Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[ERCougar]

The issue isn't whether tithing dollars are being used for this venture, although their use would certainly add to the ethical fuzziness. It's whether an organization whose primary purpose is to save souls should be expending energy or thought into ventures that have nothing to do with saving souls. It has the potential for a lot messiness. If a restaurant in the development sells alcohol, then the church will be financing (and profiting from) an activity that it believes will ultimately damn souls. That's a little messy, no?

[cowboy]

Would you have any problem with the church allowing businesses in CCC to serve alcohol? Would there be any fallout? I would think Mormons who are uneasy with Marriotts selling porn would have a problem it.

There is a clear distinction between booze and porn. Alcohol is something we have been asked to avoid in this dispensation, while I'm pretty sure porn's taboo is timeless.

All the angst over the Church investing in SLC downtown is unfounded, imo. Sure, tithing was used as seed money to start these businesses, but the companies have long since repaid the initial investment. Now, the dividend paid by these companies (and any company that pays 10% of its earnings out in dividends is a decent investment) helps to build and maintain buildings. But for them, we may still have a ward budget on top of tithes and offerings to pay. Put simply, these investments have been a vehicle for multiplying our tithes, and they have been successful.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Where did the church get the money to start these for profit ventures? To say that tithing dollars aren't used to fund city creek (which is what I have heard from official channels of communication) isn't entirely accurate either.

as I wrote it, "not 'entirely' true" = "has a certain degree of truth to it".

I do not recall the history behind the founding of Beneficial Life but a solid, strong insurance company like that must be enormously profitable over time. Was this started using tithing funds? Possibly.

Bonneville Broadcasting, as I recall, started as a radio outlet to distribute 'Music and the Spoken Word' and MoTab broadcasts back in the early days of radio. It grew from there. Very likely that was started using tithing funds. Bonneville owns radio stations all over the place now, very often the ones on AM who carry Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck. I am too lazy (read: 'indifferent') to actually look up the number of stations they own, but it IS a big business.

I believe the line of logic allowing the statement: "No tithing funds were used..." to be accurate would depend upon the frame of reference (and I would require a bit of background info). Deseret Management Corp (DMC) was set up in the mid 60's by Pres McKay to handle all the dealings of the for-profit enterprises of the church, thus preserving their tax-exempt non-profit status.

If we take a slice of time beginning AFTER this point up to the present, then the argument can be made that no tithing contribution dollars flow toward the for-profit enterprises as there is a necessary seperation between the two.

If however our frame of reference is 1847 - present, then of course tithing dollars are in fact the seed money for the entire grouping of companies.

Add to that fact that the Board of Directors of the DMC is made up from the First Pres, several members of the Quorum of 12, and the Presiding Bishopric.

Of course I wish the church could claim to be self-sustaining but that simply isn't the case. I also wish to believe that byu is self-sustaining and no tithing funds flow there.

In the end I have no idea where the money goes, or whom to trust on the matter. It may very well be possible that actual tithing funds go toward the for-profit side but that can't and won't be proven one way or another unless the church opens its books (won't happen between now and through my great-great-grandchildrens' lifetimes).

Mark me as conflicted on the whole tithing thing anyway. Not exactly a big believer in it, and the "I paid my tithing and miraculously the mortgage was paid..." stories make my skin crawl.

Now, in answer to the original question, I have to follow with another question: If this place is to contain upscale restaurants, is it in the church's best interest that the restaurants are successful and stay in business?

The answer to that question will answer the first. Statistically speaking, restaurants operate with food (especially bread, if 'free') being a loss leader and make up the difference on the drinks. Fountain drinks make money for the first few refills, but after that the restaurant begins to go backward.

The typical $30-for-dinner-for-two restaurant chains make about as much, or even less, actual profit on an entree than on a fountain drink. Beer from the tap, wine by the glass, and mixed drinks are almost pure profit. Now if the typical couple having two drinks each at gives 4 drinks worth of profit, and the restaurant makes a good return with little material and labor costs.

I guess I need to ask a second question: Who are the likely patrons of these restaurants? What percentage of them are people stopping by after a temple session? Less than half of the citizens of SLC are active church members if I recall correctly.

