The Church and Business

[Suzie]

No, that's not a statement of fact. That's a statement of opinion....

Oh come on Anatess.

Moving on...

[Guest]

Oh come on Anatess.

Moving on...

You know I love ya Suzie... even if English is only my 3rd language...

[slamjet]

even if English is only my 3rd language...

show-off

[Guest]

show-off

How dare you insinuate that I can tolerate such a diabolical insolence from a scrap of... oh, never mind...

[slamjet]

How dare you insinuate that I can tolerate such a diabolical insolence from a scrap of... oh, never mind...

Oh no, please, continue. I'm sure there's a description of what you really think of me within that rant

[Guest]

Oh no, please, continue. I'm sure there's a description of what you really think of me within that rant

Okay, okay...

... of cute, cuddly, loveable, funny, irresistable, grouch-wanna-be teddy bear of a man such as you.

I still have some cousins.

[slamjet]

Okay, okay...

... of cute, cuddly, loveable, funny, irresistable, grouch-wanna-be teddy bear of a man such as you.

I still have some cousins.

oh... my... word :huh: got nothing

[rayhale]

Creating jobs is one of, if not, the highest form of charity, the lack of quality pay jobs in the mall, is the matter for debate.

[Guest mormonmusic]

If I go in there talking about Job creation as justification for the mall I'm going to get lambasted. This guy is rather intelligent, and I anticipate his answer -- how is "creating jobs" consistent with the mission of the Church? You could argue its a form of "caring for the poor and needy", but it seems like a side-effect of a business decision that benefits a corporation, not an altruistic act of love toward others.

And citing the Ensign article -- can you really justify limiting the expansion of church-sponsored schools like Ricks and BYU (which have a direct impact on career-readiness and job-acquistion) because they are "terribly expensive" and then invest 4 Billion in a mall that will create a few retail and property management jobs? I'm going to steer clear of job creation as a justification or I'll be on thin ice.

So, I have to reject that one. Sure, it will create a few jobs, but I don't see that as justification by any strength of the imagination.

However, you make some useable points here. I do think the article by GBH offers some practical insights as to why the Church is in certain businesses, and how, historically, they filled business needs that no other organization could fill in our early history. And how this led to divestiture of these businesses as the Momon economy got a life of its own.

And by the way, I too was a bit taken aback at how harsh some of you were toward this brother. So often, we sit in Ward Councils trying to figure out why people aren't coming to Church anymore. We hear a bunch of conflicting reasons which sound more like excuses, and no one can figure out what the problem is. Or we feel a bit frustrated with how home teaching families won't open up about their concerns about the Church. FINALLY this guy trusts me enough that he tells me his concern. If I react with "either its true or it isn't" or start judging him as an Anti-Mormon, then that will shut off all influence I might have to help him view the Church differently.

Here are some other reasons to justify the fact the Church has businesses:

a) 10% of business earnings go back to the Church.

b) Owning these other business entities as for-profit corporations allows the Church to move money to the Church. If they were organized as not-for-profits, they would not be able to distribute earnings.

Edited May 4, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Tyler90AZ]

Who is at the top of the Mormon Business, who makes the most money?

[spamlds]

Focus on the Spirit and what this man is doing to keep it in his life. Is he reading the scriptures? Is he praying regularly? Probably not. Those are the most fundamental individual actions a person needs to do to sustain faith. In almost every case, when you encounter a person who voices these kinds of "concerns," they're not observing these principles.

As a home teacher, the man probably won't tell you about any personal worthiness issues, but the bishop may discover that there are other transgressions in the man's life that need to be confessed and resolved. Satan has a way of moving the fault for transgression off the sinner onto some other scapegoat. Christ takes the sinner's sin away and lifts his burden. The gratitude that comes from that experience overwhelms the tendency towards criticism of the Church.

If the man is looking for an argument, just let him vent and don't argue back. When he has emptied out all his resentment, look to put in a little bit of love, friendship, and the Spirit of the Lord. You don't have to prove him wrong. Just show him love and acceptance.

