Was Tithing Used to Fund City Creek?

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you are going to stick with this argument, you'll need to upload all of your financials.  After all, "if there is nothing to hide..."

No, it shouldn't.

Boy, trading unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so assertions is fun!

If you are going to stick with this argument, you'll need to upload all of your financials.  After all, we should "assume trustworthiness until proven."

So prove it.

If you are going to stick with this argument, you'll need to upload all of your financials.  Your lack of disclosure raises suspicions for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nonsense.  There is a distinction that you conveniently don't want to see or maybe cannot see.  So should the government be allowed to avoid audits?  Aren't governments different?  Or should government be able to hide the money and perhaps the corruption that goes along with secretive finances?  I thought the pentagon not knowing where trillions were was a bad thing.  Maybe it isn't after all?

No disclosure for you.  Pay your taxes blindly because we can trust the government to do the right thing always?

[Thinking]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain the source of this "right?"  Is it a constitutional right?  A federal statute or case law?  A state statute or case law?  Common law?

You are invoking a legal argument (that your status as a taxpayer gives you a "right"), so I'm curious as to what law you have in mind.

What I have in mind is common sense. As I wrote earlier, as a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to know that a tax exempt organization is conducting itself appropriately.

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion, even if I can't classify it legally.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then what are your thoughts about such concepts as "presumed innocent?"  "Benefit of the doubt?"

You admit that you have no evidence of wrongdoing, yet you presume that wrongdoing is afoot.  That seems to be . . . prejudiced.

Not Guilty ≠ Innocent

Please point to where I presumed or claimed that the Church had done anything wrong.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine a store manager stopping a black man from leaving and asking him to empty his pockets.  "Why?" the man asks.  "As an employee of this store, I believe I have a right to determine if you have shoplifted anything from this store," the manger responds.  "But why are you making this demand of me?  Do you have any evidence or reasonable suspicion that I have shoplifted?"  "No," the manager admits, "but you know as well as any other black person shopping in this store that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  So let's see what you've got."

Can you understand why this shopper might be justified in opposing the manager's request (particularly since it's a request founded in the law)?

If the shopper claimed that he was exempt from paying for items that he wanted from the store, then you would have an appropriate analogy.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm trying to be respectful here, but can you see how your request is prejudiced, or at least looks an awful lot like it?

May I ask why not?  You claim you want to know if the Church "is conducting itself appropriately," yet you haven't even bothered to read an extensive book on the subject that was published many months ago.

I guess I can't participate in this thread if I haven't read that book.

 

[Thinking]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When an accusation is made, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden is thus on the accuser. Our legal system is based on that concept. 

When an organization claims a 501c3 exemption, the burden should be on that organization to prove it is worthy of that exemption.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Nonsense. 

Quite so.  I lack standing to demand that you upload your financials.  It's "nonsense" for me to make such an unreasonable request.

It's notably similar to your "nonsense" demands for "transparency."

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There is a distinction that you conveniently don't want to see or maybe cannot see. 

You mean the ad hoc, making-it-up-as-you-go-along, transparency-for-thee-but-not-for-me "distinction?"  Yes, I have seen it.  I just don't agree with it.

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So should the government be allowed to avoid audits? 

No.

But we're not talking about "audits."  The governement has the right to audit the LDS Church.  You don't.

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Aren't governments different? 

Yes, they are.  Governments should be answerable to their constituency.  This is because we are in a compulsory relationship with the government.  This is because the government can (and does) compel us to pay taxes.

For the third time: Are you going to present your financials at the demand of someone who has no basis for his demand, and no standing to present his demand?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For the third time: Are you going to present your financials at the demand of someone who has no basis for his demand, and no standing to present his demand?

Thanks,

-Smac

How much money have you donated to Exiled?

Edited May 25, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When an organization claims a 501c3 exemption, the burden should be on that organization to prove it is worthy of that exemption.

Right, and apparently the IRS is satisfied that the LDS church has sufficiently proven itself and qualifies for that exemption. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What I have in mind is common sense.

I figured as much.

I don't think what you have in mind is "common sense."  It's your personal preference, that's all.

Quote

As I wrote earlier, as a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to know that a tax exempt organization is conducting itself appropriately.

That's a legal argument.  And its devoid of any support at law.

Quote

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion, even if I can't classify it legally.

Okay.  Your opinion is about a point of law, though.  That that opinion is devoid of support in the law.

Quote

Not Guilty ≠ Innocent

What?

Antonyms of "guilt" include "innocence."

Antonyms of "innocence" include "guilt."

So . . . "not guilty" does = "innocent."

Quote

Please point to where I presumed or claimed that the Church had done anything wrong.

You are claiming that you, as a taxpayer, have the "right" to know if the LDS Church "is conducting itself appropriately?"

That is the logical equivalent of a store manager baselessly demanding that a black man empty his pockets before exiting the store to see if he "is conducting himself appropriately."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that.

