Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[ERCougar]

The 1.1B number comes from the church but it does not break it down any further. So I have no other details on the sources of all that money. As I say, the largest chunk of it is in kind and is "valued" at that number which is almost certainly a number quite a bit higher than the acquisition or as the case may be production cost of those things.

That is counting all of the members, which the church does when it reports membership numbers. If you want to be more generous and say that may 25% of them active and tithe paying then the number balloons to a whopping $16 or so per person.

This may be beside the point for you (it sort of is, for me) but I'd be curious to see what the total fast offering contributions are for the church. I don't think most members consider tithing monies to be going primarily to humanitarian functions--they see them as going towards support of the infrastructure of the church. In that respect, the Red Cross analogy doesn't quite work, as the chief stated purpose of the Red Cross is humanitarian efforts.

The larger point you're making is whether tithing money should be directed towards infrastructure or humanitarian work. When we lived in Michigan, my wife was in the Stake RS Presidency. The stake was quite large geographically, so for their annual stake meetings, they had to provide meals for 150+ women. I remember watching them struggle to stretch their annual $600 budget to cover 300 meals (2 meals for each woman) plus printing materials and the various other expenses that are incurred in holding large meetings, as well as their expenses for the rest of the year. Contrast this with our catered Christmas dinner in our last Cedar City Ward (which was fairly well-off), which likely ran well over $600 on its own. It was a real eye-opener to see the waste that goes on, particularly in Utah wards (and I haven't touched on youth conferences, scouting, Pioneer Treks, etc). I really struggled as I was writing my tithing check at the end of the year, weighing the value of a catered Christmas meal against providing malaria nets or TB meds in Africa or a simple home in Central America--instead of feeling good about giving a donation, I just felt really empty. For the next year, I decided that I'm taking my half of the tithing and humanitarian budget and distributing to the organizations where I see fit.

[Brian]

I read somewhere that the CCC is the largest private construction project going in the nation right now.

All those contracted companies are making money providing services and employing thousands of people.

Salt Lake City and The State of Utah have just received several honors as leading the west, and even the nation in economic growth and fiscal discipline.

The CCC is right across the street from Temple Square (The church's worldwide headquarters). The church is committed to keeping that area economically viable, stable and productive.

Salt Lake City will gain an image boost in the eyes of visitors from this development. It should provide a return on the money spent for decades to come.

In open exercises of Priesthood mtg each Sunday, the group is asked if they know of any job openings. The Bishop is asking those who can to give generously to the fast offering fund.
Maybe they could throw a bone our way? Then again, maybe that wouldn't give the "image" the biggest bang for the buck.

[UtahDan]

I'm not a big fan of the City Creek Center project. I think it is not only outside of the scope of a church, but it also will surely bring a lot of bad publicity at some point (think Main Street Plaza). I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

That being said, I also believe that the majority of service and humanitarian work being performed is done by the members in their own local area with their own resources. We do this in my area with local charities. We've done food bank drives, meals on wheels, hurricane clean up, made blankets/hygiene kits, etc. None of these were done using church funds or at hte request of the church.

Although the church is very centralized (from a leadership and doctrinal standpoint) it is very decentralized from a service and humanitarian aid standpoint. Could the church do more? Yes. Should they? I have no idea but given the miniscule budget my ward receives in comparison to what is expected to be done I think the church might be a bit strained as it is.

I think you are right that the vast majority of great humanitarian work is done by church members locally and on the individual level. My views on this are colored by my work with a local United Way that services 5 counties and distributes about 500K per year to charities. The bang that we get for those bucks is phenomenal. Battered women's shelters, free clinics, hospice care, after school programs, basic nutrition etc., etc. The good Christian service we provide in these counties and the actual impact on human suffering is something I am really proud of.

I then reflect on the idea that the two wards that meet in just one of those counties easily, easily contribute tithing annually that doubles the United Way budget. And pretty much zero of those dollars are spent in my community. Those kinds of funds have the ability to be multipliers of actual benefits, services and relief that individuals simply cannot provide. They are spent on the infrastructure of the church and its ability to proselyte and maintain its imagine. The rest is horded. If that is the mission, so be it. But the pretense that the church has anything other than a nominal humanitarian function is not supported by evidence. I happen to think good people like you could do much more good in this world with your 10% than the church does with it.

Though I have moved away from the institutional church, I still have a very strong belief that the teachings of Jesus, for the most part, represent the best aspirations of humanity. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the beaten man on the road to Damascus. A soup kitchen is a much more powerful testament to these teachings than any massively expensive or richly adorned building.

