strappinglad Posted May 25, 2018 Posted May 25, 2018 Take a look at parts of Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland , Los Angeles, etc. and see what happens when investment dries up . People who are not maintaining a place because they are not invested in it , reap the aftermath. Just out of curiosity, is the Church the sole investor in the City Creek project or are there other financial partners? Have other projects in the downtown developed because of the CC ?
bluebell Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 2 hours 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? How much time and effort have you put into discovering what the Savior would do or what He would want? 3
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) On 5/24/2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: It is not a lie to say that tithing funds were not used, because they weren't Don't play word games, Robert. You have more honor than to sink to that level. On 5/24/2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: The LDS Church has long invested monies into real estate and other businesses which produce greater value. And how did they make those investments, Robert? Through TITHING. On 5/24/2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: That's what investments are for (as in the parable of the talents), to grow the principal. No way! On 5/24/2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Having done that, one need only use that extra money for further investments. Golly, the time value of money sure is magic! On 5/24/2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Makes good practical sense, and City Creek is merely one more investment in a long line of good investments. I agree. A good investment using tithing proceeds. On 5/24/2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: The only difference is that they are not eleemosynary institutions. Since the LDS Church is a charitable institution, those investments mean that a great deal of good can be done with those reserve funds in the event of emergencies. In fact, the LDS Church gives more money to charitable causes per capita than any other religious body (except maybe the Seventh Day Adventists, but I haven't examined their giving totals). I really expect better from you. Why do you insert this nonsense that literally has nothing to do with the question at hand. But let's change contexts. Imagine Grandma gives grandson a $$ gift as a young boy to invest in prep to pay for college. When the time comes, that investment has grown and pays for all 4 years at University. Who paid for grandson's college? Grandma, of course. Actually, it would better to ask, what money paid for college? It was the money gift given to the grandson as a boy. It has just happened to grow the point it could pay for 4 years. Edited May 26, 2018 by 6EQUJ5
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 10 hours ago, smac97 said: Things like "flat out lie" in situations like this, where reasonable minds can disagree, makes people like me take people like you take people like you less seriously. Just because I refuse to be a disingenuous propagandist doesn't mean I can't be taken seriously. 10 hours ago, smac97 said: By that reckoning it is a "flat out lie" that I have ever earned any income. My parents paid for all my needs during childhood. I then went into the Army, and then on a mission, then to college, then to college again, and now here I am. But I never would have been able to get to college without my parents' financial support. So my income from my job really isn't mine. It's my parents. You have made some dumb statements on this board before but this absolutely takes the cake. Again, you are trying to use your lawyer tricks to win a rhetorical argument while completely ignoring the substance of the issue at hand. What you want us to accept is that tithing is only defined as the exact $$ amount originally given. Any "increase" to that original $$ amount is magically NOT tithing. THAT is pure nonsense and you know it. You simply can't admit that the Church's PR dept. lied. That's their job -- to spin public opinion in the Church's favor. I don't remember my baptismal covenent or temple covenants including a promise to defend LDS Newsroom even if it means I have to resort to absurd and dishonest arguments. Were yours different? 1
strappinglad Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 31 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: What you want us to accept is that tithing is only defined as the exact $$ amount originally given. Any "increase" to that original $$ amount is magically NOT tithing. THAT is pure nonsense and you know it. 31 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: You have made some dumb statements on this board before but this absolutely takes the cake. Wow !
Scott Lloyd Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Just because I refuse to be a disingenuous propagandist doesn't mean I can't be taken seriously. You have made some dumb statements on this board before but this absolutely takes the cake. Again, you are trying to use your lawyer tricks to win a rhetorical argument while completely ignoring the substance of the issue at hand. What you want us to accept is that tithing is only defined as the exact $$ amount originally given. Any "increase" to that original $$ amount is magically NOT tithing. THAT is pure nonsense and you know it. You simply can't admit that the Church's PR dept. lied. That's their job -- to spin public opinion in the Church's favor. I don't remember my baptismal covenent or temple covenants including a promise to defend LDS Newsroom even if it means I have to resort to absurd and dishonest arguments. Were yours different? It was President Hinckley who declared publicly that tithing funds were not being used for the project. Did you miss that? In any event, “the Church’s PR Department” And LDS Newsroom do not publish statements that are not in accord with the Brethren. Public Affairs works for them, not the other way around. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) Just goes to show, I guess it depends on who you are, whether you can flame other Board posters with impunity or not. I've reported a couple of contributions to this thread. Perhaps the Mods will, for whatever reason, pay more attention to someone who has more clout than I do. Edited May 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969
Tacenda Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 I guess I can be grateful that the church built City Creek since my daughter is property manager at City Creek Landing. I guess it has enhanced the area, so I shouldn't complain. Well.....still can't believe there is stream with live fish running through a mall, is that a little over the top? But I guess if you've got the money. I do think people paying tithing, helps them in their business ventures, without tithing they couldn't purchase all the commercial entities, it would all go to temples and such.