[Just_A_Guy]

If I go in there talking about Job creation as justification for the mall I'm going to get lambasted. This guy is rather intelligent, and I anticipate his answer -- how is "creating jobs" consistent with the mission of the Church? You could argue its a form of "caring for the poor and needy", but it seems like a side-effect of a business decision that benefits a corporation, not an altruistic act of love toward others.

The consensus I keep hearing here in Salt Lake Valley--at least among the non-Mormon community--seems to be that City Creek will be a money loser for the Church.

Critics of the Church's financial endeavors can't have it both ways on this one. They can't argue that City Creek is a non-charitable, for-profit venture while simultaneously gloating that the Church is going to lose its shirt in the enterprise.

The lasting impact is merely a relatively small number of retail jobs which don't pay the best. Can a man support his family solely from a job selling shoes at Nordstroms?

The fact that people choose to work at Nordstsroms, indicates that people can earn sufficient for theirs and their family's needs by doing so. Mistrust of the impact of the Church's investment ultimately translates into mistrust of the entire capitalist system. (This isn't intended as a politicized criticism; just an observation.)

More to the point: What better way is there? If you create higher-paying jobs, by definition you can only create fewer of them. If you don't create jobs at all, you're back to a dole-based system--which is a short-term fix, but makes zero attempt to solve the underlying problem of unemployment and/or poverty.

In the past the Church has used its funds to by lands for raising food to feed its members via welfare.

It still does.

This project benefits relatively few - major construction firms, bankers, and the investor(s).

Construction firms have employees--lots of 'em--mostly blue collar; and the industry here is suffering right now. It's not a stretch to say that this project could be what carries certain firms through the recession instead of shutting down entirely.

I can't speak as to bankers, but investors? The Church is the investor; and you seem to concur with the view I've described above that City Creek is likely to be a losing investment. So the class-envy-based argument really doesn't hold water, at least with regard to this particular project; because it seems no one can identify even one venture capitalist standing to make a killing off of this.

If this project goes sour, where does the money come from to pay for it?

My understanding is that it has already been paid for--in cash (so to speak).

Many didn't notice that one of the Church's insurance companies had to cover a major loss of $500M last year. How many times can it afford to do that? More importantly, what happens if it no longer can?

It shuts down, and its status as a corporate entity means that the tithepayers of the Church will not be forced to make good on the corporation's unpaid debts.

What's to win? The church's purpose is to guide souls back to Christ. What else matters?

The things the Church does to guide souls back to Christ--and the facilities in which it does so--cost money.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[gruden]

The consensus I keep hearing here in Salt Lake Valley--at least among the non-Mormon community--seems to be that City Creek will be a money loser for the Church.

Critics of the Church's financial endeavors can't have it both ways on this one. They can't argue that City Creek is a non-charitable, for-profit venture while simultaneously gloating that the Church is going to lose its shirt in the enterprise.

Not that I care what the critics say, but why not? The Church company is out to make money on this - everyone knows it - and it could turn out disastrous. I won't gloat, I will mourn.

The fact that people choose to work at Nordstsroms, indicates that people can earn sufficient for theirs and their family's needs by doing so. Mistrust of the impact of the Church's investment ultimately translates into mistrust of the entire capitalist system. (This isn't intended as a politicized criticism; just an observation.)

Can you show me a family of four (or more) where the father works as a salesclerk at Nordstroms and earns sufficient so that his wife can remain at home with the kids (and put food on the table and a roof overhead)? Without going on the dole?

That is, unless everyone is abandoning church traditional values completely and give in to the Babylonian way, in which case I will cede the point.

More to the point: What better way is there? If you create higher-paying jobs, by definition you can only create fewer of them. If you don't create jobs at all, you're back to a dole-based system--which is a short-term fix, but makes zero attempt to solve the underlying problem of unemployment and/or poverty.

