the City Creek controversy

[Magus]

I've been reading up about the Church's finances, and speculation about where exactly our tithing goes.

Basically, it seems as though most of the Church's finances do not go to charity. Not that I expected that, but from things I've been reading, it seems like a microscopically small portion of the Church's wealth goes to humanitarian aid. Instead, a lot seems to be going to investments and other money-making ventures. Like the City Creek mall in SLC.

Now, I know that when we give our 10%, it is to "the Church" and whatever it wants to use it for, not specifically for charity (as there is a separate spot for that on the tithing form) and I am basically okay with that, but I am a bit troubled about how, apparently, such a small portion of the Church funds go to humanitarian aid, and I am also troubled with how certain aspects of the City Creek mall venture directly conflict with LDS values. Posting billboards of glamorous women in non-garment friendly dresses and drinking wine.......seems very worldly.

Unlike some outspoken critics of the project, I am okay with the Church making money-making investments like this, because I see it as building up the Church. The more money the Church has, the stronger a foundation it will have as God's kingdom. I'm okay with that. And when all the world goes to crap, and the Church has a huge wad of cash it has wisely built up in investments, maybe we'll all be glad. So by no means am I feeling apostate on this matter. But...I am troubled by aspects of it.

This youtube video I came across kind of sums up the contrasts and glaring inconsistencies. The Church also seems to kind of take a lot of credit for the charity work that INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS do on a VOLUNTEER BASIS, but in terms of actual monetary contribution...well....that seems to be another story.

Not posting this youtube video to be "anti" - just it shows some of the source of my concern. This was posted underneath the video as commentary.

"Over a 22-year timespan, the LDS Church says it spent $750 million on humanitarian aid. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/63.... The LDS Church says that it spent $1 million per day building City Creek Center, and the total cost was $3 billion. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70.... Do the math and see where the Church's priorities are. Here's another wonderful story about how the Church prioritizes humanitarian aid over business interests: http://www.standard.net/topics/lds-ch.... Although the LDS Church has plenty of money for a multibillion dollar luxury mall, it did not hesitate to have some of its members in South America sell the fillings from their teeth to help pay for a temple." Porto Alegre Brazil LDS (Mormon) Temple

Also, this article sought to defend the Church on its charitable contributions, but some of the discussion is really interesting. Post #36 in the responses is particularly interesting/troublesome. I don't agree with every sentiment in it, but I definitely understand and feel for many of the feelings the author of that post expressed.....

Business Week’s erroneous claim about LDS charitable giving | Times & Seasons

What are your thoughts and feelings on this? I'm just looking for some insight here.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Magus

[Magus]

on further looking, this is the church's response

The Church and Its Financial Independence

[rameumptom]

City Creek accomplished several purposes. First, it provides jobs to people during a severe economic downturn. Second, it prevents urban decay around the temple complex, making the area safer and more secure for visitors, as well as those who live in the area. Third, it gives the Church a place to park a lot of money until it needs it elsewhere.

Spending $3 billion on the center is not throwing away money. It is an investment. Downtown SLC needed a good shopping area and urban renewal. In this, the Church killed two birds with one stone.

[NeuroTypical]

If you want to think about what charitable activities the church does, you have an innacurate picture if you exclude the millions of hours of free labor provided by its members.

If you want to exclude member service hours because we're somehow not "the church" you're thinking about, and you've got some sort of image in your head about rich old men sitting in Salt Lake doing business deals to increase the power of an elite few, well, from experience, I don't think I can really help you.

But I will state, clearly and distinctly, for you and everyone else to hear: I am the Church. So is every other faithful member who has ever driven a load of firewood, or helped someone move, or blessed someone through home teaching, or brought food to the sick or lonely, or devoted two years of the prime of their life to spread the gospel, or leaving their chosen career as heart surgeon early to devote the rest of their life to church service.

Magus, you're looking at dollars and service hours and see glaring inconsistencies. I've never seen someone do that and be happy.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Just_A_Guy]

Magus, could you please fix the Deseret News links in your original post? They don't work for me.

[EarlJibbs]

In no way am I attacking you, but what research have you done that was not from YouTube? Would you be kind enough to site where you have read about the finances? (that is not from the Salt Lake Tribune or other haters)

Although I am unaware from what money the first business venture was used in the church, I have heard from some of those who work on the business side of the church that no tithing money is spent on business. Actually, I recall that this was talked about by one of the opostles that no tithing money was spent on City Creek. I cannot find that, but I did find one from Bishop Burton.

