City Creek Mall

[ERayR]

People also seek the designation for a whole other reason.

I was not commenting on the reasons for a not-for-profit but upon the operation of such. The reason is primarily that an organization wants to avoid income tax and keep the money for the operation of their cause. There are certain causes that can legitimately do this if they adhere to the rules.

[jim_mason]

"So criticisms of immodest clothing sales are a bit over the top. If the Church said they couldn't sell those things, we would hear howls of protest."

It is not "over the top" to question why a Church business would permit immodesty on its property across the street from the Temple. It is a legitimate concern, that many things the Church in opposition to the Church are utilized to generate a profit.

[bluebell]

"So criticisms of immodest clothing sales are a bit over the top. If the Church said they couldn't sell those things, we would hear howls of protest."

It is not "over the top" to question why a Church business would permit immodesty on its property across the street from the Temple. It is a legitimate concern, that many things the Church in opposition to the Church are utilized to generate a profit.

Maybe it has to do with the idea that the church teaches correct principles, and then let's people govern themselves.

[ERayR]

"So criticisms of immodest clothing sales are a bit over the top. If the Church said they couldn't sell those things, we would hear howls of protest."

It is not "over the top" to question why a Church business would permit immodesty on its property across the street from the Temple. It is a legitimate concern, that many things the Church in opposition to the Church are utilized to generate a profit.

It is inappropriate for the Church to force our standards on those who are not members. Rather we should teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. In the meantime we should learn to govern ourselves by those correct principles. Once we teach enough people immodest clothing sales will no longer be an issue.

If the Church were to impose church standards can;t you just hear the criticism for the control?

Hey Bluebell great minds work alike.

Edited July 17, 2013 by ERayR

[Scott Gordon]

So if the Church told Macys or Nordsrom what they could and could not sell....do you think that would go down well?

First, the stores would say, heck no! (or something similar.)

Secondly, it would hit the national news.

Third, we would have protestors picketing.

Fouth, the blogs would explode with nay sayers.

The Church allowed in the major retailers. They are good tenants. I am disappointed that those things sell so well there. If they didn't, the retailers wouldn't carry them. But, the church tries to teach, not impose.

You could say they could get different tenants, but name one that doesn't sell those items. Just one.

[Ahab]

My dad taught us good financial self control. Only problem was he never gave us a chance to practice it so each of us (except perhaps the last one, but he got the benefit of living with the parents while going to school so was way ahead there) kind of bombed when we first went out on our own. Cost him much more bailing us out (and some he has had to bail out multiple times over the years big time) than it would have giving us an allowance and letting us actually practice money management to some extent prior to being on our own completely.

You're very fortunate that he was able to bail you out. My Dad didn't teach me (instead giving me the impression that lots of credit cards were a good thing to have) and he's not financially able to help me as he did you, so I'm having pay for the costs of my lesson myself. Which is only fair, I guess, since I'm the one who got myself into this mess. It's going to take years, though, and to think now that all of this could have been avoided had I simply heeded the counsel from our prophets. Ugh! Drives me crazy, sometimes.

[ERayR]

So if the Church told Macys or Nordsrom what they could and could not sell....do you think that would go down well?

First, the stores would say, heck no! (or something similar.)

Secondly, it would hit the national news.

Third, we would have protestors picketing.

Fouth, the blogs would explode with nay sayers.

The Church allowed in the major retailers. They are good tenants. I am disappointed that those things sell so well there. If they didn't, the retailers wouldn't carry them. But, the church tries to teach, not impose.

You could say they could get different tenants, but name one that doesn't sell those items. Just one.

If the Church or its members only accepted business (money) from those who lived Church standards we all would have a very limited income.

[Calm]

You're very fortunate that he was able to bail you out.

Yes, I remind myself often that it was a great blessing growing up and as an adult to have a perfect sense of financial security, though we weren't wealthy by any means. But I knew my parents were prudent and would always have enough to keep us safe.

[jim_mason]

So if the Church told Macys or Nordsrom what they could and could not sell....do you think that would go down well?

First, the stores would say, heck no! (or something similar.)

Secondly, it would hit the national news.