That's a fair question, but there's another way to look at it. The Church sunk $3 Billion into this project. I've searched around the net and the estimates I found were that it would create 1,700 jobs. Divide that out, that means the Church spent 1.7 million dollars per job. Are you telling me that's the most efficient way to create jobs? That's worse than the government!

Small business is the job creation engine of the economy. If they really wanted to bless the lives of church members, they could setup a venture capital firm to fund startups, and I can pretty much guarantee if they put $3 Billion into it they could've come up with FAR more than 1,700 jobs. Is that a good enough idea? The effects of an organization sinking that amount of money into small business creation would be massive, and would truly be a blessing to members throughout the valley and beyond.

And, it's not a dole. Businesses would have to pay the loan back, which would be on good terms to benefit both the lender and borrower.

Maybe mine isn't the best idea, but sinking gobs of money into a confined retail/condo project is far worse in regard to job creation.

My understanding is that it has already been paid for--in cash (so to speak).

It shuts down, and its status as a corporate entity means that the tithepayers of the Church will not be forced to make good on the corporation's unpaid debts.

Again, there are other ways to look at this.

First, even if the Church could scrape together $3 billion, that puts a serious hurt on the cash flow. Even multi-billion dollar conglomerates have to be careful putting deals like this together. Most get loans, which preserves cash and cash flow. If the Church expended most of its cash reserves to outright pay for this, that puts it in a precarious position if there are shortfalls below revenue projections.

In other words, just because you can buy something outright doesn't mean you can afford to keep it. If revenues from the project falls short, that's going to put the Church in a serious fiscal bind. What I find amazing that in our current economic climate where unoccupied commercial real estate is at all-time highs, and foreclosures continue unabated, how any member can feel comfortable with this project. The Church has a major exposure in sections of the economy at greatest risk. If revenues are low, the Church is forced to cover and re-allocate, and that's where things start to get hairy.

Sure, we might not have to cover shortfalls, but shortfalls mean funds coming into the ecclesiastic side of the church dry up, which removes the point for which the enterprise side exists!

The things the Church does to guide souls back to Christ--and the facilities in which it does so--cost money.

At the end we come to an agreeable point. Again, my point isn't that the Church shouldn't have profitable enterprises, the point is the Church is still a church, even if it operates businesses, and these businesses should have the aim of promoting the most good for its members and community. The Church has sunk enormous sums into a project that will benefit few at-large, and carries large ramifications should it fail. The Church is a pearl of great price, and its fortunes need to be protected carefully.

This deeply concerns me, it really does, and to get back to the OP, I can see why it concerns the inactive brother. Nevertheless, I carry on, and I hope the OP can help him come to the realization that his salvation doesn't depend on the Church's balance sheet.

Edited May 5, 2011 by gruden

[Guest]

Guys, there's a reason we are not CEO's. We're not smart enough to know how to invest $4B to get the value we expect from it (it doesn't have to be profit*). The Church's business arm has been faring well since the turn of the last century. I'm fairly certain they know what they are doing.

* For example: Walt Disney purchased 30,000 acres of land in Florida to develop 7,000 acres of profitable enterprise. Armchair CEO's like us would think... What a waste of money that is when 23,000 acres is a wasteland! Why not just purchase 7,000 acres and save all that money! Well, take a look at Disneyland, CA. You have a theme park dedicated to Fantasyland smack dab in the middle if seedy reality! What a downer! Not only that, non-Disney businesses are making tons of money on Disney souvenirs that is a lost opportunity for Disney! Why buy from Disney when you can get an el-cheapo trinket from a sidewalk vendor on the way to your hotel?

Therefore, Disney spent oodles of money on 23,000 acres of nothing to preserve the Disney fantasy - no profit in mind. But because the CEO of Disney is smarter than armchair CEO's (at least in regards to Disney's interests) he knows that the money will return ten-fold in the 7,000 acres of developed property.

So yeah. We know Nothing.

