rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Sure. Capital stored there. Can be used/unleashed/options/sold in the future should there one day be a large urgent need. 6 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Capital is also accumulating there. As equity/value grows. First, we don't know how well the capital is doing in that project. But let's assume it is doing well and providing a good return. How easy to you think it is to "unleash" capital that is tied up in a multi-billion dollar mixed-used development? What do you envision as the potential "large urgent need"? Because in the case of CCC, if the church had a large urgent need for funds, it would likely be at a time when the Utah economy does not support the sale of a development like CCC.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 14 minutes ago, Gray said: I think you're stretching the text past the breaking point on this one....You've gone fishing on this one. Breaking point? Dunno - it's a pretty sturdy line. And literally have gone fishing. Took my son and his friend fishing just two days ago as one of my other kids and I went for a walk nearby. They have asked to do likewise this weekend. Fishing is very important to the story of Jesus, though. So I've heard. When Herod began to monetize access to the Sea of Galilee, that must have been something that I think would have stirred up trouble makers and prophets in the region. Trouble? Big trouble? Like sending them fishing for the funds to pay for fishing access? https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/17.24-27?lang=eng#p23
Ouagadougou Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: You think Trump is actually going to create jobs? You are adorable. Never said I think that...just that he talks about it...
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Are expensive homes and high-end stores the only way to provide jobs for the poor among us? No. I bought a $4 calendar at that mall not long ago. Does that help?
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: How easy to you think it is to "unleash" capital that is tied up in a multi-billion dollar mixed-used development? Options. Notes. On part or parcel. Can move relatively quickly. Much more quickly than an outright sale. What do you envision as the potential "large urgent need"? Dunno. But many Egyptians probably thought Joseph was nutso/wasteful for building/filling granaries in abundant times. ...if the church had a large urgent need for funds, it would likely be at a time when the Utah economy does not support the sale of a development like CCC. Perhaps not. And Utah has been among the strongest economies in the nation for a couple of decades. And the world is a pretty large place. Lots of needs. Lots of places.
rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 1 minute ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Options. Notes. On part or parcel. Can move relatively quickly. Much more quickly than an outright sale. Dunno. But many Egyptians probably thought Joseph was nutso/wasteful for building/filling granaries in abundant times. Perhaps not. And Utah has been among the strongest economies in the nation for a couple of decades. And the world is a pretty large place. Lots of needs. Lots of places. Yes, it's a large place with lots of needs. Glad we agree on that. I'm still confused as to what kind of large urgent need you think could happen that would make the Church decide to sell CCC and how that would happen. Notes: the Church doesn't borrow money so this isn't really a reasonable option. Options: Do you think there is a big market for purchasing options to buy large commercial developments? Or pieces of them? Yes, Egyptians likely didn't understand/believe Joseph. But CCC is nothing like a storehouse full of food. Joseph's storehouse could immediately fill a need. For CCC to fill such a need you would need to have an urgent need for the cash from a mixed-use luxury commercial development while also having a strong and growing US economy (to support the sale). Seems like an unlikely set of requirements.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm still confused as to what kind of large urgent need you think could happen that would make the Church decide to sell CCC and how that would happen. Not saying there will be. There could be a large need. Or continue to be many smaller needs. Either way, it is a revenue stream to address at least some of those. 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Notes: the Church doesn't borrow money so this isn't really a reasonable option. ? I was talking about lending - not borrowing. 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Options: Do you think there is a big market for purchasing options to buy large commercial developments? Or pieces of them? Yes. I have met many over recent decades who have their hands full in the commercial real estate industry. 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, Egyptians likely didn't understand/believe Joseph. But CCC is nothing like a storehouse full of food. Joseph's storehouse could immediately fill a need. For CCC to fill such a need you would need to have an urgent need for the cash from a mixed-use luxury commercial development while also having a strong and growing US economy (to support the sale). Seems like an unlikely set of requirements. You're perhaps overlooking the smaller steady streams of revenue and paychecks that proceed from that source regularly. There may never be a need/desire to sell such a thing. Edited March 20, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 I guess part of this discussion is about guns vs. butter: Simple economic opportunity cost. Where one spouse sees the pressing need to pay a bill [meet some social need] now. And another might occasionally prefer to leverage a bit of revenue to explore options for increasing the flow of revenue...widen/deepen the channel...to make it easier to meet future/broader obligations [broader/greater social needs]. Differences in financial emphasis/focus like that can divide marriages/families. Like cracks of division that can expand (or reduce) in any discussion. I suggest each of us is better off trusting that it was a wise/prudent investment - which will very likely pay off reasonable well....to better accomplish #2 above. And even if it doesn't, real estate has often been one of the most secure temporal places to invest/increase funds. So is it wise to critique what has long been one of the wisest forms of temporal investment?
rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 32 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Not saying there will be. There could be a large need. Or continue to be many smaller needs. Either way, it is a revenue stream to address at least some of those. ? I was talking about lending - not borrowing. Yes. I have met many over recent decades who have their hands full in the commercial real estate industry. You're perhaps overlooking the smaller steady streams of revenue and paychecks that proceed from that source regularly. Is there a revenue stream? What is it? We don't really know, do we? How does CCC help the Church lend money? And how would lending money help the church with an urgent need? I am in the commercial real estate industry. And I can assure you that selling a development like CCC is not an easy or quick process. There are very few buyers in the $1B+ market. We don't really know what the steady streams of revenue are. In fact, we don't even know if they exist. But, yes, the people who work at CCC receive paychecks. Still not even remotely the same thing as Joseph's storehouse. 37 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: There may never be a need/desire to sell such a thing. Okay... well earlier in the thread you seemed to be saying that the point of having it was to store up capital to be used when some urgent need arised. You seem unable to identify what kind of urgent need that might be nor how the capital could be freed up to meet the need.
rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 26 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: I guess part of this discussion is about guns vs. butter: Simple economic opportunity cost. Where one spouse sees the pressing need to pay a bill [meet some social need] now. And another might occasionally prefer to leverage a bit of revenue to explore options for increasing the flow of revenue...widen/deepen the channel...to make it easier to meet future/broader obligations [broader/greater social needs]. Differences in financial emphasis/focus like that can divide marriages/families. Like cracks of division that can expand (or reduce) in any discussion. I suggest each of us is better off trusting that it was a wise/prudent investment - which will very likely pay off reasonable well....to better accomplish #2 above. And even if it doesn't, real estate has often been one of the most secure temporal places to invest/increase funds. So is it wise to critique what has long been one of the wisest forms of temporal investment? All real estate is not equal. While real estate is generally a great investment, development is VERY risky. CCC is solidly in the development category. Regarding your guns vs butter point: I am not suggesting that we should have just taken the billions and thrown them at some social need. I'm suggesting that perhaps there were ways to invest that money that would be a better fit with the mission of the church. I don't see how CCC fits that mission.
