City Creek Mall, tithing and other musings

[_Fiannan]

Aren't malls the new temples to consumerism?

[_Analytics]

Also, is there any truth to tithing funds no longer deemed tithing funds if the money has sat in an account for 24 or more months?

I find the assertion that no tithing money was used fascinating, because I don't know what that even means.

So let’s say that one year they take in $10 billion in tithing, but only spend $9 billion (on the salaries of the professional clergy, CES, buildings, etc.). What do they do with the extra $1 billion of tithing money? They're going to invest it, of course. Gordon B. Hinckley explained this once. Specifically, they will make capital infusions (or possibly loans) into businesses they own. So, the "tithing money" is what's invested into the for-profit enterprises.

From the perspective of the for-profit enterprise, are the capital infusions they receive still "tithing money"? I don't think they'd call it that--they'd call it "owner’s equity" or something like that, and they'd consider it their business obligation to use it to build for-profit businesses and generate a positive investment return for the owners. It would seem that by filtering the money from one legal entity to another, the actual cash ceases to be "tithing money".

Let's say the business turns a profit. The church invests $1 billion into its corporate empire, and a year later the corporate empire returns $1.03 billion, for a modest 3% return. If investment returns turn one billion of “tithing money” into $1.03 billion, is that classified as $1.03 billion of tithing money, or is it $1.00 billion of tithing money, plus $30 million somewhat less-sacred money?

These types of questions need answers to have any idea what "tihting money" even means.

[_Drifting]

Also, is there any truth to tithing funds no longer deemed tithing funds if the money has sat in an account for 24 or more months?

I find the assertion that no tithing money was used fascinating, because I don't know what that even means.

So let’s say that one year they take in $10 billion in tithing, but only spend $9 billion (on the salaries of the professional clergy, CES, buildings, etc.). What do they do with the extra $1 billion of tithing money? They're going to invest it, of course. Gordon B. Hinckley explained this once. Specifically, they will make capital infusions (or possibly loans) into businesses they own. So, the "tithing money" is what's invested into the for-profit enterprises.

From the perspective of the for-profit enterprise, are the capital infusions they receive still "tithing money"? I don't think they'd call it that--they'd call it "owner’s equity" or something like that, and they'd consider it their business obligation to use it to build for-profit businesses and generate a positive investment return for the owners. It would seem that by filtering the money from one legal entity to another, the actual cash ceases to be "tithing money".

Let's say the business turns a profit. The church invests $1 billion into its corporate empire, and a year later the corporate empire returns $1.03 billion, for a modest 3% return. If investment returns turn one billion of “tithing money” into $1.03 billion, is that classified as $1.03 billion of tithing money, or is it $1.00 billion of tithing money, plus $30 million somewhat less-sacred money?

These types of questions need answers to have any idea what "tihting money" even means.

When using the phrase "no tithing funds were used" they do not include any proceeds of tithing, however gained - interest on savings, profits generated by tithing funded businesses etc.

As with everything the Church says, it's mealy mouthed weasel worded fudging to avoid telling the truth.

[_lostindc]

Is there an apologetic viewpoint floating around regarding the necessity of city creek?

[_lostindc]

I find myself at a loss too...I am unsure why there is a massive attempt to conceal where tithing dollars are spent? There is not a sane apologist in the world willing to take on these issues.

I find the assertion that no tithing money was used fascinating, because I don't know what that even means.

So let’s say that one year they take in $10 billion in tithing, but only spend $9 billion (on the salaries of the professional clergy, CES, buildings, etc.). What do they do with the extra $1 billion of tithing money? They're going to invest it, of course. Gordon B. Hinckley explained this once. Specifically, they will make capital infusions (or possibly loans) into businesses they own. So, the "tithing money" is what's invested into the for-profit enterprises.

From the perspective of the for-profit enterprise, are the capital infusions they receive still "tithing money"? I don't think they'd call it that--they'd call it "owner’s equity" or something like that, and they'd consider it their business obligation to use it to build for-profit businesses and generate a positive investment return for the owners. It would seem that by filtering the money from one legal entity to another, the actual cash ceases to be "tithing money".

Let's say the business turns a profit. The church invests $1 billion into its corporate empire, and a year later the corporate empire returns $1.03 billion, for a modest 3% return. If investment returns turn one billion of “tithing money” into $1.03 billion, is that classified as $1.03 billion of tithing money, or is it $1.00 billion of tithing money, plus $30 million somewhat less-sacred money?

These types of questions need answers to have any idea what "tihting money" even means.

[_Fiannan]

If one buys their thong bikini at the Mormon Mall is it okay for a young woman attending BYU to wear it on spring break?

[_lostindc]

If one buys their thong bikini at the Mormon Mall is it okay for a young woman attending BYU to wear it on spring break?

yes, without question