[Moliere]

Today I read something interesting. According to the church it has spent approximately $1.1 billion on humanitarian aid over the last 25 years (most of that is donated stuff, but a decent chunk is cash). When divided by the number of members of the church that ends up being less than $5 annually per person and less than 1% of the church's annual revenue.

It was pointed out that were the church to simply "tithe" 10% of its revenue to humanitarian aid it would contribute something like $750M per year, as opposed to the @$44M or less than $5 per person it currently does. It would appear that the rest remainder of the budget going to buildings, administrative costs and investment. Apples and oranges I know, but the highly criticized and scandalized Red Cross gets about 91 cents of every dollar donated to humanitarian efforts.

I'm not a big fan of the City Creek Center project. I think it is not only outside of the scope of a church, but it also will surely bring a lot of bad publicity at some point (think Main Street Plaza). I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

That being said, I also believe that the majority of service and humanitarian work being performed is done by the members in their own local area with their own resources. We do this in my area with local charities. We've done food bank drives, meals on wheels, hurricane clean up, made blankets/hygiene kits, etc. None of these were done using church funds or at hte request of the church.

Although the church is very centralized (from a leadership and doctrinal standpoint) it is very decentralized from a service and humanitarian aid standpoint. Could the church do more? Yes. Should they? I have no idea but given the miniscule budget my ward receives in comparison to what is expected to be done I think the church might be a bit strained as it is.

[pellegrino]

The 1.1B number comes from the church but it does not break it down any further. So I have no other details on the sources of all that money. As I say, the largest chunk of it is in kind and is "valued" at that number which is almost certainly a number quite a bit higher than the acquisition or as the case may be production cost of those things.

That is counting all of the members, which the church does when it reports membership numbers. If you want to be more generous and say that may 25% of them active and tithe paying then the number balloons to a whopping $16 or so per person.

as I expected, it doesn't affect the bottom line. I do wonder if they include the perpetual education fund. If they do then it makes the numbers even more pitiful, imo, as that particular fund has been the most successful over the past decade or so.

[UtahDan]

a few questions:

Do we know how much of that 1.1 billion was donated through normal donation slips?

When you divide by the number of members of the church, are you using the official reported membership, an estimate of active members, or number of full tithe payers?

Is the perpetual education fund included in humanitarian aide?


you know where I stand on the issue, and I don't think the changing the number of members in consideration would really change the bottom line, but I'm interested all the same.

The 1.1B number comes from the church but it does not break it down any further. So I have no other details on the sources of all that money. As I say, the largest chunk of it is in kind and is "valued" at that number which is almost certainly a number quite a bit higher than the acquisition or as the case may be production cost of those things.

That is counting all of the members, which the church does when it reports membership numbers. If you want to be more generous and say that may 25% of them active and tithe paying then the number balloons to a whopping $16 or so per person.

[pellegrino]

Today I read something interesting. According to the church it has spent approximately $1.1 billion on humanitarian aid over the last 25 years (most of that is donated stuff, but a decent chunk is cash). When divided by the number of members of the church that ends up being less than $5 annually per person and less than 1% of the church's annual revenue.

It was pointed out that were the church to simply "tithe" 10% of its revenue to humanitarian aid it would contribute something like $750M per year, as opposed to the @$44M or less than $5 per person it currently does. It would appear that the rest remainder of the budget going to buildings, administrative costs and investment. Apples and oranges I know, but the highly criticized and scandalized Red Cross gets about 91 cents of every dollar donated to humanitarian efforts.

a few questions:

Do we know how much of that 1.1 billion was donated through normal donation slips?

When you divide by the number of members of the church, are you using the official reported membership, an estimate of active members, or number of full tithe payers?

Is the perpetual education fund included in humanitarian aide?


you know where I stand on the issue, and I don't think the changing the number of members in consideration would really change the bottom line, but I'm interested all the same.

[UtahDan]

Today I read something interesting. According to the church it has spent approximately $1.1 billion on humanitarian aid over the last 25 years (most of that is donated stuff, but a decent chunk is cash). When divided by the number of members of the church that ends up being less than $5 annually per person and less than 1% of the church's annual revenue.

It was pointed out that were the church to simply "tithe" 10% of its revenue to humanitarian aid it would contribute something like $750M per year, as opposed to the @$44M or less than $5 per person it currently does. It would appear that the rest remainder of the budget going to buildings, administrative costs and investment. Apples and oranges I know, but the highly criticized and scandalized Red Cross gets about 91 cents of every dollar donated to humanitarian efforts.