[Just_A_Guy]

The only points I would address, Gruden, are as follows:

The Church sunk $3 Billion into this project. I've searched around the net and the estimates I found were that it would create 1,700 jobs. Divide that out, that means the Church spent 1.7 million dollars per job. Are you telling me that's the most efficient way to create jobs? That's worse than the government!

I'd be interested to see how that figure was derived. It's easy to count the number of people working directly on-site; but there are also the materials suppliers who a) employ people offsite, and b) do contract work for a number of builders. How do you count the guy at a plant in Des Moines who turns out five hundred feet of railing for City Creek on Wednesday and then assembles three hundred feet more for some other mall in Tampa on Thursday?

The money is still creating jobs--I daresay far more than 1700--but its doing so incrementally, just as does most capital expenditure in this economy.

Also, does that 1700 figure count the people who will be employed after the construction is over, but wouldn't have been employed if the anemic, pre-existing ZCMI and Crossroads had shut down? If so--for how long into the future do you count those jobs?

There's no evidence to suggest that the money is being hoarded by corporate executives. I will grant that much of it is being distributed very, very thinly--so much so that quantifying number of "jobs created" is very tricky business indeed. Nevertheless, if this were the City of Salt Lake rather than the LDS Church that were doing it, it would be lauded as much-needed economic stimulus.

even if the Church could scrape together $3 billion, that puts a serious hurt on the cash flow. . . If the Church expended most of its cash reserves to outright pay for this, that puts it in a precarious position if there are shortfalls below revenue projections.

That's a possibility, sure; but I'm not aware of any real data indicating that this is happening. The only two possible indicators I can see are 1) complaints that ward budgets aren't more liberal [but I've heard no indicator that wards are actually doing without physical facilities/instructional materials, or that our humanitarian aid/fast offerings have taken a hit]; and 2) the slowdown in construction of temples; which could also be attributable to the fact that the locations where Church membership justifies a temple, by-and-large already have one.

More to my basic point, though: your assertion seems to assume that the Church pledged some of its non-business assets as security for the City Creek development; and/or that if things get tough the Church would doggedly hold onto the project and pour tithing funds in to keep it solvent rather than simply having City Creek Reserve, Inc. file for bankruptcy.

So, in short: If the Church paid cash for the project, then the membership has already paid and isn't currently suffering any deprivation from the project. If the Church did it on credit, then there are adequate legal protections in place to protect the membership.

If revenues from the project falls short, that's going to put the Church in a serious fiscal bind. What I find amazing that in our current economic climate where unoccupied commercial real estate is at all-time highs, and foreclosures continue unabated, how any member can feel comfortable with this project. The Church has a major exposure in sections of the economy at greatest risk. If revenues are low, the Church is forced to cover and re-allocate, and that's where things start to get hairy.

As I've tried to point out above, the Church appears to be (legally speaking) in a good position to protect its assets and continue its core functions even if the market doesn't recover. If it does pick up, the Church will be well-positioned to take advantage of the recovery and will come out looking pretty smart.

Remember, too, that this isn't the first time the Church has taken on a relatively massive construction/real estate project. In the late 1950s/early 1960s, the Church undertook construction of the Church Office Building. The cost overruns were so staggering (and embarrassing) that the Church quit publishing its financials because of it. But fifty years later, does anyone really regret that the Church undertook the project?

Edited May 5, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[gruden]

Guys, there's a reason we are not CEO's. We're not smart enough to know how to invest $4B to get the value we expect from it (it doesn't have to be profit*).

...

So yeah. We know Nothing.

I would direct you to D&C 24:9 speaking to Joseph Smith:

And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling...

How a person fares in business has nothing to do with how smart they are. There are brilliant people who do poorly and idiots who are very rich. Joseph Smith was a spiritual giant, yet the church was perpetually broke during his ministry, and the Lord told us why.

The notion of people amassing wealth purely by hard work and playing it smart echoes the philosophies written of in the Book of Mormon by the name of Korihor. We have to be careful of internalizing these philosophies without understanding what they mean. It is not our spiritual birthright to have great material blessings - though it can happen. If it does, it is because God permitted it.

