Misuse of Church Funds

[Indy Coug]

I am truly sorry you feel that way about me. It is too bad we can't disagree without being disagreeable. I have no idea what you mean by asspuckered but clearly you don't want to have dinner with me. That is too bad and I am sorry you feel that way.

Why is it typically the righteous conservative that shuns and belittles and eschews the liberal sinner who extends an welcome invite?

I think I need a break, the name calling gets old.

Let me rephrase with less colorful colloquialisms: I can't envision for the life of me why you would think I would allocate scarce time resources to someone I don't enjoy spending time with on the internet. It has nothing to do with whether you're liberal or a sinner or a lawyer or a guy trying to score cheap sex off of JIC's sister.

[Goatnapper'96]

I am truly sorry you feel that way about me. It is too bad we can't disagree without being disagreeable. I have no idea what you mean by asspuckered but clearly you don't want to have dinner with me. That is too bad and I am sorry you feel that way.

Why is it typically the righteous conservative that shuns and belittles and eschews the liberal sinner who extends an welcome invite?

I think I need a break, the name calling gets old.

I will eat lunch with you at that faggity named frenchie place. I think it better if we leave the womenfolk at home and get down to business in evaluating their branding.

DON'T YOU WISH YOUR GIRLFRIEND WAS A FREAK LIKE ME!

[Green Monstah]

I'm a little bothered by all of this, I'll be honest. My work will match up to $15k per year for secular charities (I can donate to churches, as long as use has secular purpose--education, easing human suffering, humanitarian work, etc.). I kicked around the idea of donating all money to humanitarian aid of the church in lieu of tithing since I can essentially double the amount of money the church receives, and quite frankly, I am more comfortable with the funds going to ease human suffering, etc.

Now, I don't know. Maybe I can just give it all to my charity of choice (CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION) and be done with giving 10% of my hard-earned cash to an entity that doesn't need my money anyway.

[ERCougar]

I will eat lunch with you at that faggity named frenchie place. I think it better if we leave the womenfolk at home and get down to business in evaluating their branding.

DON'T YOU WISH YOUR GIRLFRIEND WAS A FREAK LIKE ME!

You would like the faggity named frenchie place. Falsies abound, and nearly in full pseudo 18th century French bustier style view!

[Green Monstah]

But what if there is more money in the PEF than they can reasonably use in the next 20 years? Why allow more money to go there when there are real needs for humanitarian or missionary funds (just picking a couple out of the air)?

I agree that money donated under the old slip should stay where directed, but I don't see much of a problem with the new approach.

Then you turn it into a partial grant/scholarship system instead of astudent loan-only system.

[Coach McGuirk]

But women are attracted to confidence and money, not looks. . .

Maybe it's the fact you are a whiny little bitch?

[kccougar]

The DesNews first reported a number of $1billion in 2006.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6...-a-glance.html

In 2007 the DesNews reported that: "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6...ject.html?pg=2

President Hinckley emphasized this in 2009: "I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program."

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/article...schedule.html#

In 2008 the SLTrib was estimating $1-2billion.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM

In 2009 the DesNews reported "City Creek Reserve is spending more than $1 million a day on construction, and the project ultimately will cost around $3 billion, said Chris Redgrave, a KSL executive who also chairs the Salt Lake Chamber's Can-Do Coalition, which is looking for ways to jump-start the downtown economy."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...y-on-Main.html

In 2010 the DesNews continued to report that the project would cost $3billion.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...k-project.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...Lake-City.html

At its opening, it was called a $2billion project in the SLTrib.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53...-mall.html.csp
and
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53...-lake.html.csp

KSL reported that the SL Chamber of Commerce said that $5 billion has gone into downtown SLC real estate in the last few years. There have been no other significant projects downtown in the last few years. So people assume the $5 billion is related to CCC.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19428181

The problem is in determining what is part of CCC and what isn't.

For instance, the Church purchased the Walker building (and everything between it and CCC) and wanted to tear it all down and extend CCC another block to the south and put a new tower where the Walker building stands. There was push-back from preservation groups and they left the building standing. Does the purchase of these buildings get added to the CCC number? I'll bet the Church doesn't add them. But others might.

Second, the Church purchased leases in many other buildings to move tenants out of the spaces being demolished to make way for CCC. So the Church has lease-hold interests in millions of square feet of office space downtown that they don't own. Most of this was ultimately not needed or used and the purchase prices wasted. Should these costs be added into the CCC number? Again I'll bet the Church doesn't add it in.

Third, What about the renovated and expanded bomb shelter they did at the same time as City Creek. My contact says it alone was over a billion dollars and can survive a nuclear attack (yes this is hearsay--but do you think they have a bomb shelter under Church HQ for the Prophets? Of course they do). You do know that you can walk underground from the Conference Center to 200 East and 200 South (not the intersection, but to both roads). Should these costs be added in?