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 On this thread or the other thread someone responded back to me that humanitarian aid comes primarily from the members, okay I'm good with that, I've heard that from the leaders as well. It kind of explains why it is so few dollars, since the church paid only 1.4 billion from 1985 to 2011, which may mean that humantiarian aid given comes out to be a few dollars per year per member. I'm just trying to grapple with this. My link below is more towards what other churches spend their money on, for instance the bold shows what the "Seventh Day Adventists" spend, and I don't see any malls, commerical buildings or home/city developments in there. So why doesn't the corporate side of our church pay into the fund for humanitarian aid? Or am I wrong in my calculations or thinking? http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13262285-mormon-church-earns-7-billion-a-year-from-tithing-analysis-indicates "Church spokesman Michael Purdy declined to comment specifically on the estimates but said that the church was different from a corporation. "Other projections are speculative and do not reflect an understanding of how the church uses its income to bless the lives of people," he added, saying the church was financed primarily from member tithing and offerings. Focus on business and buildings Concerned or disgruntled current and former Mormons complain that the church spends too much on real estate and for-profit ventures, neglecting charity work. The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands. It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its nonprofits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church. The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States, a church official told Nebraska's Lincoln Journal Star in 2004, with other ranches and farms in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Great Britain, according to financial documents reviewed by Reuters. Ranching and farm industry sources say they are well-run operations. It also has a small media empire, an investment fund, and is developing a mall across from its Salt Lake City headquarters, which it calls an attempt to help revitalize the city rather than to make money. These enterprises are also part of a vast nest egg for tough times. The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to Earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church's own preparation. "The church teaches its members to live within their means and put a little money aside for life's unexpected events. As a church, we live by the same principle," Purdy said. The rainy-day fund and operating budget rarely mix, officials say. Cost-cutting is a top priority, church documents show. It has even laid off janitors and called on members to clean temples and meeting houses, but the buildout of temples continues, including one under construction in Rome. Those temples take a lot of money to operate, Purdy points out, and many of the grand church buildings are short on congregants, says David Stewart, a physician who leads the research group Cumorah. "I have been to beautiful church buildings in Hungary and Ukraine, and Latvia and other places, and there are these huge buildings and 35 people there, and you say, how can this work financially? The math - it just doesn't work." In contrast, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which had about 17 million members a year ago, appears to be getting a better return on investment: It builds smaller meeting houses and lots of schools and hospitals, and its numbers are swelling faster than the Mormons', said Stewart. The Adventists claim a million new members join annually, compared with every three years or so for the Mormons. "The Seventh-day Adventists clearly have a much more expansive humanitarian project in terms of building hospitals and medical schools and schools and universities and long-term developmental infrastructure around the world," said Stewart. "It's paid off for them." The Mormon church, meanwhile, appears to be decreasing transparency and member control of donations. New tithing slips give fewer donation options and come with an expanded disclaimer saying the church has sole discretion over spending, even though it will make "reasonable efforts" to follow donors' wishes. "Hey, where's the slot of 'shopping malls'?" a poster said of the new slips on exmormonforums.com, one of several dissident sites. Many faithful have no such issues. On chat boards and in private conversations, they emphasize that volunteering for the church and giving to it are worthy deeds in and of themselves. "The funds are used to build and maintain temples and meeting houses, as well as take care of the many expenses associated with helping the work of the Gospel of Jesus Christ roll forth. I love to pay tithing," Carl Ames said on one church site. Purdy did offer a list of spending priorities: building houses of worship, supporting Brigham Young University and a seminary system, operating nearly 140 temples and the world's largest genealogy research program, and humanitarian aid for both members and non-members. Since 1985 the church has spent a total of $1.4 billion on relief for disasters such as Japan's earthquake and Ethiopian famine, and it operates 129 "bishops' storehouses" with food and household items for the needy. Romney himself focuses on the act of giving, not the result. As he told Fox News Sunday, "Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they'd be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise." 1
Calm Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 "Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College." And now has added a global online low cost college degree program.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, rockpond said: Is there a revenue stream? What is it? We don't really know, do we? I don't need to know what it is. Leases from scores of businesses are coming in monthly. Those are viable streams. How does CCC help the Church lend money? And how would lending money help the church with an urgent need? Dunno. But any asset can be parcelled and optioned and/or sold....even on a note. I am in the commercial real estate industry. And I can assure you that selling a development like CCC is not an easy or quick process. There are very few buyers in the $1B+ market. Understood. And I used to work in that industry as well. Which is in part why I said *part* or parcel. You seem to prefer to focus on the parcel for some reason. ... well earlier in the thread you seemed to be saying that the point of having it was to store up capital to be used when some urgent need arised. You seem unable to identify what kind of urgent need that might be nor how the capital could be freed up to meet the need. My point is that the investment creates jobs, revenue, *and* a number of financial options. And merely *one* of those options is to option and/or sell (in part or parcel) at some future point, should there be sufficient cause/need. A number of prophecies have rolled forth over the generations. And any number of them, at their time of fulfillment, could very well call up such a need. Or not. Again, talking nothing more than the advantage of having options. Not gonna pour concrete footings for them in a public forum. It's just nice to know there's a place for them, should need arise.