Quote

If the shopper claimed that he was exempt from paying for items that he wanted from the store, then you would have an appropriate analogy.

Nope  The shopper never claimed that.

Quote

I guess I can't participate in this thread if I haven't read that book.

If I am making public demands of an organzation for undisclosed financial information, I think it would be prudent to at least avail myself to substantial financial information that has been disclosed.

Isn't that common sense?  If you are genuinely and sinerely interested in the Church's finances, why on earth would you ignore Quinn's book?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

The odd thing to me is that I would think the leaders would be anxious to be totally open and transparent with the finances (as they were in the past).

If it is odd, then perhaps there is something you are missing in their reasoning that is not an attempt to hide error (considering how much work appears to be put into diminishing fraud possibilities, etc) or some other reason to avoid accountability.

Whatever the original reason finances were taken dark (I understand it was during a time of overspending pushed primarily by Henry Moyle that put the Church into difficulty), perhaps there was an unintended positive consequence that was found....like in general people are more cautious in spending money when they are unsure of how much wealth the Church has (perhaps it discourages planners with attitudes like Elder Moyle from assuming the benefit outweighs the cost of going into debt if they are merely given budgets and are not aware of full financial info) or there is less harassment with trivial suits or overbudget cost arguments, because vague numbers might not catch people's attention or make them feel as comfortable about spending as much as concrete ones do (certainly does for me) or maybe they get less letters expressing anxieties and uncertainties over paying tithing and offerings and more letters about how members feel like they are significant contributors because they can't sit around and compare their couple of hundred to the couple of million or billions of the Church.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

True. What kind of client do you think the City Creek Mall, adjacent to Temple Square, is trying to attract?

Probably tourists mostly given Temple Square is a tourist magnet.  Just guessing though.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably tourists mostly given Temple Square is a tourist magnet.  Just guessing though.

This is probably true and nothing wrong with that but for those paying tithing and contributing to other donations..they probably can't affor to do anything but walk around.😒Some of those stores are for Mrs. Romney and Marie Osmond.😎

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

This is probably true and nothing wrong with that but for those paying tithing and contributing to other donations..they probably can't affor to do anything but walk around.😒Some of those stores are for Mrs. Romney and Marie Osmond.😎

If the purpose is to make money and provide a nice place to walk around, why should anyone feel bad if it fulfills its purpose?  It is not as if anyone is deprived of the ability to shop in other stores because of CC's existence.

[tulip]

Brigham Young used tithing as his personal piggy bank to pay for his 55 wives.  So yes the prophets can do wrong.   

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the purpose is to make money and provide a nice place to walk around, why should anyone feel bad if it fulfills its purpose?  It is not as if anyone is deprived of the ability to shop in other stores because of CC's existence.

I agree with that.  But it would be nice to participate in one's own investment.  Whatever..it starts with tithing then evolves into other things..I understand that.  Just tell the members that.  Be upfront and say yes...this is YOUR mall!☺️

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

except certain churches that compete with its own members regarding disclosure.

Meaning what exactly?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is probably true and nothing wrong with that but for those paying tithing and contributing to other donations..they probably can't affor to do anything but walk around.😒

I have bought some things in the food court at the mall, but that's about it.

I couldn't care less about shopping at City Creek.  I also couldn't care less about the citrus fruit and cattle grown at the Church's massive "Deseret Ranch" in Florida (which apparently produces revenues of about $16 million annually).  The Church apparently owns "owns over 1 million acres in continental America on which it runs farms, ranches, orchards, and hunting preserves. It also owns farmland in Australia, the U.K., Brazil, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico."  I say "apparently" because I have never been to these places, nor have I eaten any of the food produced by them.  

Are these commercial ventures prudent financial investments by the Church?  Yes.  By any reasonable measure, yes. 

Do these ventures facilitate the Church's four-fold mission (including, notably, feeding the poor)?  Yes.

That these do not benefit me directly is incidental and pretty much irrelevant.

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Some of those stores are for Mrs. Romney and Marie Osmond.😎

The profits from City Creek go to the Church.  I'd rather the Church have those profits as compared to some faceless, just-in-it-for-the-money conglomerate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Quote

When an accusation is made, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden is thus on the accuser. Our legal system is based on that concept. 

When an organization claims a 501c3 exemption, the burden should be on that organization to prove it is worthy of that exemption.

"Prove" how?  To whom?

And what does "worthy of that exemption" mean?  How does the IRS gauge "worthiness?"

Do you have any evidence that the LDS Church is not qualified to operate as a 501(c)(3) organization?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the purpose is to make money and provide a nice place to walk around, why should anyone feel bad if it fulfills its purpose?  It is not as if anyone is deprived of the ability to shop in other stores because of CC's existence.

Actually, the Church spent the money on City Creek without any expectation of a profitable return on that investment.

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill 
church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so 
modest that you would never have made such an investment

https://archive.org/stream/HowTheMormonsMakeMoney/How the Mormons Make Money- Bloomberg 7-18-12_djvu.txt

>$1 billion to make downtown SLC look prettier. Does that sound like something the Saviour would do with His funds?

