Thinking differently about City Creek

[Anonymous]

game rules for this thread:

Since the objective of StayLds is to help us deal with disaffection, I propose a thread where we focus on the positive outcomes of LDS investment in the City Creek mall. For this thread, the “Thumper Rule” applies:

Thumper, from the movie Bambi wrote:

If you can’t say sometin’ nice, don’t say nuttin’ at all

So with the moderators’ leave, I hope, let’s redirect the conversation about City Creek into a more positive discussion.

---

My take is that City Creek puts into sharp relief the nature of decision making in the Church.

I assume that the motivation of the church was to make sure that tithing funds held in reserve are productively invested, and that the church would like to upgrade and make downtown Salt Lake more attractive of a visitor location, so as to bring more people in contact with the Church. To give leaders the benefit of the doubt, I believe their motivations were honorable, and although we may disagree with the choices of implementation, the intentions do not seem bad at all.

The City Creek mall does force a choice on members, because it calls into concern what is being done with sacred funds. I see two reactions at the extremes:

1. The True Believing position is that sacred funds are consecrated to the Lord, no longer belong to the members, are disposed of according to the Lord’s will because the Lord’s hand directs the actions of the Church, and that members who question all this are on the road to apostasy.

2. The mall demonstrates everything wrong with the church… (this has all been said, so why repeat it?)

I tend to reject both extremes, and perhaps most people do–that puts us somewhere in the Middle–my favorite place!

For me, as I said at the beginning, it puts into sharp relief the nature of decision making in the church, and specifically a flawed paradigm we all share.

The One True Church Paradigm wrote:

We believe that if the Church is True, God is actively and personally engaged in leading the Church through his son, Jesus Christ. Through direct revelation from Jesus Christ to the Prophet and Apostles, as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, the hand of god is in every significant action of the church. We believe that if we follow the living prophet, we will never be led astray.

I use the term “paradigm” here, because it is upon this pattern we evaluate our judgment of the church.

– Believers accept the paradigm and conclude that the church as divine, and if there is a flaw, it must be in my understanding as a believer. My “Faith” requires me to trust and not doubt. I do not want to be called out by the Savior, “oh ye of little faith”

– I propose that many of us also accept the paradigm, except that when we see things like City Creek, we reject that God had his hand in it, and therefore we continue to use the paradigm to conclude, “therefore the Church is not true”. Those of us who wish to StayLDS have a serious issue with this, because if the church is not true (in an absolute sense), and if it is completely false, then there is no legitimacy in staying LDS.

again, extreme positions.

What I learn from City Creek is that the paradigm is false. In the history of faith, God has never made his will clear and unambiguous to nth most detail, and in fact reveals will to the mind and heart of those leading. therefore, any notion that the hand of god is in every significant decision is false: the church doesn’t claim that, yet because most believers continue to think in terms of a false paradigm, they/we either go into blind-obedience mode or have to deal with cognitive dissonance.

instead, if we accept a revised paradigm, then administrative decisions may be begter brought into perspective.

Revised True Church Paradigm wrote:

In a True Church, leaders are inspired in matters of faith. inspiration from God is reflected in the heart and mind of those inspired, and they create, through convention, what they hope to be an inspired, uniform body of teachings. As sustaining members, we agree to the body of teachings as necessary for us to communicate harmoniously together about matters of faith. In matters of administration, our leaders are humans, they make mistakes and errors in judgment. As we hope God will forgive us individually for our own mistakes, we also forgive leaders their mistakes in matters unrelated to faith, giving them a limited benefit of the doubt.

so, now returning to City Creek, they made a decision to invest and upgrade central Salt Lake City. Maybe it isn’t my preference, but the decision has, at least, a rationale. Since City Creek is turned over to valid commercial interests, why should I be concerned that individual establishments serve alcohol and the like?

if my paradigm is based upon the church being normative in matters of faith but human in terms of administration, then why should I hold it to a divine standard for what it has proven, over and over again, to be a very human process?

If the existence of City Creek helps some members lose the One True Church Paradigm, then I think we have achieved tremendous benefit.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, we don’t have to like the City Creek Mall or think it’s a good idea. There isn’t a requirement here in this community to be cheer leaders for it.

I personally don’t like it. It has caused me to think long and hard about the financial aspects of the church. It has caused me to focus on what exactly is going on, and how resources are being used. But those same feelings can be turned into a positive. I think this issue *WILL* be a thorn in the PR department of the church. It will cause attention to be focused on management. I think that will cause some form of change, eventually.