I won't be conflicted about it, other than to say it will become a point of contention with both A) strict, devout Mormons and B) people protesting or wishing to do the church harm.

ps-find the cat's out of the bag, you need to get over to ellis island. don't let my sourpuss attitude about the church's corporate structure/culture dissuade you from using a certain template.

Not entirely sure what you mean by 'template' but I will get to Ellis.

I believe we are on the same page with the corporate structure/culture. It is a significant cause of my own disillusionment with the church. Perhaps we are just 'not worthy' of any further revelation at this time, and not humble enough to turn a blind eye to several disturbing moves in SLC.

In the end, it could certainly be far worse. The city and/or county could have bonded it to pay for the whole project. At least this way your non-voluntary taxes won't go up!

Jeez, that was long. Sorry to ramble!

[grapevine]

The CCC I think Gordon mentioned it in GC before. Was not funded with tithing at all but with money the church earns in its for profit businesses. there aim is to make a profit. Brings some money into the church. Tithing was not used for it though.

[All-American]

That's a very poor argument, one I would hope you're smart enough not to make.

Not with a straight face, I wouldn't.

Once again, how do brilliant financial moves or even financial security relate directly to the purpose of the church? Does this mean that heaven will be a large corporation? Does the church's ability to provide access to salvation depend upon its financial security? What do for profit businesses have to do with religion, particularly with regards to what James preaches on the subject? If, as its proponents suggest, there are no tithing funds being used for this project, then how will the profits directly affect the church? Yes, I know that all of the church's businesses pay a tithing, but what happens to the rest of their profits? I fail to see how making oodles and oodles of money brings anyone closer to Christ. I do, however see the church eliminating janitors for all of its buildings. The change has been billed in our stake as a means of cutting costs in a tough economy. Salvation through corporate strategies is wonderful.

Meh. Stuff costs money. Buildings cost money. Ward budgets cost money. I don't mind seeing the church make financially sound investments if it means that the church can afford to fulfill more of the things it perceives as its needs. Though I do respect the perspective and acknowledge the merits of your point, this whole thing just doesn't bother me that much.

[pellegrino]

The only argument you could even remotely make that this project furthers the fourfold mission of the church (hey, how long has it been since we've heard anybody else refer to the fourth fold? I'm starting to wonder if that's really what we're doing) is that it keeps the area around temple square from turning into a slum. This is an awfully expensive homemaking project, though.

That's a very poor argument, one I would hope you're smart enough not to make.

Of the arguments I've heard against the propriety of the City Creek Center project, however, I've yet to hear that it isn't a brilliant move, financially speaking. A lot of it seems like really good luck-- planning a construction project of this magnitude right at the culmination of a trend of urbanization and during a major recession, when contractors are taking whatever work they can get, may be more a stroke of luck than of genius. Maybe the only way you can "justify" this, if you really feel like it needs to be justified, is that it will contribute to the financial security that will allow the church to focus on the folds of its mission.

Once again, how do brilliant financial moves or even financial security relate directly to the purpose of the church? Does this mean that heaven will be a large corporation? Does the church's ability to provide access to salvation depend upon its financial security? What do for profit businesses have to do with religion, particularly with regards to what James preaches on the subject? If, as its proponents suggest, there are no tithing funds being used for this project, then how will the profits directly affect the church? Yes, I know that all of the church's businesses pay a tithing, but what happens to the rest of their profits? I fail to see how making oodles and oodles of money brings anyone closer to Christ. I do, however see the church eliminating janitors for all of its buildings. The change has been billed in our stake as a means of cutting costs in a tough economy. Salvation through corporate strategies is wonderful.

Long time lurker, first time poster (I know, I know...)

Technically speaking, the City Creek Center is NOT by contributed church funds but by the business holding company of the church, "Deseret Management Corporation", who owns Beneficial Life, Deseret Book, Bonneville Communications (KSL, radio stations across the US, including here in Seattle, in Cali, around Boston, DC, NYC, a few other places I have been), Zions Securities, Deseret News, assets willed to the church, etc.

To say that "tithing dollars" are used directly to fund the center is not entirely accurate.[/QUOTE]

Where did the church get the money to start these for profit ventures? To say that tithing dollars aren't used to fund city creek (which is what I have heard from official channels of communication) isn't entirely accurate either.

ps-find the cat's out of the bag, you need to get over to ellis island. don't let my sourpuss attitude about the church's corporate structure/culture dissuade you from using a certain template.

