Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[NorthwestUteFan]

that sheet gives precious little information. It fails to specify how the "value of material assistance" is determined so we can't really see if the incoming cash donations (never mentions anything about in-kind donations or any other donations) match, fall short, or exceed the outgoing donations.

Exactly. I report (...what I choose to report...), you decide. Just like Fox.

p.s. I guess I need to start counting 'in-kind donations' against tithing, non è vero?
(sorry, that is the extent of my Italian)

ps-did you figure out what the template is?

Patience, pilgrim. Patience. It will occur sometime between now and my 500th post.

[cowboy]

You seem to be making the argument that the good Samaritan, rather than help the beaten naked man, should invest the money so that in a few years he can help two naked beaten people at the side of the road. Meanwhile, the naked beaten guy dies.

And you seem to be making the argument that helping fewer people is better than helping more people. Now let's stop sounding like political ads.

I understand that $3 billion is a butt-load of money to be spending on anything, and a lot of good stuff can be done with that kind of money. But more good stuff can be done over time if that money is shrewdly invested and good stuff done with the profits.

Defining good is a different problem. In my opinion, good is more than soup kitchens and hygiene kits. Churches and temples are good as well. One category of good is giving men fish, while another is teaching them to fish. By building temples and churches, we provide places for people to learn to become more Christlike and help those around them. In this way, good is multiplied. To this point, I address pellegrino in saying that this is why I think church investments further the spiritual work of the Church.

[pellegrino]

over the last 25 years, not enough to entirely counter your argument (just 1/3 of it):

Humanitarian assistance rendered (1985–2009)
Cash donations $327.6 million
Value of material assistance $884.6 million

source: http://www.providentliving.org/welfa...eFactSheet.pdf

that sheet gives precious little information. It fails to specify how the "value of material assistance" is determined so we can't really see if the incoming cash donations (never mentions anything about in-kind donations or any other donations) match, fall short, or exceed the outgoing donations. It could very well be that the "value" is far greater than the actual incoming donations would ever be.

As an example, there a lot of projects that members do to put together hygiene kits, school supplies, etc. for poor nations.. If I'm not mistaken they purchase the supplies, gather together at a church, put them together and send them off through the welfare department. There is obvious value to those kits, but they can't really be counted as "incoming cash donation." Including their value in the outgoing column isn't exactly an honest representation of what are done with cash donations.

ps-did you figure out what the template is?

[UtahDan]

How much of a fraction do you need? I know several million went to Haiti alone.

Which is awesome. I know the church can't be everything to every one and solve all the world's problems. I'm just asking whether it makes sense to horde when there is so much immediate suffering. And in answer to your question, and assuming 5M compared to 3B, 1/600th is not enough to make me shut up.

[UtahDan]

How do you count paying for missions and chapels amd teaching materials and scritprue printing etc.?

How much do those things cost? I don't know. But they aren't humanitarian aid. I see the point I think you are making, that people need spiritual nourishment as well, but the argument we are having not about whether a person is more in need of a Book of Mormon or chapel close by or whether he needs a meal and a place to stay. I'm talking about money net of all that stuff, including setting something aside for the future.

EDIT: Also, I think King Benjamin teaches that both things should be done in Mosiah 4:

15 But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.
16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

[Moliere]

Let's assume that $1 buys one unit of good, and let's assume that the church has $100 dollars of extra tithing money. There are two alternatives for this $100:

[Lots of PV stuff ].

As it is, financial investments such as this may very well give the church the economic freedom to engage in more humanitarian projects.

This is what I tried to demonstrate in the golden egg laying goose parable (as awful as it was). There is a balance between growing an investment and using that investment for good. I'll leave it up to the church to determine where that balance lies but I can't help but be somewhat skeptical of a project of this magnitude. I'm skeptical, not critical.

How do you count paying for missions and chapels amd teaching materials and scritprue printing etc.?

This is why I think the church is relatively less concerned with humanitarian projects (feeding, clothing, immunizing people) and more concerned with spiritually feeding people. While we still feed, clothe, and immunize people, our main goal is to save souls and in reality saving souls spiritually. This isn't a bad thing given our eternal perspective on life. It only looks bad to people that don't understand out mindset.

I have a lot of other thoughts on this but I suck at expressing myself and I'm sure it won't come out right, but suffice it to say that while I'm perturbed by the spending on CCC, my main issue is all the spin and reasons I've heard of why it's such a great thing the church is doing. We as members could find a silver lining on a turd (not that CCC is a turd, but you get the idea).

[pellegrino]

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?

I don't take offense to anything anyone has said in this thread. That said, you've offered a poor analogy that is actually counterproductive to your point. Mary had an expensive item that could have be sold for a profit with the argument that those multiplied funds could be distributed to the poor. In other words, what the disciples were arguing for is the exact same defense that you and others are offering for the church's for profit activities. I think John's added detail that Judas was greedy and wanted to keep the money for himself is particularly poignant. Draw what conclusions you may.

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

Dallin H. Oaks's famous good, better, best talk comes to mind. I don't doubt that any downtown revitalization is a good thing, the better question would be more along the lines of: Is it the best thing?

[pellegrino]

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.

That's great that the church gets high ROI for their investments. You (and everyone else) have given evidence of the financial benefits of for profit industries owned by the church. I have yet to see an example of a spiritual benefit.

All American mentioned the temple in Rome. I don't buy it. We know very little about the finances of these church owned companies. All we know for certain is that they pay tithing to the church on their increase, but we don't know what happens to the profits beyond that. Show me with hard evidence that the profits from those businesses go directly to building temples and I might change my tune, but I think you'll be hard pressed to provide that kind of evidence.