That gives me hope. A lot of people who would never question this type of thing are taking a second look. I don’t mean that in a way like we need to take down leaders or anything. But it usually does take some kind of crisis or major event to prompt introspection and change.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

FWIW, we don’t have to like the City Creek Mall or think it’s a good idea. There isn’t a requirement here in this community to be cheer leaders for it.

I personally don’t like it. It has caused me to think long and hard about the financial aspects of the church. It has caused me to focus on what exactly is going on, and how resources are being used. But those same feelings can be turned into a positive. I think this issue *WILL* be a thorn in the PR department of the church. It will cause attention to be focused on management. I think that will cause some form of change, eventually.

That gives me hope. A lot of people who would never question this type of thing are taking a second look. I don’t mean that in a way like we need to take down leaders or anything. But it usually does take some kind of crisis or major event to prompt introspection and change.

I think another issue is giving members pause is the way the MTC expansion was handled.

I’ve spoken with several self-described TBMs who have indicated that they believe the affair was mishandled.

And then you’ve got the petition for financial transparency at bycommonconsent.org

There seems to be growing discontent among faithful members over perceived problems with management and control.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

FWIW, we don’t have to like the City Creek Mall or think it’s a good idea. There isn’t a requirement here in this community to be cheer leaders for it.

i am not. and like you i see the positive in what such a thing might do to the paradigm of belief that, to me, is harmful to any reasonable epistemological method for the church.

we’ll see how quickly this thread goes to nowhere. but my point is pretty serious.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

i am not. and like you i see the positive in what such a thing might do to the paradigm of belief that, to me, is harmful to any reasonable epistemological method for the church.

we’ll see how quickly this thread goes to nowhere. but my point is pretty serious.

I’m not sure I was clear in my comment above but I was trying to point to the fact that this change in paradigm seems to be happening to several faithful members I know personally in response to several institutional actions (the change in tithing slips being yet another that just occurred to me).

What keeps coming to mind is that we may be headed for a Mormon Moment that’s much different than what we expected. II don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing but I can’t help but notice it.

I hope that makes sense…

[Anonymous]

What exactly do you see the big difference is between this investment in City Creek and prior actions from the Church, like investment in ZCMI or Zion’s Bank or stock markets or several other investments over the years? Is it just the massive size of it?

I think it stems from GBH himself, in his administration, because they seemed to look at how wealthy the church was getting, and just said, “We are stewards of this money to further the Lord’s work. We should open some coffers to do that.” Once that idea was accepted, different ideas came up…and rebuilding downtown SL to benefit the church was one of them.

[Anonymous]

From my inquiry on the other thread there seem to be several different reasons this action is bothersome to individuals:

1) That this is just one more example of a questionable decision from church leadership – thus causing problems with the “church is perfect/true paradigm” that wayfarer described so well.

2) That no church (even without a “one true” standard) has any business owning things that don’t pertain directly to welfare or worship.

3) That the opportunity costs are too high. Some would have preferred that the money went to help the needy, others would prefer that money be spent to beef up ward budgets and programs that directly benefit the membership. In either case, they don’t seem to object to the project so much as that they would have rather the money be spent on other things.

4) Finally, there seems to be an emotional element to this issue that just can’t be completely separated. These emotions may be related to bitterness at what can be viewed as high pressure tactics to push one (or one’s loved ones) into paying tithing. If the whole “no tithing funds were used” statement pans out then any tithing funds being collected now seem quite far removed from this investment – but the emotion persists.

This is my understanding to date. If anyone has any reason that is not on the list please let me know (perhaps by PM if your feelings are too strong) and I will update my summary.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

What exactly do you see the big difference is between this investment in City Creek and prior actions from the Church, like investment in ZCMI or Zion’s Bank or stock markets or several other investments over the years? Is it just the massive size of it?

ZCMI and Zion’s bank grew from a commercial and a very practical need. I could easily see how these two institutions provided necessary infrastructure for “Zion”, yet in time, once Zion no longer was being pursued, they continued as viable, necessary infrastructure.

City Creek is quite different: it isn’t infrastructure–it is luxury. Oddly, speaking from a position where my level of income, tithing and taxes should justify being the target market for City Creek, I cannot personally justifying paying such a premium for shopping…so we are really talking about something for the top 1% of households here.

