In defense of the City Creek Center

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Wow....I didn't know this. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200444160

The only drawback to having Amazon Prime, is that it is so easy to shop, you need to be careful!  But luckily they have free returns on almost everything, even on big items. ETA: Maybe they aren't that great with returns, I've just bought things that have free returns generally. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

On 3/17/2017 at 11:28 AM, Tacenda said:

First point, disagree that it created many jobs which help the poor. What does that really mean?

[Ahab]

On 3/18/2017 at 9:52 AM, Teancum said:

Really?  Did the Church build a mall in a few other cities recently in order to bolster the local economy?

I was alluding to how the money spent on that mall benefits people in other areas of the world, as well  It's not only a local benefit.  No store or mall is only a local benefit, because the things offered for sale in a store or mall come from other areas of the world where both the poor and the rich produce those goods that are offered for sale in those stores and malls.

[The Nehor]

On 3/18/2017 at 2:28 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Because President Trump hasn't talked about jobs or creating jobs once over the last six months, right?  I didn't realize a church's focus should be on economic development/jobs/malls.  The church, IMO, sounds more like a corporation in this case because of its focus on jobs and economic development.  I guess at the end of the day, $ is the priority for some...

Mission of the Church:

 1. Perfect the saints

 2.  Proclaim the gospel

 3.  Redeem the dead

 4. Care for the poor and needy

 5. Create jobs

 6.  Build malls 

 

You think Trump is actually going to create jobs? You are adorable.

Edited March 20, 2017 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I started down that line because the OP asked about the church doing this in other areas and you said you would like to see the money put in other areas. I, poorly, was showing that the church IS helping in other countries, but just because we don't see it then we shouldn't assume it isn't being done and because if things are not that simple with the poor areas maybe they are not as simple with city creek being there only to make the church richer.

I know that the church is helping in other areas.  I never suggested otherwise and don't assume that it isn't being done.  I just said that I would like to see the billions from City Creek used differently.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just think of the cleft palate surgeries, eye cures, substantially better wheel chairs, clean water (even in our country such as Flint, Michigan, good missionary tool) that can happen in third world countries.... too many to list, vs. this mall. Which in a few years may not be needed after all, since malls are becoming less and less a thing. 

"LDS Charities is the humanitarian arm of the Church. In 2015, LDS Charities completed 2,300 projects in 136 countries that provided aid with disaster relief, clean water and sanitation, wheelchairs, maternal and newborn care, immunization campaigns, vision care, and family gardening."

https://www.lds.org/refugees

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

With all due respect, there are several comments on here that to me are often over-simplified or over-generalized in both the suggestions of where they could spend more money or where they could have better spent money or in the assumptions about working with third-world economic problems. To be fair, there are some in defense that also come off over simplified and overgeneralized.

 

That includes the first post that suggested why couldn’t we also build a mall, or something like it, in Ghana.

 

I find the criticism as oversimplified and at points hyperbolic such as in this comment in this thread:

 

 

 

And whether you meant to or not this comment does sound oversimplified to me:

 

 

 

I studied international development for my minor. It’s not my career and it doesn’t necessarily make me an expert, but to assume that any entity on earth had the intellectual resources to effectively invest in and support third-world economies seems a stretch. Or an oversimplification. I am not suggesting that people are saying here that we should give fishes rather than teaching to fish. That would be a strawman on your part . I do feel that some of the criticism is treating economic development and humanitarian work as a zero-sum game where because the church invested big in one project that they’re not a fan of (and then oversimplify or inject potential reasons for it that cut out any “noble” purposes) it’s short changing other areas. Or that it’s not equitable because it’s UT and they won’t reproduce similar results in other areas…when there are fairly valid reasons that I can think of from the top of my head as to why they don’t (and shouldn’t) do such.

 

 

With luv,

BD

The "giving fishes, rather than teaching to fish" was not a strawman on my part.  Strapping Lad claimed that critics say the church should do that.

Whether or not it's a zero-sum game, that $1.5B that was spent on City Creek was no longer available for other projects.  Now, if it is going to produce a profit that it used for pursuits that are more in line with the gospel, that would be nice but I don't see any evidence of that.

As for developments like City Creek in other nations, please note that City Creek is not just a mall.  It's a massive mixed use development with office, hotel, and residential space.  The church already does that all around the world.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes it is, and I actually think there's some fairly good reasons for that. The church is very careful with the money and in humanitarian efforts more money isn't absolutely needed, but sustainable systems that can support aid given...ironically these systems may be cheaper in and of themselves because they focus on local and established groups/systems to funnel the work and more organic methods to implimentation. Plus the projects outside of developed nations are inherently going to be cheaper because the american dollar goes further in these regions. What I see is the church trying to use sustainable methods to apply aid. Doing so also means that they can have a longer impact in aid and a staying power in the region. At least that's what I see with the projects I've seen. 