Third, we would have protestors picketing.

Fouth, the blogs would explode with nay sayers.

....

None of which has ever stopped the Church, so 1 - 4 are not persuasive.

Bluebell, in my opinion has the best response, teach and let others govern themselves.

[Calm]

Am curious as it's been awhile since I've been there, are there posted dress standards for temple square for visitors?

[Scott Lloyd]

Am curious as it's been awhile since I've been there, are there posted dress standards for temple square for visitors?

I often go there and have not seen such a thing.

The Church Plaza on North Main Street in Salt Lake (often erroneously called the "Main Street Plaza"), located between Temple Square and the Joseph Smith Memorial Building/Church Office Building block, has signs informing visitors that skateboarding and such things are prohibited and that it is private property and the Church reserves the right to refuse access to any person for any reason.

Those signs were posted in the wake of an incident in 2009, when two inebriated gay men were engaging in amorous behavior on the plaza and, when confronted by Church security, became belligerent.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

I often go there and have not seen such a thing.

The Church Plaza on North Main Street in Salt Lake (often erroneously called the "Main Street Plaza"), located between Temple Square and the Joseph Smith Memorial Building/Church Office Building block, has signs informing visitors that skateboarding and such things are prohibited and that it is private property and the Church reserves the right to refuse access to any person for any reason.

Those signs were posted in the wake of an incident in 2009, when two inebriated gay men were engaging in amorous behavior on the plaza and, when confronted by Church security, became belligerent.

Didn't that result in some kind of kiss in demonstration?

[Scott Gordon]

None of which has ever stopped the Church, so 1 - 4 are not persuasive.

Bluebell, in my opinion has the best response, teach and let others govern themselves.

I agree with Bluebell also. That is the right answer.

While I agree that 2-4 might not be persuasive, #1 would certainly stop the church. We don't live in a theocratic dictatorship. The church could demand all day long, but it would make no difference. So we need to stop insisting the Church should control what is sold. They can't. So why do we have this line of criticism?

[Scott Lloyd]

None of which has ever stopped the Church, so 1 - 4 are not persuasive.

Bluebell, in my opinion has the best response, teach and let others govern themselves.

It's persuasive to me. The Church leaders are not idiots.

[Scott Lloyd]

Didn't that result in some kind of kiss in demonstration?

Not placement of the signs. The sign placement came later.

What you are referring to was a public protest by about six dozen people in reaction to the intent on the part of the Church to pursue prosecution. Ultimately, the city attorney, Sim Gill, elected not to prosecute. He then suggested to the Church that it post the signs.

The background is in the story I linked to.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Although I support this action by the Church, I wouldn't get too carried away here with parables because Christ did braid a whip and drive the moneychangers out of the Temple.

There is no way you can use this comparison...these are not money changers in the Temple. That was truly a cheap shot and un-called-for.

[jim_mason]

It's persuasive to me. The Church leaders are not idiots.

Does history show that the Church capitulates to: blogging by nay sayers, picketing, national news, "heck no"?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Or we could strive to make the church and SLC synonymous with something like "global humanitarian aid".

Nah. Let's stick with high-end shopping and multi-million dollar penthouses. Better profit potential.

So you are suggesting that any business the Church has a connection to...it is only Christ-like if it a failure. Making more money, actually doing something successful, means more money to help more poor. The LDS Church is already involved in "global humanitarian aid", to the observant.

[canard78]

For me, the City Creek adventure was probably a mistake. I think the church authorities probably realise that now and I doubt the Church will ever embark on something like this again.

These were sacred funds, and should have been used on the sacred, in my view.

Jut as the prop 8 debacle wasn't repeated when other states took it to the vote I also doubt they will do the same with City Creek. At least I hope not.

[why me]

Maybe it has to do with the idea that the church teaches correct principles, and then let's people govern themselves.

"So criticisms of immodest clothing sales are a bit over the top. If the Church said they couldn't sell those things, we would hear howls of protest."

It is not "over the top" to question why a Church business would permit immodesty on its property across the street from the Temple. It is a legitimate concern, that many things the Church in opposition to the Church are utilized to generate a profit.

