Would Jesus Own a Shopping Mall?

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I understand that it doesn’t “feel right”. I really do. It doesn’t feel totally right to me, either – but I still understand why they did it and can’t condemn the decision, given what I’ve seen.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I understand that it doesn’t “feel right”. I really do. It doesn’t feel totally right to me, either – but I still understand why they did it and can’t condemn the decision, given what I’ve seen.

I think investing in a mall to raise funds, even if they are used for humanitarian purposes, is emblematic of what I’ve seen throughout the church.

We think writing checks is the best way to serve.

It’s a very aloof service we typically offer and I think people would be more inclined to believe we’re Christian if we spent more time walking among the poor, diseased, and oppressed and visiting the infirm and incarcerated rather than just making business deals (or even making newborn kits from the safety of our own Relief Society rooms) and buying stuff to ship overseas. The Good Samaritan did both of these kinds of service.

[Anonymous]

m&g, I agree with that completely – but I am much more concerned about it at the local level. I believe strongly we must stop entertatining ourselves in our ward and branch activities and start serving in the community without any expectation of conversion. Once we start serving simply for the love of people amd a sincere desire to help them, with no ulterior motives . . .

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

doug, the Church isn’t hiding its investment in any way.

Ray, the church has been effectively hiding its investments since they stopped disclosure of tithing records in 1959. I, personally, don’t have a problem with the church investing in the quality of the downtown SLC area. It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I do have a problem with the church making specious and disingenuous statements about the use of tithing monies to fund that investment, especially since those statements cannot be independently corroborated. Anyone who keeps a budget knows that it doesn’t really make a difference anyway what pot of money it came from. It’s all tithing. And why even make that claim in the first place if the expenditure has been approved at the highest levels? It seems like they are just trying to cover their collective behinds in case things go badly by engaing in what amounts to a deception. IMO, it shouldn’t really matter if tithing funds were used, and if it’s such a great idea to do it, they shouldn’t have any qualms about it either. And yes, I think there are many apt comparisons with the Wizard in this case (as well as in a lot of others).

[Anonymous]

doug, I simply disagree with just about everything in that last comment – except that financial non-transparency keeps us from knowing exactly how the Church spends eahc particular dollar and allows distrust to exist. I get that, but everything else . . . we simply see it differently.

[Anonymous]

Ray, I made the following assertions:

[Anonymous]

I’ve been thinking alot about this topic.

I understand that:

1. The Church has the right to protect the downtown area around the temple from undesirable elements.

2. The Church has the right to attract visitors to the visitor center, etc & present the message of the gospel in a positive light.

3. The Church has the right to invest funds to further the financial goals of the Church.

4. The Church has the right to not be transparent if it chooses to. (And it does choose.)

I also try to put myself in the place of someone who may own a small family business & barely making ends meet in the

current financial environment. This may be a member of the church who has been through the temple & made significant

commitments to God, Church, Family & Community. And now that same Church is developing propery that will give his

competitors (usually big chain stores) a financial advantage. Some may say, “we live in a capitalist society & the strong should

survive over the weaker businesses”. For me, it doesn’t feel right if this is the attitude of the Church.

As many of you know, I’m trying to be active again in the Church. In the past, I was very open about my finances, my beliefs, my time,

my commitment, etc, to the leadership of the Church. That is going to change or I’m not going to be active. Just like the Church has rights, I do too. And I plan to exercise them. In the past, I think I looked to the Church for direction & salvation. I should be looking more to God & JC.

This is probably a “rehash” of what others have said.

I needed to write it out for me.

Thanks for the topic. Good stuff.

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Ray, I made the following assertions:

The church stopped disclosure of tithing records in 1959

It’s a good idea for the church to invest in downtown SLC

The church has invested money in this project

Effectively, all church funds come from tithing

Therefore, church claims that tithing funds were not used for this project are specious and disingenuous/deceptive

If the church has a great idea for doing something, it should be okay to admit that tithing is being spent on that thing

One possible reason why the church is not admitting use of tithing funds on this project is that it is engaging in CYA

The prophet shares some characteristics with the Wizard

…

I think that is a pretty good summary of why it doesn’t feel right to me.

