Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[Shaka]

There is a homeless center in SLC and the church helps fund it.

I have zero problem with the church having a money making arm as long as the proceeds are used to help with ecclesiastical and humanitarian efforts. I have no reason to believe this will not be the case with the City Creek project.

Do any of you have a problem with church owned ranches and farms?

[Moliere]

Do any of you have a problem with church owned ranches and farms?

The church obviously needs a place to put invest money it has saved. I have no issues with the church putting that money into real estate or ranches or farms or even Coca-cola stock. I know the church for years has owned some of the property downtown around temple square and I know they buy it and keep it up to keep downtown a nice place to visit. The church has a vested interest in doing this.

I'm fully against the church fully investing in the CCC project, but it's things like this that make me wonder if there is a better use for the funds. This isn't like building a temple or other project that is part of the mission of the church. Maybe there wasn't a better use of the funds at the time. Ultimately I'm fine with it, but I do wonder how the church makes these types of decisions. Do they have a finance department that runs FCF and NPV estimates and if so how do they calculate/incorporate the worth of a soul?

The bottom line is that these projects are lightning rods for the people that hate the corporate functions of the church. Personally I've decided that the church is less concerned about physical comfort/salvation and more concerned with spiritual comfort/salvation. Taking an eternal perspective on things, I guess I can see the reason for this emphasis.

[Shaka]

One other advantage of the City Creek Project. It has almost single handedly kept the Utah construction industry afloat during some very difficult times.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Indy Coug]

So it was the Church's own version of a Stimulus Package?

[All-American]

So it was the Church's own version of a Stimulus Package?

Not exactly. I've not seen anybody argue that this isn't a great investment, financially speaking. The stimulus package, on the other hand . . .

[Jacob]

Not exactly. I've not seen anybody argue that this isn't a great investment, financially speaking. The stimulus package, on the other hand . . .

This isn't a great investment, financially speaking. There. Now you've heard somebody argue it.

[TripletDaddy]

I would be curious to see the pro forma on this project. Why is retail and domestic housing a great investment? Those sectors are hating it.

[pellegrino]

The church obviously needs a place to put invest money it has saved. I have no issues with the church putting that money into real estate or ranches or farms or even Coca-cola stock. I know the church for years has owned some of the property downtown around temple square and I know they buy it and keep it up to keep downtown a nice place to visit. The church has a vested interest in doing this.

I'm fully against the church fully investing in the CCC project, but it's things like this that make me wonder if there is a better use for the funds. This isn't like building a temple or other project that is part of the mission of the church. Maybe there wasn't a better use of the funds at the time. Ultimately I'm fine with it, but I do wonder how the church makes these types of decisions. Do they have a finance department that runs FCF and NPV estimates and if so how do they calculate/incorporate the worth of a soul?

The bottom line is that these projects are lightning rods for the people that hate the corporate functions of the church. Personally I've decided that the church is less concerned about physical comfort/salvation and more concerned with spiritual comfort/salvation. Taking an eternal perspective on things, I guess I can see the reason for this emphasis.

if this is true then how do the corporate, for profit activities of the church benefit the spiritual activities of the church? Is there any evidence of this benefit?

[All-American]

if this is true then how do the corporate, for profit activities of the church benefit the spiritual activities of the church? Is there any evidence of this benefit?

Yes: the ground breaking of the temple in Rome.

[cowboy]

if this is true then how do the corporate, for profit activities of the church benefit the spiritual activities of the church? Is there any evidence of this benefit?

They took a small initial investment of tithing and created something that not only repaid the seed money, but keeps paying a dividend that increases two to three times faster than inflation.

The church targets an ROI of 8% for its agricultural investments. If they pay only tithing on their profits, that is still a dividend of .8% that is increasing by 8% per year. That's $8 million a year on a billion dollar company, and it becomes $17 million per year in ten years.

Sure, they can take all their money and spend it on soup kitchens or whatever, and it will do a lot of good. But they can do more cumulative good with it if they invest it, grow it, and take increasingly large dividends from it for the same types of good projects.

[Moliere]

if this is true then how do the corporate, for profit activities of the church benefit the spiritual activities of the church? Is there any evidence of this benefit?

I'm not sure. I was just trying to explain how my mental gymnastics get me comfortable with the church's position on the CCC project. I'm certainly not there yet and probably never will be. I can understand affordable condos and apartments like the ones they own up South Temple. But million dollar high end luxury apartments and condos, I don't like the sound of that regardless of whether people have the means to buy them.

I understand the church needs a place to put money and it is probably selective about its investments, but the line between running a church and running a corporation is very blurry on this one regardless of whether or not is supports the Utah construction industry (aren't we a worldwide church?) or provides any ancilliary benefits.

[Moliere]

Sure, they can take all their money and spend it on soup kitchens or whatever, and it will do a lot of good. But they can do more cumulative good with it if they invest it, grow it, and take increasingly large dividends from it for the same types of good projects.

Maybe they can take the full-time missionary program and turn it into a pest control and alarm business. The financial returns on that would be much more than pounding doors trying to sell religion. The wards can then take the initiative and do their own missionary work.

[UtahDan]

The church obviously needs a place to put invest money it has saved. I have no issues with the church putting that money into real estate or ranches or farms or even Coca-cola stock. I know the church for years has owned some of the property downtown around temple square and I know they buy it and keep it up to keep downtown a nice place to visit. The church has a vested interest in doing this.

I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but I think that is an interesting assumption to examine. I can understand the church having a rainy day fund, but I think it is interesting to ask whether the church should be amassing wealth. Is there not an argument that rather than continuing to grow its wealth as a business would that it should make every effort to spend everything it brings it? I'm on the board of a couple of charities and that is exactly what we do. Meet our costs, set a little aside, and then give everything else away. Why the model of a business rather than the model of a charity?

I'm talking about the pure profits here, after all the expenses are met, after the building fund (and all the other funds) are funded, after a reasonable amount has been put away against a rainy day. Why not do good with every excess penny?

[All-American]

I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but I think that is an interesting assumption to examine. I can understand the church having a rainy day fund, but I think it is interesting to ask whether the church should be amassing wealth. Is there not an argument that rather than continuing to grow its wealth as a business would that it should make every effort to spend everything it brings it? I'm on the board of a couple of charities and that is exactly what we do. Meet our costs, set a little aside, and then give everything else away. Why the model of a business rather than the model of a charity?

I'm talking about the pure profits here, after all the expenses are met, after the building fund (and all the other funds) are funded, after a reasonable amount has been put away against a rainy day. Why not do good with every excess penny?

If saving and investing allows you to do more good, I don't see a problem. I can see how complaints would be valid if money spent in a commercial investment ultimately meant that money wouldn't be spent in the other missions of the church. As it is, though, the church runs one of the world's largest and most effective humanitarian programs and donated as much to Haiti after the earthquake as many small countries.

[scottie]

What message does this send LDS farmers and owners of gas stations/grocery stores who for all these years have taken financial hits by not selling barley to Coors/Anheuser-Busch and alcohol in their stores? or the LDS farmers and store owners who did sell to Coors/Anheuser-Busch and alcohol in their stores but felt extremely guilty doing it?