sunstoned Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: President Hinckley is absolutely right in this. The Church of Jesus Christ is not a tax-supported entity. Its financials are not the business of those who do not make donations. If you don’t trust the Church to use the money properly, don’t donate. Very simple. I’m not altogether sure what your point is with this. That is not what he said and you know it. This is about being truthful. Edited May 26, 2018 by sunstoned 3
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: What you want us to accept is that tithing is only defined as the exact $$ amount originally given. Any "increase" to that original $$ amount is magically NOT tithing. THAT is pure nonsense and you know it. If a bank gives you 100,000, you invest that into a new business and feed any profits back into your business, does the bank own your business over and above whatever the contract to pay off the loan amounts to because it was their seed money in the first place in your view? Or if you see that analogy as too far from tithing to be applicable... Can you explain how 10% of a $1000 given in tithing, meaning $100 becomes after being invested for several years $200 tithing which would be 20% of the tithe payer's income? If I give the Church money and it invests it, can I deduct any interest it makes off of it from my future tithing? If not, then how can it be tithing? Investment from tithing, sure. Tithing itself...that is the 10% people give. Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm 3
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I guess I can be grateful that the church built City Creek since my daughter is property manager at City Creek Landing. I guess it has enhanced the area, so I shouldn't complain. Well.....still can't believe there is stream with live fish running through a mall, is that a little over the top? But I guess if you've got the money. I do think people paying tithing, helps them in their business ventures, without tithing they couldn't purchase all the commercial entities, it would all go to temples and such. If it is anything like the downtown mall in Calgary, parts of it are treated like a park. Check out the Devonian Gardens, for example. It even had a playground my kids loved going to in the middle of winter. Most of the time we didn't buy anything, it was just to be somewhere beautiful when there were too many cold or gray days strung together. Most of the families playing there were likely not the ones who would be buying at the stores connected to it either, so it wasn't only about attracting customers, but providing an oasis for any in the city. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian_Gardens_(Calgary) If the Church had built a park separate from the mall with a stream with fish in it, would you be seeing it as over the top? Combining two services in one location is smart stewardship, imo. Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm 2
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Just goes to show, I guess it depends on who you are, whether you can flame other Board posters with impunity or not. I've reported a couple of contributions to this thread. Perhaps the Mods will, for whatever reason, pay more attention to someone who has more clout than I do. If people stop responding to the flamers, likely the mods won't get the mistaken idea that others enjoy the debate. I have noticed that if the board gets quiet for awhile like it was prior to the Denson-Bishop scandal, mods may give more leeway if some threads get lively. It makes sense if they are interpreting it as enjoyment. Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm
Marginal Gains Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 5 hours ago, bluebell said: How much time and effort have you put into discovering what the Savior would do or what He would want? Enough to know that spending >$1 billlion on an upmarket shopping mall for the well healed society of a City with a homeless problem wouldn’t be top of his priority list. 2
Tacenda Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 15 minutes ago, Calm said: If it is anything like the downtown mall in Calgary, parts of it are treated like a park. Check out the Devonian Gardens, for example. It even had a playground my kids loved going to in the middle of winter. Most of the time we didn't buy anything, it was just to be somewhere beautiful when there were too many cold or gray days strung together. Most of the families playing there were likely not the ones who would be buying at the stores connected to it either, so it wasn't only about attracting customers, but providing an oasis for any in the city. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian_Gardens_(Calgary) If the Church had built a park separate from the mall with a stream with fish in it, would you be seeing it as over the top? Combining two services in one location is smart stewardship, imo. Well, when I first saw the fish, I was a little taken back, but when I go there to have lunch with my daughter, it is fun to see. I do think how a lot of money is continually spent on it. But I do agree it beats the Crossroads Mall that the church eventually bought toward the end. That mall and ZCMI mall were my hangout when I worked in the Kennecott Building years ago. I guess if the church had put a park there or something like it, it could have been quite difficult to keep it from becoming a Liberty Park/Pioneer Park or something. It's definitely a good thing but like my dad use to say to me while visiting my mom in the care center when Alz had consumed her, he wished the church could build some nice places. We always struggled to find decent places that were affordable. She got it so young, and would escape her home, it became dangerous. So she needed something more secure. I know the Seventh Day Adventists own hospitals etc. right? But I'll shut my mouth. I found this video of the old Crossroads Mall, right before it was demolished.
