Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[pellegrino]

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.

Then you have to deal with the prioritization of the projects the church takes on. Why did we completely abandon our elementary and high schools? Perhaps they aren't needed in developed nations, but underdeveloped nations could use something like that.

[cowboy]

Then you have to deal with the prioritization of the projects the church takes on. Why did we completely abandon our elementary and high schools? Perhaps they aren't needed in developed nations, but underdeveloped nations could use something like that.

I don't know, and I personally would like to see more church schools. But even a large corporation has limited resources. Remember, I'm working on the assumption that the best way to do the most good is spend only a portion of earnings and reinvest the balance. There is thus a limit to the amount available to the Church for spending on various projects. That they choose to spend it on temples rather than schools is their prerogative. I guess they believe that building churches and temples where people learn to be more Christlike and are inspired to serve their fellow man is the best way to invest.

[All-American]

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.

I'm not sure I see how it counters my point. John's barb against Judas applies if you think somebody is lining their own wallet with the proceeds, but I've not heard you make any accusations of bad intentions yet.

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?

Somebody with access to the ledgers will have to answer that one. For my part, I'm content with it.

[Spicy McHaggis]

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?

+1. They could do so much better for humanity with that kind of money.

[BlueHair]

A couple of things come to mind when I think about the CCC:

1. It is going to improve the downtown area.
2. I can't picture Jesus caring about shopping malls.
3. Caring for the needy should be at the top of the list.
4. Making investments to do more good later shows a lack of faith that God will provide for the church's needs in the future.
5. The church doesn't really believe that the end is near.
6. Less people will visit Temple Square if the surrounding areas are run down.
7. The area could be developed in a less expensive way.
8. The church has become the great and spacious building. Image is the most important thing. Money is a close second.

It hard to argue that this development won't help at least a few hundred families. That kind of cash could help a lot more than that.

[ERCougar]

If the "success" of a venture depends on making a profit, then it is a commercial venture and not a religious one. Churches should not undertake commercial ventures. That's my two cents.

So, it comes down to defining "success". If the church loses the $3 billion, or makes nothing on it, do you still consider this project a success?

[pellegrino]

I'm not sure I see how it counters my point. John's barb against Judas applies if you think somebody is lining their own wallet with the proceeds, but I've not heard you make any accusations of bad intentions yet.

I'll spell it out for you.

Mary has something of great value that she offers to the Lord (this could be analogous to tithing funds).

The apostles (only John specifies Judas as the most upset) are indignant because they felt the ointment could have been sold and distributed to the poor (take the offering/tithing to the marketplace and invest it so its value can be multiplied and it can supposedly do greater good).

Christ rebukes the apostles and says that what Mary did (the least profitable and least efficient use of the tithes) was a good thing, even though it didn't make money and it didn't help as many people.

You used the story as a way of telling those who disapprove of the city creek project that because city creek was a good thing (i.e. it's like Mary anointing Christ's feet) and so our disapproval is like the Apostles' indignation over not selling the perfume (i.e. monetizing its value). The reality is that we who disapprove aren't saying the tithes should be used in a more efficient manner, but that they shouldn't be used to get gain or make profit, even if those profits could potentially help more people.

In other words, we're siding with Mary (and I'd like to think Christ) in the belief that using the perfume (tithing funds) for a good thing that isn't the most efficient and won't be able help more people. We're against the concept of using those funds to make money and amass wealth. Invest them directly in the people who donated them in the form of better programs, better welfare. Make decisions based on solely on the spiritual and social ramifications of the question, not the economical.

Doesn't that make sense?

Somebody with access to the ledgers will have to answer that one. For my part, I'm content with it.

Does it really have to be decided by the balance sheet? Could it be that the best use of the money might also be the least profitable, or it might even lose money? This is the fundamental problem with associating for profit enterprises with a charitable organization in the way the church does. Any evaluation of whether or not the funds were used in the best manner reverts back to an interpretation of the balance sheet where only a numerical value in the black can be considered to be a good use of funds. The corporate mentality hi-jacks the decision making process because instead of evaluating the intangibles of a given project (i.e. the spiritual benefits that will come of it) the very tangible bottom line takes priority and drives the decisions.

[statman]

A couple of things come to mind when I think about the CCC:

1. It is going to improve the downtown area.
2. I can't picture Jesus caring about shopping malls.
3. Caring for the needy should be at the top of the list.
4. Making investments to do more good later shows a lack of faith that God will provide for the church's needs in the future.
5. The church doesn't really believe that the end is near.
6. Less people will visit Temple Square if the surrounding areas are run down.
7. The area could be developed in a less expensive way.
8. The church has become the great and spacious building. Image is the most important thing. Money is a close second.

It hard to argue that this development won't help at least a few hundred families. That kind of cash could help a lot more than that.

Parable of the talents...

[pellegrino]

Parable of the talents...

does that have to be interpreted in a monetary sense? If it does, then how do we reconcile it with Christ's indictment of the rich?

[statman]

does that have to be interpreted in a monetary sense? If it does, then how do we reconcile it with Christ's indictment of the rich?

No - but it certainly applies to this case. god doesn't want the Church to squander its resources any more than the servant who buried his talent and was rebuked.

I know of no such whole cloth indictment of "the rich."