The Church first announced three years ago it was planning to redevelop the downtown area to energize the economy of the city that houses its headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment.

Church Releases Plans for Downtown Salt Lake - Ensign Dec. 2006 - ensign

The reason for the center was made clear by President Hinkly.

At the beginning, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008), leader of the Church at the time City Creek Center was announced, said of the proposed development, “Renewed vitality at the head of Main Street will result in increased vitality throughout the entire city. We of the Church have wanted to keep our city youthful and attractive. People come here to Temple Square from all over the world in ever-increasing numbers, and it is important that we keep the Square and its environs beautiful and inviting.”

City Creek Center Opens

We need to look at the reasons that it was developed. It was not to make money, but to keep the area looking well and attractive. If Downtown continued down the path it was on, how would it draw those from around the world to temple square? How would it draw the people of this valley to be near the temple?

In the end, it is easy to see where anyone is spending money and say "you are only spending a drop of what you make on humanitarian needs". What do I spend personally on humanitarian needs? At the minimum of "two meals" a month? But yet I spend how much on clothing that I could have made last longer? How much on fast food? How much on movies & Media? How much on a car payment when I could have gotten something less expensive? The list goes on.

In the end, the Church puts its money into saving souls and that means humanitarian work as well. But the end goal is to "feed" people with salvation.

[Irishcolleen]

Anyone needs to be careful investing in shopping malls. There is no bigger eyesore than a once prosperous mall filled with vacant storefronts. I sincerely hope City Creel will remain successful, as an empty mall would be a huge blight in the area.

[Wingnut]

A previous (and extensive) discussion on City Creek: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/45669-city-creek-utah-waste-money.html

[estradling75]

In this latest conference that when faced with things that we can't explain and my cause us to doubt that we need to start with/remember the things and truths we already know.

For me when looking at this issue here is what I know.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Kingdom of God on the earth. He is in charge and he will not let it fail. (Although it might take twist and turns I so did not see coming)

2. The Lord has call men to lead his kingdom on the earth. This men can make mistakes but due to 1 the Church will continue to roll forth.

3. The highest level earthly leaders of the Church may receive a stipend (for a laborer is worthy of his hire) but there is no personal finical gain to be had. If they are looking to get rich they are better off taking their experience and talents in the private sector.

4. In all the high public cases of Corporate Corruption (like Enron) involved corruption due to desires for person gain from the people at the very top. The Church is protected from this by number 3 (and 2 and 1). So we can be sure that high level investments are about what is best for the Church as a whole by people who have no other motives. They can be mistaken in that but in that case we go back to numbers 2 (and 1).

Those four things are what I know as relevant to this case. So when I hear about City Creek its a big mehh. Its not that big a deal for me.

[carlimac]

The only problem I have with the mall is the worldliness of it- the focus on stuff and bling and yes, the immodesty of the clothing. But I also recognize that we want to be hospitible to the "world" as it comes to visit. How inviting would the stores be to the rest of the world if they only sold YW Camp clothing? It reminds me of the can of coffee my mom kept in our cupboard for visitors of other faiths. Those visitors seemed to flock in great numbers to our home and were loved unconditionally by my parents.

I agree with those who said you need to consider the source of your information and their spin on this topic. Some aren't out to do the Church any favors. In fact they are attempting to do just the opposite.

[Vort]

I've been reading up about the Church's finances, and speculation about where exactly our tithing goes.

"Your" tithing is not yours. It is God's, to be spent the way he and his appointed leaders see fit. You have exactly zero say in the matter.

Now, I know that when we give our 10%, it is to "the Church" and whatever it wants to use it for, not specifically for charity (as there is a separate spot for that on the tithing form)

You are incorrect. Much of tithing does go to charitable causes, and there is no separate tithing form spot for "charity". But the vast bulk of tithing goes to procuring and maintaing physical facilities such as meetinghouses and temples.

This youtube video I came across kind of sums up the contrasts and glaring inconsistencies.

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that YouTube is not the best source for truthful and unbiased information. So let me break it to you: YouTube is not the best source for truthful and unbiased information.

