- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
helping me realize the lengths some will go to justify leaders’ actions
Knock it off. Seriously.
Your contributions in other threads are very helpful and appreciated deeply. Quit taking shots at people here and elsewhere when it comes to this issue.
I’m at city creek right now… If anyone needs me to pick up something, let me know! :eh: Heber, are you paying for what we would like – including shipping and handling? If you are, I’d be happy to give you a list.
:thumbup: Featherina wrote:
What has been good about this mall is helping others see it & helping me realize the lengths some will go to justify leaders’ actions.
What lengths? 5 minutes to type 2 paragraphs and 90 seconds of thought?
Brown wrote:Featherina wrote:
What has been good about this mall is helping others see it & helping me realize the lengths some will go to justify leaders’ actions.
What lengths?
I think she meant “stretch”, as in logically, and I think it’s a valid observation, particularly if it helps her to better understand the world. I’m much better at dealing with some things others say when I keep in mind that there are valid ways of seeing things that I may never be able to understand or agree with. It’s all good.I could use a beer right about now, Heber.
Quote:I’m much better at dealing with some things others say when I keep in mind that there are valid ways of seeing things that I may never be able to understand or agree with.
The operative word in that thought is “valid” – and it’s an incredibly important concept to remember.
doug wrote:Brown wrote:Featherina wrote:
What has been good about this mall is helping others see it & helping me realize the lengths some will go to justify leaders’ actions.
What lengths?
I think she meant “stretch”, as in logically, and I think it’s a valid observation, particularly if it helps her to better understand the world. I’m much better at dealing with some things others say when I keep in mind that there are valid ways of seeing things that I may never be able to understand or agree with. It’s all good.I could use a beer right about now, Heber.
Brown, you have a funny sense of humor.Doug, if I could figure out how to get it to ya, or meet you somewhere…I’d totally pick one up for ya and meet you somewhere we could visit and catch up!
Heber13 wrote:Doug, if I could figure out how to get it to ya, or meet you somewhere…I’d totally pick one up for ya and meet you somewhere we could visit and catch up!
Well, if you’re still in town this weekend, I’ll take you up on it.:thumbup: I think the mall project has several different components that give people unease: –
PR Focus. The mall represents the church’s desire to put our best foot forward. Some critics feel this is exclusive. I’ve heard complaints that they could never afford to shop there, at this place the church has spent their tithing contributions. But the alternative to no PR focus is that we are less attractive to converts. If we are supposed to have something worth investigating, we should look good. –
Transparency. Because we are donating our earnings to the church, many would like a say in how those funds are spent. People want to be able to choose not to contribute if they don’t like the priorities. I may feel similarly, but I also think it’s impractical to take every investment to a referendum. Someone’s got to make the decisions on these things, and there will never be unanimity that those decisions are the real priorities. –
Strange Bedfellows. This is the argument about the nature of some of our projects or investments being entanglements with peddlers of sin. There was one maybe 10 years ago where the church had a mutual fund with Coca-Cola stock in it and people were bent out of shape. Likewise, the hunting & game preserve is another one that some don’t like. And some have fretted that the mall is open Sunday, sells immodest clothing, purveys alcohol, etc. There are very few investments that are 100% aligned with Jesus’ teachings and every person’s moral sense of right. I’m frankly more concerned about the strong-arming involved in the MTC expansion. To me, that’s a case of someone exercising unrighteous dominion who needs to be taken to task.
I wonder if it is the big (really big!) dollar amount that gets City Creek in people’s crawl…where as other investments of smaller amounts but similar strategies fly under the radar. Heber13 wrote:I wonder if it is the big (really big!) dollar amount that gets City Creek in people’s crawl…where as other investments of smaller amounts but similar strategies fly under the radar.
Could be. I certainly think the price tag draws a lot of attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if a large number of members even knew our church had billions of dollars, excess capital, to invest long-term like that.
Investments that don’t seem to draw much negative attention:Temples
Church buildings
Visitors centers
Welfare farms and ranches
Book stores
Universities
Investments that seem to draw the bad PR:Polynesian Cultural Center (theme park)
City Creek Mall / mixed use development / high-end condos
Investments in companies that sell products counter to Mormon cultural norms (Coca-Cola, etc.)
Banks
Insurance companies
Department Stores
To me, the pattern seems to be about the message of the investment. Investing in religious buildings, education of members and properties that generate products to care for the poor — those feel like they fall into the overall scheme of furthering The Gospel. The others come across as “worldly” or merely to advance the wealth of the church. That isn’t wrong per se on a practical level. I could be seen as “good stewardship.” I also understand the early nature of the church in Utah investing in business infrastructure. But the LDS saints lived much more communally back then. Opening a bank or a ZCMI store where there was no other possibility for secular investment in an all-Mormon community, that was a more obvious and direct benefit toward improving the lives of members of the church.
Brian Johnston wrote:Investments that seem to draw the bad PR:Polynesian Cultural Center (theme park)
City Creek Mall / mixed use development / high-end condos
Investments in companies that sell products counter to Mormon cultural norms (Coca-Cola, etc.)
Banks
Insurance companies
Department Stores
Let’s not forget hunting preserves.My personal “stick in my craw” is those hideous fiberglass steeples, but I’m probably the only one bothered by that.
hawkgrrrl wrote:IThere are very few investments that are 100% aligned with Jesus’ teachings and every person’s moral sense of right.