Nibley is rolling in his grave over this one.

I will have to say, though, that overall, downtown SLC is significantly more interesting today than it was in the 70s-90s. I have found some very pleasant pubs and restaurants, and I like the light rail…these were I guess a shift due to the Olympics.

But until City Creek, the center of downtown was…temple square. I don’t mind, but it isn’t very interesting once you’ve visited all the necessary sites.

In eastern cities, there is a “town-center” type of real estate movement, where simulated downtowns merge stores, condos, restaurants, offices sort of merge together into an idealized Disneyland-type of pseudo downtown. I’m thinking of Reston Town Center for DC-located people.

City Creek reverses this model: it creates the idealized downtown in a real downtown desperately in need of variety.

Is this a good thing? Nor sure. It is definitely a human decision, and in realizing that I need to rethink my paradigm.

[Anonymous]

See, for me, Staying LDS means recognizing the aspects of it which are objectionable, and openly discussing them without crossing any lines. AND THEN, learning to be at peace with your LDS experience in spite of the things you don’t like about it. Perhaps we didn’t get there in the last discussion.

Wayfarer probably didn’t mean this, but it sounded like, in this thread, we were to discuss what is good about the City Creek situation and leave it at that — which I find hard to do — but if you want me to try really hard…here is what I have come up with.

1. I feel more enlightened about what is important to the church, and what is not. I realize even more firmly there is a wide gap between what I believe an organization like the LDS Church should be spending money on, and the priorities of its leaders.

Without City Creek, my intitial perceptions of this disparity would not be as firm and validated. So, the visibility and extent of the investment has to some extent, provided me with greater confidence in my previous conclusions.

2. I feel more comfortable with some of the decisions I am making about where to put my time and talents than I did before.

3. The Bloggernacle reaction provides information to the leaders about how members view such investments. It could lead to change, or at least, be another drop in the bucket of change.

I see these as positive things for me in my search for truth and finding my own way within Mormonism.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t been to SLC in awhile. My favorite restaurant while I was there was “the pie” I believe. At night time I remember seeing a trickle of prostitution and gang members who were kicked out of the state of California. It was sad to me. Although I am am conflicted by city creek. I hope at least the area changes from that direction to a more family friendly setting at night. While at the same moment I never go shopping at those kind of stores and have zero interest in them I hope the residents or tourist at least enjoy it more. It’s here and lets make the best of it that we can while working toward a better Zion together. I hope this thread stays polite, we can express views while still being polite to each other. There is a quote which I love and live by.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead

US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)  

[Anonymous]

It was written FWIW, we don’t have to like the City Creek Mall or think it’s a good idea. There isn’t a requirement here in this community to be cheer leaders for it.

I think it is just like Disneyland wishing it could buy up the surrounding areas of Anaheim to expand Disney influence. I wish Disneyland could since their are so many dives around Anaheim, and strip clubs. Opposing Disney was a big reason Walt expanded in Florida. Walt Disney got the land pretty dang cheap and put tons of Disney plans to work on it.

I think Nauvoo is sort of like the LDS version of Disney’s expansion to Florida. Do members of the Church complain about the Nauvoo area being rebuilt? I haven’t been to Nauvoo yet, nor the City Center. I’m not reaping the benefits of either, but I am glad they were established. Do members of the Church get angry over the new Mormon Battalion Memorial in San Diego? All of these endeavors convey a healthy economical climate that the church has created for itself and the federal government is jealous. I think with the Crystal Cathedral going bankrupt in Orange County, California it is safe to say that the LDS Church is doing a better job with raising revenue and managing its resources than Reverend Schuller, the country of Greece, and the US government for that matter.

I don’t mind the church putting money into changing the world for the better. I don’t care if they used my tithing funds either. The Church is wealthy because of the law of tithing and that is a good thing. Governments around the world could learn a thing or two about the law of tithing. I don’t want to reduce this to money, however, temporal change costs money. But, it is because of spiritual commitment of paying tithes by faith that it could be done. Without the spirituality of Latter Day Saints no welfare program, no humanitarian aide, and no City Center could have been built.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, wayfarer, for trying to tackle a difficult issue in the general spirit of what we are trying to do here.

I am a pragmatist in many ways, even though I am an idealist in many others. Just as is the case with most things we discuss, I have had to work out my own balance of those inclination with regard to this issue.