So you can see how the project could be valued at anywhere from $2 billion if you only count the cost of the bricks and mortar at the actual CCC shopping center to over $5 billion if you count all the leases, other real estate purchased, and projects such as the new parking and upgrades to the bomb shelter.

In any event, setting aside all speculation. The DesNews started out saying it would be a $1billion+ project ($1.5 was the most commonly cited number) but then reported an insider informed them it was a $3billion project (half way through construction) and they continued to report that number for over a year. I'd call that a pretty big overage on the budget.

So in other words, you don't know any more than anyone else, and you're just pulling big numbers out of random news articles.

[Goatnapper'96]

You would like the faggity named frenchie place. Falsies abound, and nearly in full pseudo 18th century French bustier style view!

Thank God we liberated those people!

Till all success be nobleness!

[jay santos]

If there was no misappropriation of funds from one purpose to another which precipitated the change in the tithing slips, I'll buy you and your wife dinner at La Cai next time you are in Utah. (Do you live in Utah?)

While it is possible that they just decided to change the use of funds policy so drastically without needing to, I suspect something prompted them to do so. And it wasn't the still small voice, but the concerned tones of their accountants and lawyers.

In fact, let's do dinner regardless, and we'll let the reuters article decide who was right on this one and therefore who pays.

If there was a way to prove it, I'd take that bet.

The church is very conservative. I highly doubt they could be found guilty of misappropriating funds.

I don't doubt that maybe the church's strong financial standing might have been dinged just a little with the recession and the bad timing of the mall project. And I could see that this change in policy might be to prepare for the need in the future to have tithing cover business losses, or some other crossing of accounts, but I see very little probability that they've already been doing this.

[SeattleUte]

This is a lot like correlation. If you folks don't demand transparency and accountability what do you expect. You get what you pay for.

This like beating your head against the wall and cursing the wall. You don't have to give them your money.

If one of my children told me they'd decided to become active in the LDS Church (knock on wood) the first thing I'd say is, "Are you sure this is a wise expenditure of a substantial portion of your hard earned money?"

[byu71]

No offense to those of you who don't donate in any form to the church, but how do you have a dog in this fight?

[SeattleUte]

No offense to those of you who don't donate in any form to the church, but how do you have a dog in this fight?

Just trying to help people. I'm not offended.

[Jacob]

But what if there is more money in the PEF than they can reasonably use in the next 20 years? Why allow more money to go there when there are real needs for humanitarian or missionary funds (just picking a couple out of the air)?

I agree that money donated under the old slip should stay where directed, but I don't see much of a problem with the new approach.

I'm not taking Rambam's side in this argument. Quite the opposite. But claiming that there is no use for the vast PEF funds doesn't seem right at all. Certainly, there is no shortage of LDS people seeking a college education in need of the funds. Sure, there might not be enough applicants under the programs current rules, and the church may not have the staff to adequately administer the full use of the funds. But people who have dedicated or will dedicate to that fund ought to have their intent honored. If the current program is too restrictive so as to make the fund too large, then loosen up the guidelines. Reduce the interest payment. Make it a negative interest. Let more, under-qualified people into the program. But don't start transferring the money to a cause other than the one the donors intend.

The could even make an announcement: we have too much money in PEF, please direct your donations to fast offerings. That would be honest, if it is indeed the case. But it would result, not in a redirection of donations, but in fewer donations. After all, everybody wants to help a poor Mormon kid in a 3rd world country, but few want to help pay for the rent of the unemployed smoker down the street.

[Eddie]

Just for the record - on the issues revolving around CC being in the 2-3 billion range and 5 billion going into downtown suddenly meaning that CC must've been 5 billion...

I have a co-worker who chairs one of the SLC community councils and is very up-to-date on the projects occurring in the area. We've had discussions about some of the SLC renovations projects. And trust me when I tell you - CC isn't the only money being spent.

I don't remember all of our conversations - but how far back are they looking to account for the alleged $5 billion?

Does The Leonardo count towards that amount? How much is the new courthouse costing? Have they counted any of the trax line construction to the airport and new bridge on North Temple as well as the ongoing construction on 400 West?

Rambam - it isn't that you ask questions. It is that you wear blinders yourself and do your best to ignore absolutely ANY evidence of anything except details that would paint the LDS church in the worst light possible.

Suddenly the ONLY thing that has been built in SLC in the past 5 years is City Creek. Suddenly the LDS church has misused PE, tithing, and missionary funds to construct City Creek, so they changed the donation slip to make it OK. Of course, there's no evidence of this. So you throw out wild accusations and ask folks to prove they aren't true.

I like the fact that people ask questions. I think it's healthy. I don't think it's healthy to assume the worst...every...single...time.

[byu71]

Just trying to help people. I'm not offended.

I actually can relate to that. I have expressed my opinion before on something I have no business in. Like worrying about what Kyle is doing.