I'm not suggesting that they are being misappropriated, I just don't see how making money and all of the energy that is put into for profit activities contributes to the spirituality of the church. Buildings do provide a place to hold spiritual discussions, but I can think of several negatives for that one positive:

1. The for profit church businesses can have conflicting values with the non-profit (Deseret Book and Church Distribution have had their squabbles in the past).

2. The corporate mentality makes it more difficult for the church to invest in worthwhile activities that will lose money or make no money. African saints (and many other saints around the world) could use schools, but that hasn't and likely won't happen because schools lose money. If making money is seen as a spiritual activity then projects that make more money could easily be construed as more spiritual, and therefore more exigent. There is little incentive for managers and employees of for profit companies to take on projects that are not profitable.

3. Perhaps most importantly, the disconnect between revenue streams and market demands can cause the production side (i.e. church policy, leadership) to lose touch with the market (i.e. church members). If the church is making more equal or more money from its investments than it is from tithing revenues, then the investments and their demands will take priority in decision making. This can cause the leadership to become out of touch with the needs and feelings of the members. Of course, we'd never accuse leaders of this now, would we?

4. Related to the above, members can be seen as means to an end, the end being profit, or preventing loss. Why were we asked to flood the earth with BOM by sending them to others with our testimonies written in the front cover? Who paid for those BOMs?

I'm not saying that I'm right on this, but I fail to see any tangible spiritual benefits from the church making money. I do, however, see numerous problems and potential problems with the corporate structure and dealings of the church.

[All-American]

If you can cite some evidence for me that the church has spent even a fraction of 3B in recent years on charitable and humanitarian endeavors I will shut up.

How much of a fraction do you need? I know several million went to Haiti alone.

[NorthwestUteFan]

If you can cite some evidence for me that the church has spent even a fraction of 3B in recent years on charitable and humanitarian endeavors I will shut up.

over the last 25 years, not enough to entirely counter your argument (just 1/3 of it):

Humanitarian assistance rendered (1985–2009)
Cash donations $327.6 million
Value of material assistance $884.6 million

source: http://www.providentliving.org/welfa...eFactSheet.pdf

[creekster]

If you can cite some evidence for me that the church has spent even a fraction of 3B in recent years on charitable and humanitarian endeavors I will shut up.

How do you count paying for missions and chapels amd teaching materials and scritprue printing etc.?

[UtahDan]

If the church were doing nothing to try to alleviate immediate and short-term suffering, your point would be even more meritorious. As it is, it's hard to find fault with keeping the long term in mind as well as immediate needs.

If you can cite some evidence for me that the church has spent even a fraction of 3B in recent years on charitable and humanitarian endeavors I will shut up.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You seem to be making the argument that the good Samaritan, rather than help the beaten naked man, should invest the money so that in a few years he can help two naked beaten people at the side of the road. Meanwhile, the naked beaten guy dies.

Is it not possible to do both at the same time? If the church had, for instance, stopped ALL
humanitarian aid to cover the cost of the project you would have a valid point.

**edit** Perhaps building the center is equivalent to planting an apple tree?

Impressive. Especially coming from a cowboy.

NEVER underestimate a cowboy.

[All-American]

You seem to be making the argument that the good Samaritan, rather than help the beaten naked man, should invest the money so that in a few years he can help two naked beaten people at the side of the road. Meanwhile, the naked beaten guy dies.

If the church were doing nothing to try to alleviate immediate and short-term suffering, your point would be even more meritorious. As it is, it's hard to find fault with keeping the long term in mind as well as immediate needs.

[All-American]

Let's assume that $1 buys one unit of good, and let's assume that the church has $100 dollars of extra tithing money. There are two alternatives for this $100:

1) Buy 100 units of good, or

2) Invest it at a 5% real rate of return and take 10% of the investment's earnings annually and buy units of good. The other 90% of the earnings will be reinvested at 5% real ROI (8% less 3% inflation)

It chose option 2, and by the end of 17 years it had been able to purchase 17 units of good (in Year 0 dollars) with the earnings that were not reinvested, and the current value of the investments themselves is $189 (again in Year 0 dollars.) They have now effectively doubled their investment, buying good with $17 of the return, and leaving $89 of the increase unspent. They now have a decision to make between two options:

1) Take the $189 and buy $189 units of good immediately,

2) Leave the $189 units invested, but take all of the earnings to buy good, or

3) Continue as they have, buying units of good with 10% of the earnings, and reinvesting the other 90%.

At this point, they can't decide between 2 and 3, so they add $11 dollars, and split it $100 each between strategies 2 and 3. Twenty years later, they examine the results (values again in Year 0 dollars):

Option 2                                    Option 3
Initial Investment      $100            Initial Investment       $100
Current Value           $100            Current Value            $222
Cumulative Dividends    $119            Cumulative Dividends     $ 23

While Option 2 paid more in dividends, the purchasing power of those dividends, fixed at $8, is becoming smaller each year, and the church can see that the cumulative dividend payout of Option 3 will surpass that of Option 2 by year 65 (total dividend payout $227 Option 3 vs $226 Option 2.) At that point the real dividend of Option 3 will be nearly $10 compared to less than $2 for Option 2.

The Church is now in a position where they realize that, long term, they can buy the most units of good by allowing their investment to grow and buying good with the dividends. This requires a long-term investment horizon, and it certainly exposes the leaders to criticism from those who see a lot of money that could buy units of good immediately. Over the long run, though, this investment strategy results in more units of good than any other.

While it may seem that the Church's investments do not further the missions of the Church, I think it could be argued that, on the contrary, they do more to further its missions than any other uses of the funds.

Impressive. Especially coming from a cowboy.