[All-American]

How does city creek further the fourfold mission of the church? How do any of the for profit businesses owned by the church further its purpose and mission as the Kingdom of God on the earth?

The only argument you could even remotely make that this project furthers the fourfold mission of the church (hey, how long has it been since we've heard anybody else refer to the fourth fold? I'm starting to wonder if that's really what we're doing) is that it keeps the area around temple square from turning into a slum. This is an awfully expensive homemaking project, though.

Of the arguments I've heard against the propriety of the City Creek Center project, however, I've yet to hear that it isn't a brilliant move, financially speaking. A lot of it seems like really good luck-- planning a construction project of this magnitude right at the culmination of a trend of urbanization and during a major recession, when contractors are taking whatever work they can get, may be more a stroke of luck than of genius. Maybe the only way you can "justify" this, if you really feel like it needs to be justified, is that it will contribute to the financial security that will allow the church to focus on the folds of its mission.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Long time lurker, first time poster (I know, I know...)

Technically speaking, the City Creek Center is NOT by contributed church funds but by the business holding company of the church, "Deseret Management Corporation", who owns Beneficial Life, Deseret Book, Bonneville Communications (KSL, radio stations across the US, including here in Seattle, in Cali, around Boston, DC, NYC, a few other places I have been), Zions Securities, Deseret News, assets willed to the church, etc.

To say that "tithing dollars" are used directly to fund the center is not entirely accurate.

That said, I don't know that it is possible to make a distinction between the first presidency, who runs both the church, and Deseret Management Corporation, and church moneys derived from contributions.

The way I see it, tithing funds the church and the leadership thereof, who also run the management corp who is laying a $3B egg in downtown SLC.

Interesting dichotomy to say the least. I have to say I am quite conflicted over it. The center WILL be nice, but will also be a significant lightning rod downtown.

How does city creek further the fourfold mission of the church? How do any of the for profit businesses owned by the church further its purpose and mission as the Kingdom of God on the earth?

I have no idea. I am of the belief that they should divest themselves of many of these companies the same way they liquidated ZCMI and LDS Hospital. Obviously they are quite profitable.

[pellegrino]

Talk to me.

You addressed it well yourself.

The church is the developer and the owner.

ERCougar got it right too.

The use of church funds in speculative ventures that have little or nothing to do with the mission of the church, I'm guessing.

As did Eddie

Agreed. I struggle with this one as I see it as an unnecessary business venture. This is not the church building a mill or financing a bank upon the arrival of poor saints into Utah. This is the construction of semi-high end apartment buildings.

How does city creek further the fourfold mission of the church? How do any of the for profit businesses owned by the church further its purpose and mission as the Kingdom of God on the earth?

[woot]

Also, if Mormon mullahs are so concerned about church-owned property selling liquor, they should take to heart the words of Joseph F. Smith in one of his conference addresses:

http://books.google.com/books?id=isD...page&q&f=false

Where's the justification? What is he saying other than that it is acceptable before god for his church to profit by peddling sin?

[LiveCoug]

Agreed. I struggle with this one as I see it as an unnecessary business venture. This is not the church building a mill or financing a bank upon the arrival of poor saints into Utah. This is the construction of semi-high end apartment buildings.

I think it's a great thing giving back to downtown SLC. It also doesn't hurt that it will bring a lot of visitors to the area...

[Moliere]

Also, if Mormon mullahs are so concerned about church-owned property selling liquor, they should take to heart the words of Joseph F. Smith in one of his conference addresses:

http://books.google.com/books?id=isD...page&q&f=false

[Moliere]

The use of church funds in speculative ventures that have little or nothing to do with the mission of the church, I'm guessing.

Agreed. I struggle with this one as I see it as an unnecessary business venture. This is not the church building a mill or financing a bank upon the arrival of poor saints into Utah. This is the construction of semi-high end apartment buildings.

[ERCougar]

Talk to me.

The use of church funds in speculative ventures that have little or nothing to do with the mission of the church, I'm guessing.

[LiveCoug]

You really think no big deal? The church is the developer and the owner.

Nope. No big deal.