And, as the other poster pointed out, the Church almost went bankrupt in the 50s, so no, things have been financially precarious for the Church on more than one occasion. I'm sure there's a lesson for us in there somewhere.

And if any of us know nothing, it's because we haven't made much effort. One can learn about most anything if one puts the requisite effort forth...

Edited May 8, 2011 by gruden

[gruden]

The money is still creating jobs--I daresay far more than 1700--but its doing so incrementally, just as does most capital expenditure in this economy.

This is the government model for 'creating' jobs: dump a bunch of money into the economy and hope a miracle happens. This - and what you put forth - is not the model of a self-sustaining economy. Just because someone chopped down some trees and sent lumber to SLC doesn't mean you've done anything long-term for the economy. After that's done, people are standing around hoping for more orders to come through. Since the Church invested in retail business, not production, there's no guarantee of anything when the dust settles.

What I proposed, on the other hand, was a way in which self-sustaining industry can be kick-started. I remember reading of Brigham Young and other early church leaders speaking many times of the need to be industrious and production-oriented as the means of creating a vibrant, self-sustaining economy that would be good for the Saints. My, how things have changed.

But fifty years later, does anyone really regret that the Church undertook the project?

Check out what Hugh Nibley said in Approaching Zion. The answer would be 'yes', and I tend to agree with him.

Edited May 8, 2011 by gruden

[Guest]

I would direct you to D&C 24:9 speaking to Joseph Smith:

And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling...

How a person fares in business has nothing to do with how smart they are. There are brilliant people who do poorly and idiots who are very rich. Joseph Smith was a spiritual giant, yet the church was perpetually broke during his ministry, and the Lord told us why.

The notion of people amassing wealth purely by hard work and playing it smart echoes the philosophies written of in the Book of Mormon by the name of Korihor. We have to be careful of internalizing these philosophies without understanding what they mean. It is not our spiritual birthright to have great material blessings - though it can happen. If it does, it is because God permitted it.

And, as the other poster pointed out, the Church almost went bankrupt in the 50s, so no, things have been financially precarious for the Church on more than one occasion. I'm sure there's a lesson for us in there somewhere.

And if any of us know nothing, it's because we haven't made much effort. One can learn about most anything if one puts the requisite effort forth...

This is not a "person" who fares in business. This is a CEO, CFO, COO HIRED by a corporation to manage their assets. Corporations do not hire idiots and put them in charge of four billion dollars.

But like any other enterprise in the universe, it contains risks and sometimes the risk wins. Hence, it is common for a corporation to have it's downturns - Ford (the car company) was running red in the early part of 2000 caused by the exploding tires... they're on top of the game again not too long after. That's why you hire the smart people to run your business so they can mitigate the risk and not sink if the worst case scenario occurs.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is the government model for 'creating' jobs: dump a bunch of money into the economy and hope a miracle happens. This - and what you put forth - is not the model of a self-sustaining economy. Just because someone chopped down some trees and sent lumber to SLC doesn't mean you've done anything long-term for the economy. After that's done, people are standing around hoping for more orders to come through. Since the Church invested in retail business, not production, there's no guarantee of anything when the dust settles.

What I proposed, on the other hand, was a way in which self-sustaining industry can be kick-started. I remember reading of Brigham Young and other early church leaders speaking many times of the need to be industrious and production-oriented as the means of creating a vibrant, self-sustaining economy that would be good for the Saints. My, how things have changed.

Even if what you say is 100% correct, you miss the fact that "sustainable" economic development is only one aspect of the City Creek project. Another, is keeping the Temple Square area pedestrian-friendly. There's a reason that Welfare Square is located on the west side of I-15. Even City Creek's most ardent critics, in and out of the Church, don't want either agriculture or industry moving downtown.

But I don't think you are correct, from a historical perspective. Why, then, would Brigham Young invest in the transcontinental railroad, which some of its own promoters acknowledged would never make money as an actual railroad line? Railroads don't produce anything--they are merely a link in the chain that brings goods to the market. Rather like retail shops (which, again, are only part of the City Creek business plan).