Calm Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 "New tithing slips give fewer donation options" No, they list fewer options. You can still write in whatever you want. "Church members may still designate funds previously specified on the tithing slip (as well as various other Church funds) by writing them in the "other" field." According to LDS Living, this makes the US version consistent with slips used outside the US. If you are fearful the money may be diverted to another project, why not just donate directly to the project you want to support. http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Church-adopts-new-tithing-slips/s/69822
rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: I don't need to know what it is. Leases from scores of businesses are coming in monthly. Those are viable streams. Dunno. But any asset can be parcelled and optioned and/or sold....even on a note. Understood. And I used to work in that industry as well. Which is in part why I said *part* or parcel. You seem to prefer to focus on the parcel for some reason. My point is that the investment creates jobs, revenue, *and* a number of financial options. And merely *one* of those options is to option and/or sell (in part or parcel) at some future point, should there be sufficient cause/need. A number of prophecies have rolled forth over the generations. And any number of them, at their time of fulfillment, could very well call up such a need. Or not. Again, talking nothing more than the advantage of having options. Not gonna pour concrete footings for them in a public forum. It's just nice to know there's a place for them, should need arise. Yes, leases are income streams. But you have no idea if they are significant enough to justify the investment. I have never disagreed that the investment creates jobs and revenue. It creates some financial options but the value of them is unknown. And there are plenty of ways to create jobs and revenue - this is just one. All of the prophecies that I am aware of are unlikely to simultaneously create both the need to sell part/all of City Creek AND an economy that would allow for its profitable sale. So I don't see it functioning well in that capacity. If you are happy with it as a use for the funds of the Church of Jesus Christ, great.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 23 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, leases are income streams. But you have no idea if they are significant enough to justify the investment. Neither of us do. Yet as you know in the business, many do, or such a business wouldn't exist. So what is the harm in assuming that they are sufficient? All of the prophecies that I am aware of are unlikely to simultaneously create both the need to sell part/all of City Creek AND an economy that would allow for its profitable sale.... You're presupposing assets would be held by the church until useless. I choose instead to believe they'll be held/leveraged until/unless the time is right to dismount. If you are happy with it...great. Content/satisfied. Approaching happy. And intending to be there soon.
rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 42 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Neither of us do. Yet as you know in the business, many do, or such a business wouldn't exist. So what is the harm in assuming that they are sufficient? You're presupposing assets would be held by the church until useless. I choose instead to believe they'll be held/leveraged until/unless the time is right to dismount. There is no harm in assuming that they are sufficient. But with current market trends, it is more likely that they are not. I'm just trying to follow you. You suggested that this may be a way to hold/grow capital until such time that there was a large urgent need. Now it sounds like you are saying that they would just be held until it's decided that the time is right to sell. Or leverage? Again, the Church does not borrow -as a matter of policy- so leveraging is off the table.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm just trying to follow you. You suggested that this may be a way to hold/grow capital until such time that there was a large urgent need. Now it sounds like you are saying that they would just be held until it's decided that the time is right to sell. False dichotomy. Let me toss a few more bread crumbs to make the trail of my thinking more clear to follow. I am analytical. Which simply means that I weigh, consider (and suggest) options. I'm *not* saying that an asset has to be held for only one of several available options. (Fx. lease or sell, part or parcel, now or later.) It simply opens the door to a number of options. 45 minutes ago, rockpond said: Or leverage? Again, the Church does not borrow -as a matter of policy- so leveraging is off the table. By leverage, I wasn't intending the fiscal meaning of encumbering an asset with debt. To me, using (i.e. leveraging) an asset means the same thing, with zero reference to debt. Edited March 20, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
