Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[creekster]

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?

Has this been somethign the church has asked them to do? I was unaware of this. Is it some sort of policy or request thta has been made inthe past?

[Indy Coug]

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?

The message is that the eternities are the Great Equalizer.

[scottie]

Has this been somethign the church has asked them to do? I was unaware of this. Is it some sort of policy or request thta has been made inthe past?

Not that I'm aware, but I don't think they'd buy the "Hey we never told you that" defense, would you? I've personally witnessed both the financial hits and the guilt.

[Moliere]

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?

You essentially said what I tried to say, but I'm not a lawyer so I suck at expressing myself in words. Give me a spreadsheet with numbers and you'd know exactly how I feel . The church has to have money and a place to put that money. Should it be invested in stocks, real estate, or something else? I don't know, but this CCC is a long-term project and is obviously more than just a place to stash cash for a couple months.

Ultimately I look at this as similar to the goose that lays golden eggs. You can leave the egg and let it hatch and have more geese that lay golden eggs or you can sell the golden egg and use the money to help other people. The question comes down to at what point do you stop letting the eggs hatch and you begin to harvest them and use that money for good. The church has to be careful to not get into the mindset of becoming a farmer, where the majority of what it does is raise geese instead of seeking out ways to do more good in the world. I worry that the church will turn into Scrooge McDuck and become a sort of miser that hoards wealth.

I have confidence that TSM (and I guess GBH before him who actually announced the project) knows what he is doing but that doesn't keep me from questioning or being skeptical.

[All-American]

This isn't meant as a shot to pellegrino and others, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, but this all reminds me a bit of the story of Mary when she anointed the Savior's feet. The apostles, Judas especially, were upset by the wasteful expenditure, suggesting that she should have sold the stuff and given the money to the poor. The Savior rebuked them; she did a good work-- why trouble her over it?

It seems to be a good thing they're doing. It just doesn't bother me.

[creekster]

Not that I'm aware, but I don't think they'd buy the "Hey we never told you that" defense, would you? I've personally witnessed both the financial hits and the guilt.

If they never told them to do it I am not sure a 'defense' would be necessary. It's like poeple who don't eat chocolate. THey feel better abotu themselves for abiding what they see as a higher law and don't worry abotu the rest. My guess is any farmers who did what you are saying will feel the saem way. If not, they probably were already ticked about the Marriotts and so have long since dealt with it.

[cowboy]

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?

I know a lot of LDS farmers, some of them stake presidents and bishops, and not one of them has any qualms about growing malt barley. Any who do have a far different understanding of the WoW than I.

[scottie]

I know a lot of LDS farmers, some of them stake presidents and bishops, and not one of them has any qualms about growing malt barley. Any who do have a far different understanding of the WoW than I.

I know LDS farmers like that too, and I would imagine you also know some like I described.

[Moliere]

This isn't meant as a shot to pellegrino and others, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, but this all reminds me a bit of the story of Mary when she anointed the Savior's feet. The apostles, Judas especially, were upset by the wasteful expenditure, suggesting that she should have sold the stuff and given the money to the poor. The Savior rebuked them; she did a good work-- why trouble her over it?

It seems to be a good thing they're doing. It just doesn't bother me.

Buying spices and oil to annoint the feet of the Savior is, at least in my mind, different than building luxury apartment buildings or building malls to keep Nordstrom and other high-end retailers downtown. I see no "good works" in apartment buildings and malls. Now, if we were spending $3 billion dollars on more temples (which are very ornate and beautiful) or church buildings then I would understand your comparison.

[beelzebabette]

Buying spices and oil to annoint the feet of the Savior is, at least in my mind, different than building luxury apartment buildings or building malls to keep Nordstrom and other high-end retailers downtown. I see no "good works" in apartment buildings and malls. Now, if we were spending $3 billion dollars on more temples (which are very ornate and beautiful) or church buildings then I would understand your comparison.

Are you suggesting the current pace of temple building is slowed by the downtown project? My understanding is that temple building is driven by membership and temple attendance #s and has no relevance to the downtown project.

[All-American]

Buying spices and oil to annoint the feet of the Savior is, at least in my mind, different than building luxury apartment buildings or building malls to keep Nordstrom and other high-end retailers downtown. I see no "good works" in apartment buildings and malls. Now, if we were spending $3 billion dollars on more temples (which are very ornate and beautiful) or church buildings then I would understand your comparison.

There are a couple hundred current and prospective employees and a few hundred thousand citizens of a city whose downtown is being renovated and whose infrastructure is being improved for the better that might have something to say about whether these are "good works."

[Moliere]

Are you suggesting the current pace of temple building is slowed by the downtown project? My understanding is that temple building is driven by membership and temple attendance #s and has no relevance to the downtown project.