See, I think we can do better than this….this sounds a bit like justification rather than a real universal fact. The church is VERY GOOD at making sure the local wards and stakes don’t engage in any kind of activities/fundraising, association with the wrong organizations, or activities which break even the most liberal of laws or compromise our values. They could do it in their corporations as well if they are truly committed to sticking to their straight-arrow principles. But they don’t — the relax them when there are business interests involved.
I have said this before, and I’ll mention it again — it seems luxurious and almost neglectful on the part of the church to make these kinds of investments when:
a) they haven’t hired enough staff at LDS Social Services so active members can get help with mental health issues.
b) The same ten people are saddled with cleaning the chapel.
c) The adult ward budgets are so skimpy the leaders end up funding them out of their own personal funds.
d) our local bishop refuses to fund a mailing list at $400 a year to keep in contact with the lost sheep, but then sends unspent ward budget funds back to the stake at the end of the year (why, we can only speculate).
e) GBH indicated he was going to be reducing investment in church-sponsored universities because they are so expensive, so my kids have fewer options for am LDS university experience
f) whenever there is a fast offering deficit they always come to the same ten people in the ward to clear it off….
g) in over half the wards I’ve attended (and that’s conservative) the programs rarely run well. The volunteer, unpaid ministry leads to deficits in leadership at times, and programs which aren not enriching.
For me, it’s a matter of making the lives of the church members better, and there is a lot of room to grow in that area, to which the church could be committing funds.
Bottom line is the, the wards are cash cows and the life of the church, yet they receive little investment. And that’s what bothers me about City Creek.
However — I can’t change City Creek. And I’m grateful it exists because at least it alerts me to the spending priorities of the people at the top. Something I was aware of in my personl interactions, but wasn’t sure if existed on a large, institutional scale. Now I know. So, City Creek has been a pathway to truth for me .
Just to ask, in the spirit of this post: What’s wrong with the Church investing in funds that include Coca Cola?
It’s not like Coca Cola is against the Word of Wisdom.We at StayLDS, of all people, ought not to be complaining about that specific investment. It’s not like we are the restrictive zealots who are demanding that Coke be banned for all members. It’s impossible for me to fall in line with the most restrictive interpretation of the Word of Wisdom possible and complain about connections to Coca Cola. I actually like the fact that the Church is putting its money where its mouth is in that specific case and not giving extra weight to the more conservative local leaders who would add caffeinated sodas to the temple recommend list of prohibited substances. What’s wrong with the Church investing in something that will stop urban decay and attract non-member visitors to its own “Holy Land”?
From a strictly organizational standpoint, keeping that area sustainable and attractive is vital to its core mission.I’m being totally serious when I ask these questions.
We’ve already established in the other thread that the LDS Church gives WAY more in actual cash donations to humanitarian causes than the most similarly-sized denomination (the Methodist Church), and its internal welfare system absolutely dwarfs all other Protestant denominations (perhaps combined). So, this discussion turns to “proper use” of
commercialfunds. (If the LDS Church wasn’t vastly out-spending other denominations in humanitarian and welfare expenditures, it would be a different discussion.) One of the reasons I can “think differently” about the City Creek project is that it isn’t focused exclusively on LDS members – and, just like in discussions about every other topic imaginable, I am OK with there being multiple different standards for people with different beliefs. Everyone here, I think, agrees with that last idea (and even complains when the Church seems not to recognize that idea), so I have no problem when the Church appears to respect that idea by making the area around Tempe Square accessible and attractive to non-members and not just members. That, fundamentally, is my positive take on this – that the LDS Church didn’t make that area overly restrictive for non-members by imposing its own internal standards on them.
(Just as another example, SLC liquor laws have relaxed significantly over the past few decades, and, although I don’t drink or live in that area, I appreciate it greatly. To me, it’s the same basic issue – and I can’t feel consistent by praising that relaxation while criticizing the City Creek project for having stores that sell alcohol and tobacco products. After all, SLC itself now is over 50% non-Mormon – and that is important to remember, as well, imo.)
SD, the numbers for the Methodist Church (the church that almost always is cited in these comparisons) are in one of the other threads about this project. The only way the LDS Church spends less on humanitarian aid is in cash donations as a percentage of projected tithing revenue – which is apples to bicycles. When you do the math to calculate actual dollars contributed, it’s not close. I’ll find the link to the other thread and include it in this one. (The point at which I provided a link to the Methodist Church’s own statement and started the process of examining the percentage charges and laying out the actual humanitarian aid numbers for the LDS Church and the Methodist Church is at the following comment:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3382&hilit=methodist&start=10#p42893 http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3382&hilit=methodist&start=40#p43200 As to the budget situations at the local level, I don’t want a return to the previous version – where individual congregations had to raise much of the money to construct new buildings and richer wards spent lavishly while poorer wards scraped by on even less than they have now. Let’s be totally transparent about this: That is our past, and it’s a past that I, personally, don’t want to see return.
Yes, it’s a lot tighter in lots of units – but it’s a lot better in lots of other units. I’ve lived and served in both types, and I’ll take what we have now any day and twice on Sunday.
/Back to the other active threads
- The topic ‘Thinking differently about City Creek’ is closed to new replies.