rockpond Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: False dichotomy. Let me toss a few more bread crumbs to make the trail of my thinking more clear to follow. I am analytical. Which simply means that I weigh, consider (and suggest) options. I'm *not* saying that an asset has to be held for only one of several available options. (Fx. lease or sell, part or parcel, now or later.) It simply opens the door to a number of options. By leverage, I wasn't intending the fiscal meaning of encumbering an asset with debt. To me, using (i.e. leveraging) an asset means the same thing, with zero reference to debt. Archimedes aside, in the real estate world - leveraging implies debt. There are options with the City Creek development: As you've said, they can hold it for the income or sell all/part. I don't disagree with you there. My point is, and has been, that while City Creek may or may not be a good investment, I don't believe it supports the mission of the church. Edited March 20, 2017 by rockpond
pogi Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: My point is, and has been, that while City Creek may or may not be a good investment, I don't believe it supports the mission of the church. Quote This has been the objective of the church for all of these years, to make certain that this desert blossom, this desert thrive and that it is a beautiful, safe and lovely place," Bishop Burton said. "... It started in Kirtland, it continued in Nauvoo. Think about what took place in St. George, in Manti, in Logan and finally Salt Lake — and then it goes on from there. But community development has always been part of the DNA of the church [and] it continues today. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700014610/Mormon-leaders-and-Salt-Lake-City-work-together-to-transform-land.html?pg=1 One mission of the church is to proclaim the gospel. Do you think that City Creek was built directly across from Temple Square by coincidence? Drawing traffic to a healthy and vibrant downtown will greatly increase positive exposure to the church. Also, good investments will benefit long-term efforts in caring for the poor and needy (another mission of the church) as well as aid in prevention of poverty through job creation. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands If memory serves, the church once owned a number of hospitals but gave them away in the 1970s (Utah Valley Hospital, Primary Children’s Hospital and several others). I believe that the Church also started what are now the University of Utah, Southern Utah State, and others (also given away). I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church started many of what are now public elementary and high schools. Do you think it would have been more charitable for the Church to have held on to these schools and hospitals rather than give them away? 1
LittleNipper Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I find this totally fascinating. As a born-again, Bible believing fundamentalist Christian, I know that Christ said, "Go into the world and preach the Gospel." Christ also overthrew the vendor tables. We don't mix business with Church activities. Members of course can be businessmen; however, Christ's Church is not a Corporation. 1
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: If memory serves, the church once owned a number of hospitals but gave them away in the 1970s (Utah Valley Hospital, Primary Children’s Hospital and several others). I believe that the Church also started what are now the University of Utah, Southern Utah State, and others (also given away). I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church started many of what are now public elementary and high schools. Do you think it would have been more charitable for the Church to have held on to these schools and hospitals rather than give them away? They still collect for Primary Children's Hospital in our area. Major Activity Day stake activity for the girls.
strappinglad Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Somewhat off on a side issue. The storehouses constructed by Pharaoh based on Joseph's dream and administered by Joseph, ultimately succeeded in transferring most of the individual property to the house of Pharaoh. The power base then resided with Pharaoh ie. State control of the economy. Just sayin' .
rockpond Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 3 hours ago, pogi said: One mission of the church is to proclaim the gospel. Do you think that City Creek was built directly across from Temple Square by coincidence? Drawing traffic to a healthy and vibrant downtown will greatly increase positive exposure to the church. Also, good investments will benefit long-term efforts in caring for the poor and needy (another mission of the church) as well as aid in prevention of poverty through job creation. No, the location of CCC is not a coincidence. But I don't subscribe to this trickle down theory of proclaiming the gospel. Do we really need to sell Porsche-branded luggage and multi-million dollar penthouses to get people to join the church? That's how we are justifying this? We have no idea if it is a good investment. Zero data on that. And even less data to show that profits (if they exist) are being used to help the poor and needy.
Recommended Posts