Church Acquires Commercial Property in Texas

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this the other day.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-mormon-legal-mind/

Jesus said, “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” This passage raises a number of questions for Latter-day Saints. Does Jesus oppose lawsuits? If so, why does the LDS Church engage in litigation? Would Jesus encourage his church to structure its mission through numerous legal entities, and to operate with limited liability? What impact does LDS legal corporatism have on Mormon culture? This panel discusses research and analysis of all the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s Utah incorporating documents.

Audio Player

Do they take into account the different legal culture of the times or just assume a consistent context, that the reason and process of lawsuits 2000 years ago is close enough to modern day even with the current massive legal structure impacting our day to day lives.

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not at all, we're to prepare for Jesus' coming. He'd like to come back to a world where we helped save lives and fed the poor and helped the needy. The church could do a whole lot better building things for that.

Yes, and the Church could give people a fish to eat and feed them for a day, or it could teach them to fish and feed them for life.  Jesus taught us to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves.  Just so, making wise investments actually enables the Church to help more people.  The Church also has vast educational programs worldwide designed to enable people to help themselves instead of just sitting in refugee camps.  The LDS people give more per capita than other religions, although I am told that maybe the Seventh Day Adventists give even more.  Wonderful, I say.

We thus help the poor and needy far better and more effectively than others.  Without wise management and investment, we could not do as much.  Jesus taught us to invest wisely:  Matthew 25:15-30, Parable of the Talents:

Quote

15 . . . unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[halconero]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Investments almost certainly. 

I don't understand that. Within a couple of decades there will be far more members outside of the US than within it. Many of those members will be relatively poor. That entails that from a purely accounting perspective on average members outside the US will be a drain on resources (or need more spent on them than they put in with tithing). US members put more in, but growth in the US is slowing, is dead for the most part in Europe, and is in the middle in Canada/Australia. While it seems right now the Church has a lot of money, much like an insurance company, it has to think in terms of long term expenses by looking at demographic predictions. This pretty well entails finding solid investments to increase return.

I understand those who think the money ought be spent now for charity purposes. But that's really not that far removed from the sort of thinking in the 60's that nearly bankrupted the Church. Most of the current Apostles were alive when that happened so the reality of not having enough funds for building, overbuilding, and not investing intelligently enough is still very much on their minds even if its been years since Pres. Tanner came in and saved the Church.

Now clearly they don't only look at it as pure investments. I think the City Creek project was as much an attempt to keep Salt Lake City's downtown area near the Temple from collapsing and thereby affecting people's willingness to visit the Temple grounds. But by and large if you look, outside of perhaps mysterious purchases in the Missouri region in the 90's, the investments are finding underpriced properties, collecting rent, and selling them when prices are high. 

I'm not saying that this land is purely investment oriented. For all I know maybe they plan a Temple in the future. But short term that's what it appears like.

Huh, I never realized N. Eldon Tanner was a Social Credit MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for Alberta. Fascinating.

For those aren't aware, Alberta politics at that time were this super weird mix of parties. The United Farmers of Alberta was a party, along with traditional Liberals, and then the SoCreds came along. Social Credit theory is probably one of the weirdest and difficult to understand (for me at least) economic theories, as it's sort of like fiscally conservative market-based socialism. They dominated Alberta politics for a number of years. Oh, MLA's in Canada are way more powerful than state reps in the US. We're a way more devolved federation of provinces than the US federation of states are, and N. Eldon Tanner (especially as a cabinet minister) would have been somewhere between a US Congressman and Senator in terms of soft power/influence.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So it is wrong to invest billions to make more billions to take care of humanity as needed in the future, right?

It would be better to put the money under a mattress until needed, right?  Commercial property with a single tenant like that investment is by far the most prudent thing you can do with money today in market like this one which could go either way instantly.   This is a solid investment- I wish I could afford to make more like this one myself.  I would take them every day of the week.  Free and clear property with a highly dependable tenant paying me like clockwork while I hold the property for appreciation in the future?   Are you kidding me?  Pure gold!

That will be there to be liquidated at any time necessary.  It is literally far far better than a savings account.

I was in agreement until you said "to take care of humanity as needed in the future". Let's be clear. The church can do anything they want with their tithing donations. It's prudent and reasonable that they would invest some of those funds for future needs...but the church has a paltry stingy record when it comes to humanitarian aid...something like $1.25 per member,  per year for the past 25 years running. So please don't go there... humanitarian aid is NOT a priority of the LDS church. Now or in the future

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was in agreement until you said "to take care of humanity as needed in the future". Let's be clear. The church can do anything they want with their tithing donations. It's prudent and reasonable that they would invest some of those funds for future needs...but the church has a paltry stingy record when it comes to humanitarian aid...something like $1.25 per member,  per year for the past 25 years running. So please don't go there... humanitarian aid is NOT a priority of the LDS church. Now or in the future

Anyone who would like to see the amount the church spends on humanitarian aid increase need only donate to that fund.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Anyone who would like to see the amount the church spends on humanitarian aid increase need only donate to that fund.