The Church also seems to kind of take a lot of credit for the charity work that INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS do on a VOLUNTEER BASIS,

I don't understand this complaint. When the Red Cross gets volunteers to engage in disaster relief, the Red Cross takes credit for the disaster relief. When Habitat for Humanity gets volunteers to go out and build houses, Habitat for Humanity takes credit for the houses and labor. But when the LDS Church gets volunteers to do some charity work, then the LDS Church SHOULDN'T take credit for the charity work?

Please explain.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this? I'm just looking for some insight here.

My thoughts and feelings are that some people will take any opportunity to paint the LDS Church in a bad light. Such people are antiMormons and should be ignored.

[carlimac]

Vort- there is a place on the tithing slip for humanitarian donations.

[Guest]

Vort- there is a place on the tithing slip for humanitarian donations.

As I understand it, that would place that money in the humanitarian fund, not the tithing fund.

[mnn727]

For someone that really objects to how they believe tithing is spent - my suggestion would be to not tithe.

There are multiple lines on a tithing slip, you could always just donate to the Fast Offering or the Missionary Fund for example.

This would not count as being a tithe payer however, but in the end it is your choice what to give your money towards.

I am much more happy about how the Church spends my tithes than I am about how the government spends my taxes.

[NeuroTypical]

I am much more happy about how the Church spends my tithes than I am about how the government spends my taxes.

They don't make a font big enough for the "amen" that deserves.

They tell me on more than one occasion, someone in the federal govt takes an interest in how the church welfare system works, because it works so well. They come and learn all they can, but go away unhappy, because there's no way in blazes the fed govt would ever be able to emulate the "work and contribute for what you get" principles. They don't call it 'entitlement spending' for nothing.

[HiJolly]

I wonder if the OP is just spam. <pffft>

HJ

[Windseeker]

I've had my concerns regarding all the investing the Church does.

I believe that money is power, influence and in some cases survival in a world that's bent on the destruction of all things good.

I have a feeling this wealth could be a bulwark against what's coming.

I feel at peace with what the church does with our tithing.

[Just_A_Guy]

Are the people complaining about the "immodest" ads for City Creek the same ones who complain about how sexually repressed the Church is in proscribing sleeveless clothing for females generally?

Are the people complaining about how City Creek doesn't reflect LDS standards with regard to thrift or humility or whatever, the same ones who mock the Church for daring to expel osculating homosexual couples from the Main Street Plaza?

Are these sincere concerns about how the City Creek development is somehow undermining the Church's mission? Or is it more of a "gotcha!" thing?

[selek]

Are the people complaining about the "immodest" ads for City Creek the same ones who complain about how sexually repressed the Church is in proscribing sleeveless clothing for females generally?

Are the people complaining about how City Creek doesn't reflect LDS standards with regard to thrift or humility or whatever, the same ones who mock the Church for daring to expel osculating homosexual couples from the Main Street Plaza?

Are these sincere concerns about how the City Creek development is somehow undermining the Church's mission? Or is it more of a "gotcha!" thing?

Dagnabit! We really need to be able to both "laugh" and "thank" at the same time.

It is often unreasonable to expect us to choose between the two.

[Wingnut]

Dagnabit! We really need to be able to both "laugh" and "thank" at the same time.

It is often unreasonable to expect us to choose between the two.

As evidenced by this post itself. :)

[Jennarator]

I love that mall, and now I love it more, since I know the church helped with it!! :)

[Guest]

I'm going with some girlfriends in May, just to have a no-kids weekend and go to the temple and walk around/shop at the mall. I can't wait!

[carlimac]

As I understand it, that would place that money in the humanitarian fund, not the tithing fund.

I understand that. I thought that was what Magnus meant, too. That there is an alternate spot to donate to humanitarian aid apart from tithing. Seems pretty self explanatory.

[Jennarator]

I just go got the shakes at Godiva Chocolate. :) (Well then because I went there for the shake, I ended up buying an iPad with the money I was going to use to replace my broken computer.....love it! :)

[Wingnut]

I just go got the shakes at Godiva Chocolate. :) (Well then because I went there for the shake, I ended up buying an iPad with the money I was going to use to replace my broken computer.....love it! :)

Oh man, I love Godiva's drinks. I'm really glad though, that a See's recently opened at my local mall, because I don't much like Godiva's chocolates, and that was our only chocolate store otherwise.