[Moliere]

The City Creek thing makes you realize that the Church disagrees with the way Mother Theresa gave handouts but not a hand up, just like Chris Hitchens. We believe in trickle-down capitalism. We are an American church first and foremost. And I'm OK with that. I also agree with Chris Hitchens and the superiority of the American, capitalistic work/investment ethic over pure Christianity.

This post has been ringing in my ears for sometime now. This is a great thought and is very interesting, especially in light of my constant reading of RSR. I'm not saying I agree (I do to a point but not philosophically) but I truly appreciated this post.

[CardiacCoug]

Since Chris Hitchens is a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, he believes in the superiority of the "Magic 8 Ball" over Christianity. He has utter and total disdain for all things religious...

Hitchens is an atheist? I had no idea.

But seriously, the City Creek thing proves that the Church leadership rejects the notion that the greatest good comes from pure Christian giving to the poorest of the poor, a la Mother Theresa.

The leadership consists of pragmatic, capitalistic Americans and that is reflected in how the Church is run. The Church is run the same way most LDS households are run. The primary focus is obtaining and cultivating household resources, and a healthy percentage (15%) given to charitable causes. It's an American model -- not a pure Christian model.

Didn't Christ say something about selling all your possessions and giving it all to the poor? Yeah, we don't buy that part -- just like Chris Hitchens.

[NorthwestUteFan]

When the LDS temple in Draper was announced one guy owned 10 lots within a block of the temple. He was selling them for 145k a piece. As soon as they announced that location was going to be a temple and not just another church in a down economy he started selling them for $300k each and sold them all within in a week.

Ah yes. One of those houses, the BIG one among big houses on the circle on the hill above to the south and west of that temple, I know was built as a spec home (~$6m IIRC). It was ostentatious to every possible extreme. It is beautiful, but nearly rivals the temple itself in both size, finish, and 'visibility'.

My wife calls it the Rameumptom. I think her observation is brilliant.

As I recall, Ellis Ivory made a SHITload of money on all the properties around the Bountiful temple. He owned the majority of (or all of) the property immediately around the temple, including the grounds upon which it was built.

Then he built all the houses. Win-win for the Ivory clan. They are a wonderful family, by the way, I am not knocking him for taking advantage of the situation. In many ways I admire his foresight. Ellis was my stake president for a while when I was growing up and I knew them fairly well.

I lived in SoCal when the (BEAUTIFUL I might add...) Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights was built in the early 90's. I remember couples walking down the streets, knocking on doors to inquire whether they could purchase the house. They were offering what at the time seemed to be well over market value for the homes. Many times they were carrying, or had ready access to, cash for the entire purchase. One of my neighbors, an elderly widow, told me afterward that the man pulled about $50k in $100 bills from a paper lunch bag and offered it to her as a 'down payment' on her house.

Especially prized were homes situated downhill and with their front doors facing the temple, so "...blessings can roll down the hill and into our home." Of course feng shui worked heavily in the equation, eg, you don't want the front stairs to run down to the front door of the house because blessings will roll out the front door...

Anyway, my point is many populations will put a premium on proximity to an important edifice. Some will even go far above and beyond the call to 'show their piety' and purchase the most noticable house in close proximity to said edifice. Somehow the more 'showy' the house and the closer to the temple, the more humble and 'worthy' the occupants?

Something to think about.

[statman]

The City Creek thing makes you realize that the Church disagrees with the way Mother Theresa gave handouts but not a hand up, just like Chris Hitchens. We believe in trickle-down capitalism. We are an American church first and foremost. And I'm OK with that. I also agree with Chris Hitchens and the superiority of the American, capitalistic work/investment ethic over pure Christianity.

Since Chris Hitchens is a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, he believes in the superiority of the "Magic 8 Ball" over Christianity. He has utter and total disdain for all things religious...

[CardiacCoug]

The City Creek thing makes you realize that the Church disagrees with the way Mother Theresa gave handouts but not a hand up, just like Chris Hitchens. We believe in trickle-down capitalism. We are an American church first and foremost. And I'm OK with that. I also agree with Chris Hitchens and the superiority of the American, capitalistic work/investment ethic over pure Christianity.

[scottie]

I understand your argument. It is just a poor one. Are you suggesting that the Church stop CCC because of these members? Besides, those who have chimed in this thread in opposition to CCC don't seem to fit the subset you're arguing for.

We all know this is CUF.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There isn't enough that the Church could do to satisfy everyone. The Church could divest all of its assets and give them away to charity and I'm positive that it would be roundly criticized by many.

You could say that (criticism no matter what) of virtually any large organization. In the context of a discussion on a multi-billion dollar investment by a church, it seems like a copout.