Well, some would like to but when reading the bottom of the receipt it says the church can use it for anything they want. I think it's probably not a good bet that it will go there. Safer bet is to send to another establishment.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Well, some would like to but when reading the bottom of the receipt it says the church can use it for anything they want. I think it's probably not a good bet that it will go there. Safer bet is to send to another establishment.

What evidence do you have that would lead you to believe that it's "probably not a good bet" that your donation will go towards humanitarian aid? 

[Bobbieaware]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm having a difficult time understanding the church's focus on investment and wealth accumulation. The more I see stories of church investments and business dealings, the more it bothers me.

It makes me think of the father who neglects his children because he works at the office 12 hours a day to provide for them. Of course the children benefit financially from their workaholic, money-focused father, but church members receive what? Access to church internet resources? Access to ancestry.com? The father may have great intentions and truly wish to support his family and provide them with financial security, but there are opportunity costs.

If you understood the prophecies of scripture that speak of the rise of Zion and of the Church and Kingdom of God eventually becoming independent above all thing things beneath the celestial world. you would rejoice over developments like this one. But since you are apparently unaware of these things you've found another item to add to your long list of things to griipe about. 

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Anyone who would like to see the amount the church spends on humanitarian aid increase need only donate to that fund.

 

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, some would like to but when reading the bottom of the receipt it says the church can use it for anything they want. I think it's probably not a good bet that it will go there. Safer bet is to send to another establishment.

This is off-topic.  Please stop.  If not, I will report the thread de-rail and ask moderators to remove those participants.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When Mormon quarterback Danny White played for the Cowboys, the millionaire president of the Texas Dallas Mission used to have barbecue for his missionaries out at White's place.

Yea, old enough to remember Danny White.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't say I interpreted the investment purchase that all is well in Zion.  I indicated one clear message we often get, like in our General conferences and other addresses, that all is well in Zion.  I'm not sure how else to interpret the general theme of the messages to be honest.

Ah, OK. I confess I don't see the connection with investments then. Although I have a hard time seeing Conference saying "all is well." Usually I come away thinking, "man there's sure a lot the church as a people aren't doing right." Particularly after Priesthood session.

Quote

I think odd for you to argue against transparency because of what led to Trump, as if that will happen to the Church.  I'm not even sure what you are trying to say there.  If the Church tries to be transparent, which in some ways it does, we'll get a Trump on our hands?  The country is much different than the Church. 

I'm saying that culturally we have a general sense that transparency is an inherent good in and of itself when it's not. My argument that it is not is by looking at the negative effects on politics well intentioned greater transparency brought. The classic essay on this is one from The New Republic from about 10 years ago. I'll admit that it's a live debate with folks on both sides. And I certainly don't advocate a return to the 60's. But I think we've become over transparent which creates bad incentives. I think the level of transparency critics demand of the Church would likewise cause more problems than it solves. (And often advocates aren't even arguing for it as a solution but rather a good in and of itself)

Quote

"It's not that hard to figure out where the Church is growing and where it's not nor figure out the implications from that. "

I would say that's way hard.  But I also think the really shallow efforts to explain it aren't really addressing the issues.  So what do you mean?  What is so easy for you to know that the rest of us might not

I just regularly read: http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Huh, I never realized N. Eldon Tanner was a Social Credit MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for Alberta. Fascinating.

For those aren't aware, Alberta politics at that time were this super weird mix of parties. The United Farmers of Alberta was a party, along with traditional Liberals, and then the SoCreds came along. Social Credit theory is probably one of the weirdest and difficult to understand (for me at least) economic theories, as it's sort of like fiscally conservative market-based socialism. They dominated Alberta politics for a number of years. Oh, MLA's in Canada are way more powerful than state reps in the US. We're a way more devolved federation of provinces than the US federation of states are, and N. Eldon Tanner (especially as a cabinet minister) would have been somewhere between a US Congressman and Senator in terms of soft power/influence.

He also had a lot of experience in the oil business. He was largely brought in to clean up Church finances as I understand it. 

As an interesting aside, the first talk I ever gave in Church was as a 12 year old and was the opening speaker for Pres. Tanner. I was scared to death to be sitting beside him (Pres. Kimball at the time was largely incapacitated). I felt like he could see right through me and know everything I'd done wrong. During sacrament he must have sensed my anxiety and started whispering jokes to me and told me that he knew my grandfather. (Which I hadn't known - but apparently they'd grown up in the same town) I have zero memory of the talk, but that's always stuck with me. As I recall he died about a year or so later.

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

My career is commercial investing and development.  So I have a bit of experience in this.

Hopefully the church is not investing in things that are only paying 3% per year.  That would be unwise.  This Dallas investment would be considered a very secure source of income - probably a 5% to 6% return.

Since US law makes corporations a matter of public record, it's difficult to hide the buyer with a shell company.  But, a purchase price can be negotiated without revealing the identity of the buyer.  Property ownership is also a matter of public record so it is difficult to hide that although I think the church has quite a few levels of corporate hierarchy that helps.

Yeah, the number I just picked off the top of my head. Not knowing the field I have no idea what good returns are.