 

But breakfast and potting flowers call....so I'm out for the bit  

With luv, 

BD

 

All true.  And there is still plenty that can be done.  Plenty of people are still suffering and lacking the basic necessities of life.

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just think of the cleft palate surgeries, eye cures, substantially better wheel chairs, clean water (even in our country such as Flint, Michigan, good missionary tool) that can happen in third world countries.... too many to list, vs. this mall. Which in a few years may not be needed after all, since malls are becoming less and less a thing. 

Again, this isn't a zero sum scenario. And some of these things the church can't exactly go in and fix (like Flint, which at this point takes a massive infrastructure overhaul that likely has to go through government channels). I can imagine the cleft palate surgeries while imagining an urban development project, and wheel chairs while also a Philly project, while expanding their education programs for more access to college courses through online schooling, while feeding the hungry and giving aid to refugees while working for clean water projects. It's not one or the other.

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The "giving fishes, rather than teaching to fish" was not a strawman on my part.  Strapping Lad claimed that critics say the church should do that.

Whether or not it's a zero-sum game, that $1.5B that was spent on City Creek was no longer available for other projects.  Now, if it is going to produce a profit that it used for pursuits that are more in line with the gospel, that would be nice but I don't see any evidence of that.

As for developments like City Creek in other nations, please note that City Creek is not just a mall.  It's a massive mixed use development with office, hotel, and residential space.  The church already does that all around the world.

I assumed the statement would be "giving fishes" would be tied to what I was saying, not strappinglad. 

I would say it was more likely an investment endeavor considering the basic model that I see in a lot of church projects are ones that are both helpful to the area but can also be used to further more projects through productions. Not all the time, obviously, but often....particularly with more economic development projects. That's obviously from my limited stand-point from random articles I've read...just seems to be a trend. 

And yes, I know it is more than just a mall. Thank you for pointing out that the church already does that all around the world. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

All true.  And there is still plenty that can be done.  Plenty of people are still suffering and lacking the basic necessities of life.

There is. I agree.

With luv,

BD 

[strappinglad]

In Matthew 26:11 Jesus says ' the poor you have with you always' . I wonder why? Did He mean that poor people are inevitable? Did He means there will always be poor? If He did, and it is debatable , why would that be? Is it because of the human condition, or human nature? The saying that all men are born equal is really not accurate. Some are stronger, smarter, faster, etc. Some have talents that they use to benefit themselves and others. Some either hide their talents or never had any. Some are born in a land where individual freedom is honored, some are born where individual freedom is repressed. Some are born in peaceful circumstances, others in what seems to be perpetual war. I have read that the wealth of a family is often gone by the 3rd or 4th generation . I have also read that people in the top 10% of incomes will rotate out of that percentile over time. If one wants to avoid poverty in the US there are a few things one must do. 1. get at least a high school education, 2. get a job. 3. don't be a single parent. It is true that circumstances sometimes conspire to hinder the accomplishment of one or more of these goals, but for the most part, they lie within the control of an individual. Is it a coincidence that the Church puts significant effort into getting people to strive for these minimal goals? Would that be advocating a prosperity gospel?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I know that the church is helping in other areas.  I never suggested otherwise and don't assume that it isn't being done.  I just said that I would like to see the billions from City Creek used differently.

Did you mean "for City Creek" and not "from City Creek"? I'm not sure we know where the money coming from City Creek is going do we?

And that's why I understand why people would like the church to be more open with finances. You would like to see it used differently, but we don't know how it is being used if you mean from City Creek. We also don't know why it was used for City Creek, except one article I read said something from the church about urban blight, but that doesn't seem to be the whole picture.

So I get a little frustrated when people disagree with how the church is using money without knowing the whole picture, but understand their frustration of not knowing the whole picture and not being able to trust. For myself, I have learned enough little things here and there of the money being used wisely that I can trust that at least most of the time it is being used wisely. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

1.  In Matthew 26:11 Jesus says ' the poor you have with you always' . I wonder why?

2.  Did He mean that poor people are inevitable? Did He means there will always be poor?

3.  If He did, and it is debatable , why would that be? Is it because of the human condition, or human nature?

The saying that all men are born equal is really not accurate. Some are stronger, smarter, faster, etc. Some have talents that they use to benefit themselves and others. Some either hide their talents or never had any. Some are born in a land where individual freedom is honored, some are born where individual freedom is repressed. Some are born in peaceful circumstances, others in what seems to be perpetual war. I have read that the wealth of a family is often gone by the 3rd or 4th generation . I have also read that people in the top 10% of incomes will rotate out of that percentile over time. If one wants to avoid poverty in the US there are a few things one must do. 1. get at least a high school education, 2. get a job. 3. don't be a single parent. It is true that circumstances sometimes conspire to hinder the accomplishment of one or more of these goals, but for the most part, they lie within the control of an individual.