I do believe that members can wear immodest clothing if they so wish. However, wearing temple garments usually prevents such dress. But it is not a sin to wear short shorts etc. There also needs to be free agency.

[canard78]

The first rule of disaster response: “Don’t become a disaster victim, yourself."

The second rule of disaster response: “Start where you stand.”

You might also consider that if the LDS church had declined to invest in a major SLC project, that would have had a “negative multiplier effect” on the SLC economy. Why would an outside investor want to risk their money on a city revitalization project for SLC, if the LDS Church (which presumably is much more familiar with the situation in SLC, and, in many ways, has much more to lose than anyone else if SLC deteriorates) declined to invest? IIRC, in a previous thread on this topic, someone pointed out that the LDS church investment in the CCM development has had a positive multiplier effect (as a result of the LDS church investment, others decided to invest in SLC projects).

I'm afraid I don't really consider the SLC economy to be of higher priority than any other, so this line of 'SLC would have gone kapput' is of little value to me. The prophet's ability to lead is not dependent on having a nice shiny city to drive around in or a shopping mall to get a burger/designer watch in.

[Scott Gordon]

For some reason people don't understand that the Church needs money to provide humanitarian aid. They can do it once and then close their doors, or they can invest their money and continue to provide humanitarian aid for many future generations. The Church is doing what all good non profit organizations and universities do. But for some reason, the Church gets criticized for managing its money wisely. I think the whole City Creek Mall criticism is a cheap shot at a fiscally sound move. I know that isn't the popular opinion. Maybe its because I teach business that I see this as a sound and a wise decision on the part of our church leaders.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Scott Gordon

[why me]

Wait....is someone trying to say that capitalism isn't part of the gospel?....why of course it is....well maybe it is....well at least during this life.... well exactly how many shoes does a god get to have?

Buying shoes is not exactly capitalism. But certainly Christ's father was a small businessman who sold wood products. People had to buy the products and a profit needed to be made. The Mall gives a service. It offers products for sale. There is nothing unholy in that. The problem comes from excess and materialism. But the problem is that within the current system, shopping can be automatically compared to greed and materialism. This is perhaps the basic nature of the system now. But this has nothing to do with a mall but with the current ideology.

[why me]

For some reason people don't understand that the Church needs money to provide humanitarian aid. They can do it once and then close their doors, or they can invest their money and continue to provide humanitarian aid for many future generations. The Church is doing what all good non profit organizations and universities do. But for some reason, the Church gets criticized for managing its money wisely. I think the whole City Creek Mall criticism is a cheap shot at a fiscally sound move. I know that isn't the popular opinion. Maybe its because I teach business that I see this as a sound and a wise decision on the part of our church leaders.

I think that the critics only want to make this an issue for a reason: to have members doubt the church. There is nothing wrong in a church investing in a mall as there is nothing wrong in a church investing in an amusement park. People need to shop for goods. And a Mall is where people go. A mall has become a community of people who go there to receive a service or it is a place to hang out and socialize. It is an experience.

The problem comes with its connotation as a den of evil because people can be greedy and materialistic. And how can a church support such an endeavor which encourages greed and materialism is the critic rant. What they don't understand is that a mall also provides work not just for the people who work there but also for the people who deliver the goods, who make the goods, and who grow the goods.

The church teaches people to be careful with their money and not to overdue it. It is against materialism and greed. But at the end of the day, people still need goods and services and a Mall does provide them. The church does not teach to buy and buy and buy. But rather to be prudent and one can go to a mall and behave in such a way.

Edited July 18, 2013 by why me

[Stone holm]

There is no way you can use this comparison...these are not money changers in the Temple. That was truly a cheap shot and un-called-for.

As indicated in the post to which you objected, I have always supported the Church's action on this project. But one has to be cautious in not over defending it. To many it probably was felt to skirt awfully close to the incident which I referenced. I feel it was justified be cause without intervention the Temple block would have become or had already become an island in the midst of a sea of blight do to non interventionist politics. Projects such as this can easily have uninspired elements. While I feel confident that The Lord prompted the Brethren to act, I find it unlikely that He spelled out exactly what they were to do.