My understanding (and this is 2cd hand so no one quote me on this) was that the Church sometimes used 3rd parties as intermediaries if shell companies were being figured out. The problem was, particularly in Missouri, that people would raise the prices if they knew the Church was buying. They did that with documents too from what I understand.

[The Nehor]

Did I get here in time for the soporific handwringing about how many stereotypical orphans that money could have fed?

Edited August 10, 2017 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah, the number I just picked off the top of my head. Not knowing the field I have no idea what good returns are.

My understanding (and this is 2cd hand so no one quote me on this) was that the Church sometimes used 3rd parties as intermediaries if shell companies were being figured out. The problem was, particularly in Missouri, that people would raise the prices if they knew the Church was buying. They did that with documents too from what I understand.

I suppose it's possible.  At some point, however, you'd need to have a deed that was tied to the owner.  That gets tough to hide but I'm not saying it can't be done.  My opinion is that it sounds a bit like mormon folklore.  It doesn't really matter what you put as a price on your property.  A smart buyer pays what it is worth (and I am assuming the church is a smart buyer).  If nobody else is out there trying to scoop up Missouri land and the Church doesn't have an absolute need for Missouri land - it's unlikely that someone is going to fetch an inflated price for their property just because they heard the church was coming and raised the price.  Admittedly, this is informed speculation on my part -- I don't know anything about the church buying up land around "Zion" (although I know of a fellow ward member who did).

Edited August 10, 2017 by rockpond
spelling correction

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My opinion is that it sounds a bit like mormon folklore.  It doesn't really matter what you put as a price on your property.  A smart buyer pays what it is worth (and I am assuming the church is a smart buyer).  If nobody else is out there trying to scoop up Missouri land and the Church doesn't have an absolute need for Missouri land - it's unlikely that someone is going to fetch an inflated price for their property just because they heard the church was coming and raised the price.  

It was the uncle of a roommate who was doing all the buying for the church. So it's second hand but reasonably established second hand - although not understanding the field I undoubtedly got some of the details wrong.

The problem with the Missouri land (according to this person) is that people around the area were familiar with the unique Mormon narratives - especially for the land near Adam-Ondi-Ahman. So they figured the Church was desperate to get the land in a way others weren't.

This was in the 90's but I found more recent stories about the Church buying land in that region. In a few cases lots of politics and lawsuits were involved.

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Did I get here in time for the soporific handwringing about how many stereotypical orphans that money could have fed?

... and the long awaited complaints about nontransparency.

[Avatar4321]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A rainy day fund is understandable. But when is it enough? Billions of dollars in investments? Is that a reasonable rainy day fund? Seems excessive to me, but that's obviously just an opinion.

I would prefer for my church by have more teachers, philosophers, theologians on staff than they do bankers and MBA's who are focused on growing wealth.

I highly doubt there is a church with more teachers. We ordain them early

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It was the uncle of a roommate who was doing all the buying for the church. So it's second hand but reasonably established second hand - although not understanding the field I undoubtedly got some of the details wrong.

The problem with the Missouri land (according to this person) is that people around the area were familiar with the unique Mormon narratives - especially for the land near Adam-Ondi-Ahman. So they figured the Church was desperate to get the land in a way others weren't.

This was in the 90's but I found more recent stories about the Church buying land in that region. In a few cases lots of politics and lawsuits were involved.

Interesting links.  Thanks for sharing those.

The second one seems fairly speculative with respect to the Church's involvement, but if the brothers' theory is accurate, it definitely supports what you are saying about shell entities.  And the Church buying more farmland wouldn't surprise me at all -- clearly they want lots of farmland in their portfolio.  So it's a reasonable theory.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

bleh

One, not even rich by US standards, dentist has kept me busy working on his yacht for over 3 years. I certainly appreciate his stewardship of his funds.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm  not against wealth, or wealthy people. But I don't buy your trickle down argument that they are blessing humanity by maximizing their corporate income.

I undersatand you do not agree with my economic point if view but how is increasing wealth not a benefit to humanity? That's what I ask. If Happy Hack Wagon were to get filthy drinking rich, *how* does that not benefit all those around him, who, humanity? 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was in agreement until you said "to take care of humanity as needed in the future". Let's be clear. The church can do anything they want with their tithing donations. It's prudent and reasonable that they would invest some of those funds for future needs...but the church has a paltry stingy record when it comes to humanitarian aid...something like $1.25 per member,  per year for the past 25 years running. So please don't go there... humanitarian aid is NOT a priority of the LDS church. Now or in the future

That number does not include fast offering funds disbursed.  Wrong.

[Garden Girl]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't see any of Jesus' teachings in this. 

Parable of the talents?

GG

Edit to add... Sorry, didn't see this referenced a couple of times, as above... perhaps a serious study of scripture, including those of Jesus' teachings would be of help...

Edited August 11, 2017 by Garden Girl

[Anijen]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's not.  You'll notice from my post that I said while it should be a matter of public record, I am not inclined to research it.

When property is bought it is almost always recorded and thus it is in the public record.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

This is off-topic.  Please stop.  If not, I will report the thread de-rail and ask moderators to remove those participants.

My apologies Rockpond.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Tacenda