And let's not forget the Mormon Battalion. Why was it OK for President Young to send (not ask, but send) LDS men to war primarily as an effort to meet the Church's temporal needs as he saw them in his day, but it isn't OK for Gordon Hinckley and Thomas Monson to build a mall under such a legal structure as shields tithing and other contributions from any real financial danger?

I would respectfully submit that Young (properly) emphasized production because he was building an economy from scratch. There's no point in finding ways to get goods to the market, when your economy just doesn't have any goods to move.

Check out what Hugh Nibley said in Approaching Zion. The answer would be 'yes', and I tend to agree with him.

I'll have to read it, when I get the chance.

Barring the COB, where would you house the bureaucracy that coordinates missionary travel, manages LDS properties, writes manuals, brokers the deals for accessing and copying family history records worldwide, controls the Church's finances, distributes humanitarian aid, and performs the other tasks necessary to the mission of the Church? Should they work from home?

It's easy to focus on the evils of bureaucracy and infrastructure, when you don't have to worry about actually getting stuff done. Nibley had that luxury. McKay, Lee, Kimball, Benson, et al. didn't.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest mormonmusic]

Thought I'd give an update on this one. When I visited with him, he listened to the reasons I gave, which were inspired by many comments here. I wasn't the least bit judgmental with him, and empathized with how it can be difficult ot separate the spiritual arm of the Church, with the temporal arm of the Church. I steer cleared of any pointing to his obligation as a priesthood holder, as I don't think his testimony is anywhere near that any more.

I did not take a hard line. I think the clearest value in my visit was that I respected his perspective. And guess what -- he hasn't been reading anti-Mormon literature. His perceptions were a result of his experiences as a leader in the Church.

He still comes to Church and is with his family, supports them in activities, attends Ward socials, but doesn't seem to have a calling. I know his kids and wife go to the temple, but I have never seen him with them. He always seeks me out to talk to me at Church events, and he's become a pretty good friend. I see him regularly.

He did express concern that I'd run to the local priesthood leadership with his concerns, and asked for confidentiality. So, if anyone comes pressing for details, I'm going to have to ask them to get it straight from this man, and NOT from myself.

My hope is that friendship and kindness from myself -- with no interest in changing him or "getting him back to work in the Church" will provide the kind of difference in our organization he's hoping to see, compared to the temporal arm that seems to have enveloped his point of view.

Edited October 11, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Guest mormonmusic]

Incidentally, one thing that resonated with this man was when i mentioned that Jesus chose many of his Apostles from the ranks of business mene of his day, such as Peter James and John who were self-employed fishermen -- definitely business men. Absent was a plethora of educated theologians of the day in the ranks of the apostles. I suggested that you would expect an organization headed by a divine power to be strong in execution -- which is something you often get when you draw your leaders from the ranks of business.

Second, I asked which you would expect -- a Church with divine inspiration to be strong, or weak in managing its financial affairs? He didn't have an answer, but my feeling was he couldn't say "I would expect them to be weak in it".

What I enjoy most about my visits with this person is his willingness to share what he feels. I find that NOT resorting to harsh statements and judgmentalism, reminders about covenants and the standard answers we normally hear is what seems to keep the windows of communication open. As well as my commitment to keep his thoughts confidential. Plus he's just a good man who has done much for the good of the Church over the years.

I don't feel the same offense others seem to take at his beliefs, perhaps because i went through my own period when I saw things in a similar fashion, and found ways of coming to grips with it myself.

[prophetofdoom]

I believe you did an excellent job. A hardline stance won't work well with someone like him. We have to remember that our membership in the church is a voluntary action in a free society. He has his free agency to decide if he wants to come back or not. Until then, show love and do your best to address his concerns.

[Suzie]

Mormonmusic, thanks for the update. I think it's awesome that he has a friend like you to just be there for him regardless of his views of the Church.