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: If a bank gives you 100,000, you invest that into a new business and feed any profits back into your business, does the bank own your business over and above whatever the contract to pay off the loan amounts to because it was their seed money in the first place in your view? Or if you see that analogy as too far from tithing to be applicable... Can you explain how 10% of a $1000 given in tithing, meaning $100 becomes after being invested for several years $200 tithing which would be 20% of the tithe payer's income? If I give the Church money and it invests it, can I deduct any interest it makes off of it from my future tithing? If not, then how can it be tithing? Investment from tithing, sure. Tithing itself...that is the 10% people give. I have no idea what ownership and tax law have to do with what constitutes sacred tithing funds. The question is not who "owns" the tithing. The question is did the Church Newsroom lie when they said no tithing funds were used to build City Creek. That 2B price tag may have started as a donation of ranch property in 1868, but that 2B is tithing. The ranch was tithing, and the gains from that asset are tithing. I think it is really foolhardy to be embarrassed that the good stewardship of sacred tithing has led to an incredible growth of tithing that the Church has used to get involved in all sorts of ventures that benefit the Kingdom. That's the root of the problem. We live under a delusion that somehow saying that this really isn't tithing, its ok to spend it on a commercial venture. The truth is, its perfectly fine to spend tithing funds on any venture that benefits the Church. Why do we have to lie about that?
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Drive-by cheap shot. Not impressive. How did this lie get started? I keep hearing claims that Brigham Young used Church funds as his own, but this doesn't jive with what I know of BY. He owned several businesses and was quite successful in managing his own money. He certainly wouldn't need the Church.
Thinking Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, smac97 said: 10 hours ago, Thinking said: Not Guilty ≠ Innocent What? Antonyms of "guilt" include "innocence." Antonyms of "innocence" include "guilt." So . . . "not guilty" does = "innocent." I think it's interesting that you previously appealed to the legal system in your rebuttals to my opinions. Yet when I write something that anybody with any legal expertise understands, you suddenly appeal to non-legal sources. Such appeals raise doubts about your legal expertise. Quote If the null hypothesis is not rejected, then we must be careful to say what this means. The thinking on this is similar to a legal verdict. Just because a person has been declared "not guilty", it does not mean that he is innocent. In the same way, just because we failed to reject a null hypothesis it does not mean that the statement is true. Link Edited May 26, 2018 by Thinking
Marginal Gains Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) “I think it is really foolhardy to be embarrassed that the good stewardship of sacred tithing has led to an incredible growth of tithing that the Church has used to get involved in all sorts of ventures that benefit the Kingdom. That's the root of the problem. We live under a delusion that somehow saying that this really isn't tithing, its ok to spend it on a commercial venture. The truth is, its perfectly fine to spend tithing funds on any venture that benefits the Church.“ How does an upmarket shopping mall bring people to Christ? Edited May 26, 2018 by Marginal Gains
Robert F. Smith Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Don't play word games, Robert. You have more honor than to sink to that level. And how did they make those investments, Robert? Through TITHING..... Your childish ad hominem is out of place, and you haven't dealt with the facts here, as usual. Taking a set amount of tithing, investing it, and using the excess for investment is t he Lord's work. Those who hate the Lord can't stand that fact, and never will. 3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Golly, the time value of money sure is magic! I agree. A good investment using tithing proceeds. I really expect better from you. Why do you insert this nonsense that literally has nothing to do with the question at hand. Spoken like a true hater. Charitable institutions which invest the contributions they receive and thus increase them are clearly doing exactly what the Lord commands, and are following the Parable of the Talents, which you reject. 3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: .....................Imagine Grandma gives grandson a $$ gift as a young boy to invest in prep to pay for college. When the time comes, that investment has grown and pays for all 4 years at University. Who paid for grandson's college? Grandma, of course. Now who is lying? You obviously do not understand the nature of a gift. Once given, it no longer belongs to the giver, and any increase in value due to investment is not the original, but is the talent the Lord was talking about being put to use as a growth stock. The extra belongs strictly to the recipient of the gift. The Lord is the recipient of the tithing, and he puts it to good use (investment) which grows it. You pretend that it is the original principal, something only a liar would claim. You also blaspheme the Lord's Parable of the Talents as well as the promise those who give tithing will be blessed with the windows of heaven. But you obviously reject God and his claim on that ten percent. Would you rob God? Probably. 1