4.  Is it a coincidence that the Church puts significant effort into getting people to strive for these minimal goals?

5. Would that be advocating a prosperity gospel?

I added numbers to your questions to facilitate responding, hope you don't mind. My answers:

1.  I don't.  See number 2.

2.  Yes to both. 

3.  Both human nature and human condition. 

The above answers, however, don't free us from the mandate of helping those people (see Matt 25).  They also don't suggest that we should, instead, use our resources to build luxury high-rise residences  

4.  Not a coincidence.

5.  I don't know.  Perhaps just wisdom in action. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I assumed the statement would be "giving fishes" would be tied to what I was saying, not strappinglad. 

I would say it was more likely an investment endeavor considering the basic model that I see in a lot of church projects are ones that are both helpful to the area but can also be used to further more projects through productions. Not all the time, obviously, but often....particularly with more economic development projects. That's obviously from my limited stand-point from random articles I've read...just seems to be a trend. 

And yes, I know it is more than just a mall. Thank you for pointing out that the church already does that all around the world. 

There is. I agree.

With luv,

BD 

If it's an investment with the goal of throwing off income for use in easing suffering in the world, it would be nice to know how that is being done. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, this isn't a zero sum scenario. And some of these things the church can't exactly go in and fix (like Flint, which at this point takes a massive infrastructure overhaul that likely has to go through government channels). I can imagine the cleft palate surgeries while imagining an urban development project, and wheel chairs while also a Philly project, while expanding their education programs for more access to college courses through online schooling, while feeding the hungry and giving aid to refugees while working for clean water projects. It's not one or the other.

With luv,

BD 

Yes, I can imagine those things as well.  It would be awesome if we didn't just have to imagine. 

I can also imagine not doing the Philly high-rise and CCC and instead adding to the list of humanitarian projects we do. 

[BlueDreams]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I can imagine those things as well.  It would be awesome if we didn't just have to imagine. 

I can also imagine not doing the Philly high-rise and CCC and instead adding to the list of humanitarian projects we do. 

Imagine was used stylistically. All of these programs are things I know the church is doing or is apart of. And hundreds/thousands more that I have no clue about. I view the philly high-rise and CCC as a form of urban development just for clarity's sake. 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

Did you mean "for City Creek" and not "from City Creek"? I'm not sure we know where the money coming from City Creek is going do we?

And that's why I understand why people would like the church to be more open with finances. You would like to see it used differently, but we don't know how it is being used if you mean from City Creek. We also don't know why it was used for City Creek, except one article I read said something from the church about urban blight, but that doesn't seem to be the whole picture.

So I get a little frustrated when people disagree with how the church is using money without knowing the whole picture, but understand their frustration of not knowing the whole picture and not being able to trust. For myself, I have learned enough little things here and there of the money being used wisely that I can trust that at least most of the time it is being used wisely. 

Yes, thank you, I meant "for". 

I would like the church to be open with its finances. 

And I would love for the leaders to explain how the City Creek development, the Philly project, that new tower in SLC (can't remember the name), the residential development in the outskirts of the SL valley, the massive "city" being planned for FL, etc fit into the mission of the church. 

 

[BlueDreams]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If it's an investment with the goal of throwing off income for use in easing suffering in the world, it would be nice to know how that is being done. 

I don't know what it's used for. I liked Rain's post above on it. How the money is used isn't much of a personal concern for me, though I understand why others would like to know better. I've seen enough of how the Church does its investments, projects, aid, and otherwise that I trust it's being used wisely. Not perfectly, but wisely.

 

With luv,

BD 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Imagine was used stylistically. All of these programs are things I know the church is doing or is apart of. And hundreds/thousands more that I have no clue about. I view the philly high-rise and CCC as a form of urban development just for clarity's sake. 

Okay, how does urban development fit the mission of the church? 

[rockpond]

Just now, BlueDreams said:

I don't know what it's used for. I liked Rain's post above on it. How the money is used isn't much of a personal concern for me, though I understand why others would like to know better. I've seen enough of how the Church does its investments, projects, aid, and otherwise that I trust it's being used wisely. Not perfectly, but wisely.