I admit readily that I might have used the money differently if I had been in a position to do so – but I also admit readily that I might not have. I was born in the Salt Lake area, and I lived in Salt Lake and Utah counties for 19 years growing up – then another year before starting college – then another 18 months between jobs almost ten years later. That area around temple square really was starting to erode, and I remember quite clearly (more than once) thinking to myself that I hated to see it deteriorate like that.

Those memories color my reaction greatly, I’m sure, because when I first heard about the project – without any knowledge of the cost – my first thought was, “It’s about time!”

Also, if the Church is going to be involved in business operations (and I have no problem with that general concept), I want it to be successful in those operations. I want it to be profitable in those operations. I want those operations to pay tithing to the Church’s religious side, thus allowing the businesses to contribute to the things for which my money goes. As far as I know, all three of those things are happening now – unlike the situation at the time when I was born. I am too young to remember those times personally, but my parents and grandparents aren’t – and I would rather live in this time of financial stability than their earlier time of financial concern.

I’m not a cheerleader for the mall and the rest of the project – but there are multiple reasons I can’t be a strong critic of it, either. I don’t see it as a good or bad thing, in and of itself. I see it largely as a necessary thing, given the overall context. Thus, I don’t oppose it – even as I don’t sing its praises.

I’m OK with it – and that balance actually means a lot to me.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been vocally opposed to the City Creek, because it makes it look like the Church is a business. But stepping back, maybe not.

Say the #1 mission of the church is spreading the gospel and building meeting houses and temples. That’s probably not too far from the truth. Those cost big bucks and church members pay hard earned money into the tithing fund. So what better way to honor those donations than to amplify them with sound investments? If the investment arm of the church can turn my 10% into 15%, then how much more work can be done with that money? Would we rather they send out assessments for each new chapel like they did in the past? They are trying to be responsible with our “talents” as the Bible parable goes.

Also building massive reserves may sound evil and corporate, but what happens when things get really bad. Like a disaster or high unemployment? Tithing revenue drops while need for charity increases. You need a reserve for a rainy day (or year, or decade).

Now we know sometimes the church fails in execution at the local levels, and we don’t always see the benefit of the investment income. But I think the logic is there for the decisions that have been made and I think the actions were made in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Something I noticed about City Creek–who can afford to shop there? Aside from Deseret Books and a couple of other mid-to-high end shops, most of the retail outlets are very upscale. Does SLC get THAT much high end SES folks with that type of disposible income? I can’t imagine even rich mormons would spend enough money there to make most of those outlets profitable. It reminded me of the new “Crystals” mall on the Vegas strip. Again, really high end stuff with few customers. Perhaps they only need one or two sales a day to operate in the black, I don’t know. I guess if you want Prada you need a place to buy it.

As far as the church being involved in ventures such as this, it bothers me a little but not a lot. I think being involved in operations such as this might support arguments for increased transparency of church financial affairs.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

See, for me, Staying LDS means recognizing the aspects of it which are objectionable, and openly discussing them without crossing any lines. AND THEN, learning to be at peace with your LDS experience in spite of the things you don’t like about it. Perhaps we didn’t get there in the last discussion.

Wayfarer probably didn’t mean this, but it sounded like, in this thread, we were to discuss what is good about the City Creek situation and leave it at that — which I find hard to do — but if you want me to try really hard…here is what I have come up with.

1. I feel more enlightened about what is important to the church, and what is not. I realize even more firmly there is a wide gap between what I believe an organization like the LDS Church should be spending money on, and the priorities of its leaders.

Without City Creek, my intitial perceptions of this disparity would not be as firm and validated. So, the visibility and extent of the investment has to some extent, provided me with greater confidence in my previous conclusions.

2. I feel more comfortable with some of the decisions I am making about where to put my time and talents than I did before.

3. The Bloggernacle reaction provides information to the leaders about how members view such investments. It could lead to change, or at least, be another drop in the bucket of change.

I see these as positive things for me in my search for truth and finding my own way within Mormonism.

Well put, SD!!! :clap: :thumbup:

We can think differently about things that are unChristlike.

But thinking differently about it doesn’t make it more Christlike.

Before the mall, I had known that the church was a multi-corporate organization (it has another mall in Hawaii).

What has been good about this mall is helping others see it & helping me realize the lengths some will go to justify leaders’ actions.

It has instilled my desire to worship God, & nobody else.

[Author]

Posts