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, tulip said:

Brigham Young used tithing as his personal piggy bank to pay for his 55 wives.  So yes the prophets can do wrong.   

Drive-by cheap shot. 

Not impressive. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Actually, the Church spent the money on City Creek without any expectation of a profitable return on that investment.

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill 
church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so 
modest that you would never have made such an investment

https://archive.org/stream/HowTheMormonsMakeMoney/How the Mormons Make Money- Bloomberg 7-18-12_djvu.txt

>$1 billion to make downtown SLC look prettier. Does that sound like something the Saviour would do with His funds?

Yes.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food

And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

(Genesis 2:8-9,15)

 

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have bought some things in the food court at the mall, but that's about it.

I couldn't care less about shopping at City Creek.  I also couldn't care less about the citrus fruit and cattle grown at the Church's massive "Deseret Ranch" in Florida (which apparently produces revenues of about $16 million annually).  The Church apparently owns "owns over 1 million acres in continental America on which it runs farms, ranches, orchards, and hunting preserves. It also owns farmland in Australia, the U.K., Brazil, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico."  I say "apparently" because I have never been to these places, nor have I eaten any of the food produced by them.  

Are these commercial ventures prudent financial investments by the Church?  Yes.  By any reasonable measure, yes. 

Do these ventures facilitate the Church's four-fold mission (including, notably, feeding the poor)?  Yes.

That these do not benefit me directly is incidental and pretty much irrelevant.

The profits from City Creek go to the Church.  I'd rather the Church have those profits as compared to some faceless, just-in-it-for-the-money conglomerate.

Thanks,

-Smac

That is fine...love the ice cream store there..yes!!!  But to those who are not LDS at CC...what do you think that think they are contributing to??  Not that they care..but to them it is a faceless, just in for it for the money conglomerate..that uses Jesus !!😁

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have bought some things in the food court at the mall, but that's about it.

I couldn't care less about shopping at City Creek.  I also couldn't care less about the citrus fruit and cattle grown at the Church's massive "Deseret Ranch" in Florida (which apparently produces revenues of about $16 million annually).  The Church apparently owns "owns over 1 million acres in continental America on which it runs farms, ranches, orchards, and hunting preserves. It also owns farmland in Australia, the U.K., Brazil, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico."  I say "apparently" because I have never been to these places, nor have I eaten any of the food produced by them.  

Are these commercial ventures prudent financial investments by the Church?  Yes.  By any reasonable measure, yes. 

Do these ventures facilitate the Church's four-fold mission (including, notably, feeding the poor)?  Yes.

That these do not benefit me directly is incidental and pretty much irrelevant.

The profits from City Creek go to the Church.  I'd rather the Church have those profits as compared to some faceless, just-in-it-for-the-money conglomerate.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ve been to the food court too. And I’ve bought groceries at Harmon’s. And I’ve had several business lunches at Cheesecake Factory. And my boys and I made a tradition of having ice cream at Farr’s (before it went out of business) after the priesthood session of general conference. And I’ve bought electronics stuff at the Apple store. And I’ve bought books and other things at Deseret Book  

Beyond that I didn’t spend much money there. But it’s an attractive amenity for the downtown area compared to the urban blight that was there before. So in that, the Church has fulfilled its objective to safeguard the environs around its sacred spaces. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That is fine...love the ice cream store there..yes!!!  But to those who are not LDS at CC...what do you think that think they are contributing to??  Not that they care..but to them it is a faceless, just in for it for the money conglomerate..that uses Jesus !!😁

Hopefully, not everyone is so cynical and unkind toward faith groups to which they don’t belong but which make positive contributions to society. I, myself, respect and appreciate such faith groups. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That is fine...love the ice cream store there..yes!!!  But to those who are not LDS at CC...what do you think that think they are contributing to?? 

They are not "contributing" (as in donating something and receiving nothing in return).  They are buying stuff.  Money in exchange for goods and services.  Commerce.  

Do "those who are not LDS at CC" really care that the merchants at the mall pay rent to a for-profit subsidiary of the LDS Church?  I think . . . not.  And if they do care, they have the option of taking their dollars elsewhere.

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not that they care..but to them it is a faceless, just in for it for the money conglomerate..that uses Jesus !!😁

City Creek "uses Jesus?"

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

How much money have you donated to Exiled?

None.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Actually, the Church spent the money on City Creek without any expectation of a profitable return on that investment.

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill 
church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so 
modest that you would never have made such an investment

https://archive.org/stream/HowTheMormonsMakeMoney/How the Mormons Make Money- Bloomberg 7-18-12_djvu.txt

>$1 billion to make downtown SLC look prettier. Does that sound like something the Saviour would do with His funds?

I believe City Creek project involves more than just the mall.  The mall may be making decent money that is subdising other aspects like iirc the historic preservation and beautiful walking areas which amount to an inside park.