 

With luv,

BD 

Wisely... to what end?

[BlueDreams]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay, how does urban development fit the mission of the church? 

I don't know. If I had to use my imagination and listening to descriptions from articles about the articles, you could extrapolate most of them as a means to continue growth and structure so that people can have a place to live work and have the gospel. A means to help build bridges with other areas to hopefully be able to increase missionary work. To continue an 150+ years investment with a region that they basically created its proto-modern structure? I figure it helps maintain and continue positive growth. Its increasing the capacities of a region and its peoples that would likely not be as prosperous without Church involvement.   

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wisely... to what end?

To several, would be my guess. But all of what I would mention would be guesses. And since I'm not in the middle of the economics of the church (or anything beyond my bank account, to be honest) they would all be mild guesses. As I mentioned, I don't know...what I've seen though of how church runs financial decisions doesn't make me too worried about what's behind the financial curtains.  

With luv,

BD 

[Garden Girl]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm more of a minimalist who gives to the church. I have plenty of things, but half of them are from travel, paintings, or have significant value to me or utility. My dream home is a very small home that would fit exactly what I need and nothing more. Oh, and with garden space. It only grows in my head if/when I have a family.

With luv,

BD 

Hello BD...

You would absolutely love my little "cottage."  I guess some people would consider it a little more than a cottage, but it is small but very comfortable... on a quiet street, big backyard for gardening... 3 bdrms, 2 baths... a combo kitchen/den w/fireplace... separate living/dining room... lots of good sized windows... high ceilings... simple but nice.  One bdrm I use for my art studio, one for me, and one for guests.  I walk 1/2 blk to the end of my street to the beach... it's perfect for me and Bobby-cat (but a small family would be comfortable).  I have such peace in my heart, and in my prayers express my gratitude because I know just how blessed I am.

GG

[BlueDreams]

15 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello BD...

You would absolutely love my little "cottage."  I guess some people would consider it a little more than a cottage, but it is small but very comfortable... on a quiet street, big backyard for gardening... 3 bdrms, 2 baths... a combo kitchen/den w/fireplace... separate living/dining room... lots of good sized windows... high ceilings... simple but nice.  One bdrm I use for my art studio, one for me, and one for guests.  I walk 1/2 blk to the end of my street to the beach... it's perfect for me and Bobby-cat (but a small family would be comfortable).  I have such peace in my heart, and in my prayers express my gratitude because I know just how blessed I am.

GG

I probably very much would....though I would be willing to go even smaller. I currently live in a very small house that's been converted to two living spaces. I've gotten into a habit of looking at tiny and small homes and daydreaming a little and play if-I-stay-single-for a decade or more. All of them are below 600 sq ft. I realized that I honestly don't need much more space than I currently have. All I want is a good kitchen, a place to paint, and a good size bathtub....but a fireplace would so be wonderful. I was actually thinking of you a ton this week as I went about breaking up half of my garden plot (it's huge and all mine this year). I'll have to tell you about it later!    

Edited March 20, 2017 by BlueDreams

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know. If I had to use my imagination and listening to descriptions from articles about the articles, you could extrapolate most of them as a means to continue growth and structure so that people can have a place to live work and have the gospel. A means to help build bridges with other areas to hopefully be able to increase missionary work. To continue an 150+ years investment with a region that they basically created its proto-modern structure? I figure it helps maintain and continue positive growth. Its increasing the capacities of a region and its peoples that would likely not be as prosperous without Church involvement.   

To several, would be my guess. But all of what I would mention would be guesses. And since I'm not in the middle of the economics of the church (or anything beyond my bank account, to be honest) they would all be mild guesses. As I mentioned, I don't know...what I've seen though of how church runs financial decisions doesn't make me too worried about what's behind the financial curtains.  

With luv,

BD 

Million dollar condos and Tiffany & Co help people have the gospel?

i haven't seen anything to help me not worry about their financial decisions.  What evidence are you basing your conclusion on?

[Gray]

On 3/17/2017 at 8:59 PM, PeterPear said:

Seriously? Didn't the Church found a city called Nauvoo? Or one called Salt Lake City? Wasn't it revealed to Joseph Smith the layout of the city of Zion? Used to design Far West, Missouri?

Didn't the Lord reveal to Joseph Smith in D&C 124 that he should build the Nauvoo House meant for weary-travelers, LDS or not and how it should financed?

Didn't the Lord reveal that the Mansion House should built and it was used as a hotel?

Why would the Lord cease revealing how his funds should be used because your His critic?

Allegedly the Lord also revealed the Kirtland Safety Society. Maybe God isn't a God of mammon after all?