You are probably right in a couple regards, but I'm sure there are places that are being considered for temples that pushing a lot fo money that way would actually get it done. Paris is one area for example. GBH announced his desire to build a temple in that area all the way back in 1998 but alas nothing has happened.

Also, a general fund used for Temple Transportation would be a way to subsidize or fully pay for temple travel for branches and wards that have to incur significant costs to get there. Last year I participated in a family service project where we all donated money to a family member couple who was serving a mission in the Philipines. They used the money to pay for temple trips for the local saints, who are mostly poor and can't afford such a trip. We sent over 500 people to the temple and it didn't take a ton of money. Some couples who had been married for sometime finally were able to get sealed and many others were able to receive their endowments.

I'm just saying there are better projects out there than the CCC, although I understand those projects don't offer an 8% fiscal return. However, those other projects offer a much better spiritual return. I'm fine with keeping downtown SLC looking nice and all, but we are starting to make it look more like the Vatican City, which maybe isn't a bad thing. I'm not opposed to the CCC, I'm just struggling (not testimony-wise) with the blurred line of church/corporation in this whole deal.

[NorthwestUteFan]

...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.

I am not a lawyer, but here is the conundrum as I see it.

Isn't all the money from the 'for-profit', tax-paying side kept strictly seperate from the 'non-profit', tax-exempt side? Isn't that the purpose of running the holding company?

Or is there a significant amount of crossover?

I recognize it is essentially the same people running each endeavor but is it allowable by law to shift money from one side and back to the other per the whims of the board?

I ask this question specifically because, as I understand it, ALL of the moneys used for humanitarian purposes are derived from contributions and are church moneys. I do not believe the can take a chunk of cash out of the for-profit side and send it to Haiti, for instance.

On the other hand perhaps they ARE able to do that. I assume there would be significant tax advantages to donating billions of dollars directly to charitable efforts. Maybe this is the reason after all for byu to have a top-tier accounting program...

Can somebody get me straight on this issue?

[All-American]

You are probably right in a couple regards, but I'm sure there are places that are being considered for temples that pushing a lot fo money that way would actually get it done. Paris is one area for example. GBH announced his desire to build a temple in that area all the way back in 1998 but alas nothing has happened.

Also, a general fund used for Temple Transportation would be a way to subsidize or fully pay for temple travel for branches and wards that have to incur significant costs to get there. Last year I participated in a family service project where we all donated money to a family member couple who was serving a mission in the Philipines. They used the money to pay for temple trips for the local saints, who are mostly poor and can't afford such a trip. We sent over 500 people to the temple and it didn't take a ton of money. Some couples who had been married for sometime finally were able to get sealed and many others were able to receive their endowments.

I'm just saying there are better projects out there than the CCC, although I understand those projects don't offer an 8% fiscal return. However, those other projects offer a much better spiritual return. I'm fine with keeping downtown SLC looking nice and all, but we are starting to make it look more like the Vatican City, which maybe isn't a bad thing. I'm not opposed to the CCC, I'm just struggling (not testimony-wise) with the blurred line of church/corporation in this whole deal.

My experience with the church trying to get buildings up in Europe is that money isn't really the problem. There's are several plots of land which the church owns in my old mission where the only thing we're waiting on to put up a building is a bureaucrat's stamp. It was years in the waiting when I was there years ago, and still no building.

[All-American]

I am not a lawyer, but here is the conundrum as I see it.

Isn't all the money from the 'for-profit', tax-paying side kept strictly seperate from the 'non-profit', tax-exempt side? Isn't that the purpose of running the holding company?

Or is there a significant amount of crossover?

I recognize it is essentially the same people running each endeavor but is it allowable by law to shift money from one side and back to the other per the whims of the board?

I ask this question specifically because, as I understand it, ALL of the moneys used for humanitarian purposes are derived from contributions and are church moneys. I do not believe the can take a chunk of cash out of the for-profit side and send it to Haiti, for instance.

On the other hand perhaps they ARE able to do that. I assume there would be significant tax advantages to donating billions of dollars directly to charitable efforts. Maybe this is the reason after all for byu to have a top-tier accounting program...

Can somebody get me straight on this issue?

You touch at another point, complicated by the fact that the church's ledgers aren't open to the public. We don't know the extent to which the operations of the for-profit businesses which the church owns affects the operations of the not-for-profit church. One wonders if it is appropriate to treat the entities as the same. Goodness knows I have loudly and longly advocated for people to consider BYU as a different organization than the church, lest their respective actions and leaders be considered in the same light. At the same time, though, when President Hinckley gets up at a pulpit and tries to explain why the church is involved in the project, I'm not going to try to split that hair on this point of controversy.

Anyway, yeah, I don't know what the church is doing with its money. That doesn't bother me that much, either, though I can understand why it would make others uncomfortable.