I need to leave this thread now. It is making mad…and I’m not giving the church that kind of power over me anymore. Probably need to stay away from the TV this weekend as well. Be sure to update this thread someone if they come out and try to explain it all, or disclose their financial investment in the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

It’s worth mentioning that in several parts of the world, the LDS church DOES disclose its finances. So why can’t it do so in America? Is it something to do with “the congress shall make law prohibiting the free practise of religion” bit of the constitution? (Or however it goes?)

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The Church was faced with the real possibility (even probability) that if it didn’t step in that area would end up with vacant stores and classic urban economic decay.

I understand that the area surrounding the Ogden Temple was an example of this “urban economic decay” to the point where temple goers might not feel safe leaving at night. I also understand that the Church bought a dilapidated shopping mall or strip mall (not completely sure) located next to the temple and tore it down to build condominiums. I suppose that if this action was the prudent thing to do in the Ogden temple situation then how much more so with temple square (arguably our showpiece to the world). So from a business and community development sense this makes perfect sense. Against the backdrop of “Great Basin Kingdom” and the history of all the businesses etc. that the church has been involved in since the earliest days, this is nothing new.

Now to answer the original question. I do not believe that my understanding of Jesus would own a shopping mall…but then again I’m not entirely sure that he would belong to a church or organized religion.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think He would’ve either. I honestly think wonders could be done to invest more funds in making the experience of Church members better. Expanding LDS Social Services so people like my wife and I could get help when we had a problem with having children, support adoptive parents in defraying the cost of participating in adoptions, expand the use of funds to make local social events more enriching, and relieve the members of the onerous aspects of service, like chapel cleaning. I think a Church-owned moving service for all those members who need to be moved would also be a wonderful investment 😆

[Anonymous]

doug, I understand totally that, if we go back far enough, all funds came from tithing – but I also think that misses the point of having a corporate AND religious component, and I am totally fine with that separation and the current claim that tithing funds aren’t used in the corporate side (and haven’t been for a long time).

That’s where our views diverge.

and, again, I personally am not trying to say I love the Clear Creek Project. It’s important to me to make that clear.

I also am not a fan of total financial transparency.

[Anonymous]

Technically the church is not just a “church”. It is 100% a corporation. I’m not sure how you can legally or logically separate religious from corporate.

And as I said, I’m not sure why we’re arguing (well, we’re not arguing, but you know what I mean) about whether or not a particular dollar is a tithing dollar. Why does it matter? Why is it important to say that no “tithing dollars” were used? I don’t get why that should be an issue. Do you? If it’s bad to spend a “tithing dollar” on something, it is equally bad to spend a “corporate dollar” on it, is it not?

[Anonymous]

It is important to say “no tithing funds were invested” to defray criticism.

In my view, the church is a humanitarian organization whose mantra is “serving others is serving God”. I see so many ways the members are not served right now, yet expected to serve until it hurts. Further, the church, if it wanted could move money from those corporations to the ecclesiastical church, but to my knowledge, continually asks the members to give for new programs etcetera, because it’s “good to sacrifice”. So, for me, the fact that they have it, but continue to press the members for funds, bothers me.

I think a better discussion question would be “would the Savior own for-profit corporations”?

I like what Ghandi said — charitable organizations should not have corporations — they should only have as much as they need to fund their operations. Otherwise, they lose accountability to their members. If there is an organization which seems to avoid any overt accountability to their members, it’s ours.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

It is important to say “no tithing funds were invested” to defray criticism.

I understand that that is the purpose, but WHY does that defray criticism? WHY SHOULD IT MATTER? What is the meaning behind the claim? What are they intending to convey? Is it written somewhere that tithing funds cannot be used for community development, and so “no tithing funds were used” means “we’re playing by the rules”? Or is is merely a political statement intended to mollify those who equate “no tithing funds were used” with “oh, good, my sacred contributions to the Lord are being wisely shepherded”?

A dollar that belongs to the church is a dollar that belongs to the church, no matter where it came from.

[Author]

Posts