not to pay more than the required amt per month or they wouldn't get it back. Does anyone know why the church keeps something that doesn't belong to them, isn't that dishonest? How do they get away with that?

Why would anyone do that? I guess if you knew the monthly cost was going up, you could save a little money by pre-paying at the lower rate. Any financial planner would tell you that you're much better off paying month-to-month and investing the rest in something that will pay interest.

Like a mall.

Edited July 20, 2013 by cinepro

[Bikeemikey]

Why would anyone do that? I guess if you knew the monthly cost was going up, you could save a little money by pre-paying at the lower rate. Any financial planner would tell you that you're much better off paying month-to-month and investing the rest in something that will pay interest.

Like a mall.

Nice - shame I can't rep point from my phone.

[Garden Girl]

Here's something interesting I just heard about today, someone paid for their mission up front, over $10,000.00 worth and now, for some reason cannot go. He wanted the money returned but the church won't give it back. Plus my neighbors were told by someone they know, not to pay more than the required amt per month or they wouldn't get it back. Does anyone know why the church keeps something that doesn't belong to them, isn't that dishonest? How do they get away with that?

Tacenda...

This has to be one of your worst posts yet... you're always saying how you "heard" about something... or someone's distant relative for example heard something (this time its "someone" telling your neighbors)... and you gleefully pass it along as if it had merit... but the worst part is where you intimate the "Church keeps something that doesn't belong to them," hence, isn't the Church dishonest. In your zeal to find fault with the Church, do you ever really think about what you are posting?

Sorry, Tacenda, if I sound harsh as I wish you no ill and you know that, but this seems to be a pattern with you. Now, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand...

GG

Edited July 21, 2013 by Garden Girl

[why me]

To get back on topic:

When we see the turmoil of what is happening in cities across America, especially in Detroit, it is good that the lds church has invested in its home city. And this is what it is all about. To keep the church's home city vibrant and productive. I do believe that if salt lake experienced what Detroit is now experiencing, the critics would have a field day criticizing the lds church for allowing salt lake to fail and waste away. In other words, the critics would never be happy with what the church does.

[Danzo]

This isn't hearsay. My neighbors who have a son out now were told by the bishop to not pay over the monthly rate because they won't get it back. Yeah, that wasn't the smartest thing for this guy to have done, I get that. I hope the LDS Tech people can give a reply. Also, this happened maybe 3 yrs. ago and I know personally, the monthly fee was $400 per month. ETA: Here is one reply so far....."The Tithing and Other Offerings donation slip makes it clear that "all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion." It is the longstanding policy of the Church that donations cannot be refunded. In particular, missionary donations cannot be refunded, since doing so would mean it's not really a charitable donation, and would put at risk the tax deductibility of all missionary donations.

Note, however, that although donations cannot be refunded, they can be recategorized. So if a donation is not needed for missionary purposes anymore, its category could be changed to tithing or fast offering, or some other charitable donation category."

What is this doing in this thread? This is why your posting privileges have been limited and you are removed from threads that you hijack.

If the donations were conditional, then well established law says that they could not be written off as a charitable deduction.

This is a measure to insure that the contributions are tax deductible.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No, I don't have trouble understanding that, and I have no problem with it. I'm just thinking that since all of it is Church owned property it makes sense that we might hear something about how much property we have all over the world.

You can get down off of your high horse now.

The Church has major land holdings...many are farms for growing food. Most others are Church historical sites. The remaining make money. You may remember when the Church lowered certain Church donations because they had reached a level where they did not need it...the only time I have never known a church asking for less. This is what Church holdings do.