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: “I think it is really foolhardy to be embarrassed that the good stewardship of sacred tithing has led to an incredible growth of tithing that the Church has used to get involved in all sorts of ventures that benefit the Kingdom. That's the root of the problem. We live under a delusion that somehow saying that this really isn't tithing, its ok to spend it on a commercial venture. The truth is, its perfectly fine to spend tithing funds on any venture that benefits the Church.“ How does an upmarket shopping mall bring people to Christ? For one, it keeps the area around the SLC temple upscale and clean. It keeps the downtown of Salt Lake a clean and safe place. Unlike the cesspools cities on the West Coast have become with human feces and needles on the street. 2
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Now who is lying? You obviously do not understand the nature of a gift. Once given, it no longer belongs to the giver, and any increase in value due to investment is not the original, but is the talent the Lord was talking about being put to use as a growth stock. Ownership has nothing to do with anything. The point, which you know of course, is that all assets the Church now owns come from tithing. Wether that tithing was donated 100 years ago and is now an asset in the form of a building at BYU, it is tithing. What you are trying to argue is that tithing, once given to the Church, somehow changes once it starts to grow from the original $$ amount. That is nonsense. All Church assets are sacred. All Church assets are tithing. Why, because everything the Church has -- for any purpose whatsoever -- is a form of tithing. Edited May 26, 2018 by 6EQUJ5
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: How did this lie get started? I keep hearing claims that Brigham Young used Church funds as his own, but this doesn't jive with what I know of BY. He owned several businesses and was quite successful in managing his own money. He certainly wouldn't need the Church. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3635175?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Can't quote it and unless you have access to JSTOR, you can't read the whole paper... A quote from UTLM quoting the above paper so it needs to be double-checked given the ellispses. Quote "Brigham Young and other church authorities, when need required it, drew on the tithing resources of the church, and at a later date repaid part or all of the obligation in money, property, or services. No interest seems to have been paid for the use of these funds.... This ability to draw, almost at will, on church as well as his own funds, was a great advantage to Brigham Young and was certainly one of the reasons for his worldly success.... while Brigham Young was probably the largest borrower of funds from the trustee-in-trust, he was certainly not the only one." ("The Settlement of the Brigham Young Estate," 1877-1879, Reprinted from the Pacific Historical Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Feb. 1952, p.7-8) Leonard Arrington was a very reputable scholar. Found some more information..,I was wise to be Leary of the ellispses: Quote Also in 1873, general authorities were urged to settle their accounts with the trustee-in-trust. During this period when private banking was nonexistent in Utah, Brigham Young and other church authorities drew on the tithing resources of the Church and later repaid part or all of the obligation in money, property, or services. This practice were justified on two grounds. First, the general authorities were consecrating their time and fortunes to the Church and were entitled to draw from the treasury when the need required. Second, the projects for which they borrowed were largely beneficial to the community, such as the construction of railroads, woolen mills, canals, and gas works. To some extent, these drawings were a form of compensation in lieu of salary for work and time expended on behalf of the Church, and to that extent, they were not required to repay them.[12] The ability to draw on the Church was a great advantage to Brigham Young and the other general authorities and was one of the reasons some of them were quite successful financially. For example, George Q. Cannon obtained $27,488.67 in credits from the Church during the first thirteen years of his apostleship (1860 to 1873). Most of the drawings were in the form of tithing office scrip. The accounts were balanced at the time of the general settlement in 1873 by crediting Cannon with that amount for “services rendered.” Ten years later, Cannon repaid the Church for these credits (in effect, providing those 13 years of service for no compensation) by giving his “magnificent house” on South Temple to the Church. However, the straightening up of accounts, and particularly that of Brigham Young’s, was not completed.[13] In fact, George Q. Cannon wrote in his journal, “On one occasion he [Brigham Young] said to me that he would like to turn his property into the Church and I remarked that I thought he had done sufficient for the Church. I was then under the impression which I entertained until some time after his death that the Church was owing him. Familiar as I was with him and his business I had never seen his account with the Church and had not heard how he stood.”[14] http://cannundrum.blogspot.com/2009/10/gqc-brigham-young-estate.html Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm 2
6EQUJ5 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 Just now, Calm said: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3635175?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Can't quote it and unless you have access to JSTOR, you can't read the whole paper... A quote from UTLM so it needs to be double-checked given the ellispses. Meh. Loans are not anything like using Church tithing funds for personal use. And it is incredibly common for large organizations to give top leadership no-interest loans. I personally don't like them for any org because it seems to me to be an unecessary expense. But this is such a common practice.
Recommended Posts