Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[Surfah]

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.

[BlueHair]

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."

The church is obviously free to spend it's money however it chooses. The Jesus that I've read about in the New Testament would spend his money healing the sick, clothing the naked, and feeding the hungry, not providing high end housing and shopping for the rich. I know the church does a lot of good. They could do a lot more. Any church that claims to be Christ's church should spend most of their money on things Christ would spend it on, not lavish developments. They should spend all of their resources on the needy today. Have some faith that God will provide for tomorrow. This is the sort of thing that would inspire.

[All-American]

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?

Okay, I see what you're saying. I don't agree with your interpretation for a few reasons, though most of them are quibbles (are they really multiplying the funds? They were just supposed to give it away, were they not? and who is it that is amassing the wealth?), but the fundamental lesson Christ was teaching was not about the best way to deal with the funds. He does not say that Mary's idea was the better of the two. The lesson was an instruction to refrain from criticizing those who are trying to go about doing good. Hence my indifference at the end; whether this is truly the most optimal way to expend funds is beyond me and anybody else who doesn't know where the dollars are going, and I don't particularly lose any sleep over it.

Which leads to your next point:

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.

Well, I'm not sure how much ROI the church is planning on getting from Haiti, for example.

I simply believe that in the long run, the church will be able to do a greater amount of good the way it is going now than if it liquidated its for-profit assets and gave them away to the poor. Look at the perpetual education fund, for example. Why insist on repaying the loan? Why not instruct the debtors to give the money out to the poor? The way they run it now, the fund can run in perpetuity-- a continual source of good, ultimately benefiting more than if we just gave it away as soon as we could find the first dirty kid to whom to give it.

I don't think the corporate mentality is hijacking the spiritual mindsent. I think it is relieving the spiritual mindset of financial restraints. I mentioned the temple in Rome as evidence earlier, and I'm disappointed nobody took the bait. That could have been a project that would have been put on hold, or abandoned, or never dreamed up in the first place, had funds not been available to build it. I say thank goodness we have the resources to be able to do the work we do, and thank goodness we were wise enough to manage the resources to be able to do it.

[hostile]

I guarantee that just for the simple fact that this is owned by the church every condo will be solid quickly and people will shop there over other places.

Not sure what it is with mormon stigma but we support our own. 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.

Same thing will happen with the CCC. Mormons will come from all over the world to visit Temple square and now to see the CCC.

[cougjunkie]

I guarantee that just for the simple fact that this is owned by the church every condo will be solid quickly and people will shop there over other places.

Not sure what it is with mormon stigma but we support our own. 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.

Same thing will happen with the CCC. Mormons will come from all over the world to visit Temple square and now to see the CCC.

[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."

[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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.