Feeding the Fortune 500

[_Lemmie]

Thanks Exiled. I'm presently awaiting cyber Monday though.

(P.S. I've updated my "foe" list to include a fourth name, and I can see the board clearly once more)

Me, too, awaiting! Regarding the board, however, unfortunately visitors can’t.

[_Physics Guy]

Many thanks to Gadianton for the tip.

[_Dr Moore]

Of course it is a valid argument that ownership of the equity capital behind City Creek differs from “spending money” to improve the area, however selfish the motive on the church’s part, to the extent that just spending money presumes the money is spent, eg gone, as opposed to an equity investment which purportedly holds or increases in value over time.

Spending the money, if executed as connoted by critics, is an operating expense which legitimately should be critiqued due to the magnitude involved and the immense social benefits — Christianity applied — which could otherwise be realized. I don’t think this is what happened, but am not privy to the structure of the investment nor any pre-project expenses that the church may have incurred. Presumably any such expenditures were properly accounted for and attributed in the investment case.

My experience with church leaders and money over the years has left a strong impression about the care with which church funds are deployed. However, a project like City Creek is unique and will likely have been justified with unique non monetary justification in the final ROI analysis.

The better question for critics, which I don’t see being asked or answered, is (1) how City Creek is capitalized, (2) what the cash flow characteristics are for equity holders after servicing whatever debt may be involved, speaking to whether this is an investment that stands on its own financial merits or not, and (3) what the downside risk is to equity holders over many years, factoring in vacancy risk, depreciation, renewal terms on anchor tenants, etc. In short, is this a legitimate real estate investment or a marketing expense dressed up as capital equity. Given the size of the project relative to the church’s annual operating budget, a better answer to these questions seems in order and members would be justified in asking the question.

I confess to not having investigated public statements by GAs on the matter, but would be very surprised if some spokesman hadn’t at minimum offered a public assurance about the investment worthiness of the project, all things considered. If that hasn’t happened, it’s a red flag.

[_Stem]

I did some battles with Dr. P and Kiwi earlier today. Didn't see this thread.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

Here's some of the stuff to note (if interested):

DanielPeterson
It gives virtually ALL of its money away, David B.

On temples and chapels and missionaries and welfare and educational subsidies and a thousand other things.



David B
Oh great. YOu should correct Kiwi who is intent on saying the tithing funds or used to pay for it's programs, build it buildings, pay it's bill..you know corporation type of spendings. Now it appears you are saying those buildings the Church builds...well those buildings are given away. They don't own them any longer.

Interesting insight into how the Church operates, Dr. I'm curious why you think it does operate in such a fashion?

DanielPeterson
You DO have a gift for misreading.

Those buildings and other efforts are GIFTS, David B. They don't make money. They serve.

Wow.


David B
They hold value, Dr. The Church owns them, therefore the Church has assets. That's not donating anything. That is, in fact, investing. If the Church did not supply it's members with nice buildings to meet in on Sunday or to worship in as temples, then it is quite likely the Church would not be able to hold onto it's membership. Or do you disagree?

Kiwi57

They hold value, Dr. The Church owns them, therefore the Church has assets. That's not donating anything. That is, in fact, investing.

False.

The meetinghouses aren't investments because (1) they don't generate revenue, and (2) aren't being sold for capital gain. There's no monetary return, hence they are not investments.

If the Church did not supply it's members with nice buildings to meet in on Sunday or to worship in as temples, then it is quite likely the Church would not be able to hold onto it's membership. Or do you disagree?

I flatly disagree. I have belonged to units that met in rented accommodations. The Church held onto its membership in those places, and in fact the membership grew.


David B
I think you're thinking a little short-sighted here. My guess is as the membership grew, the Church made more accommodations. THat's how the Church has typically operated--where there are members gaining strength, it will give them buildings and accommodations. Doing such is very much an investment. The church owns the buildings, if, for some reason, the membership dies in the area and the building is no more, the Church can sell it and perhaps make some on it's investment. If it remains strong, then the membership in the area can remain donors to the org, enjoying a safe secure location in which to meet.

Really, this is simple stuff. The Church builds buildings to accommodate a growing membership's needs. As the membership grows the Church gets more donations. As the Church builds it is investing.

DanielPeterson
David B: "Really, this is simple stuff."

Indeed it is.

David B: "The Church builds buildings to accommodate a growing membership's needs. As the membership grows the Church gets more donations. As the Church builds it is investing."

We're really piling up the revenues from our investments in temples and chapels in places like Peru and the Democratic Republic of the Congo!

David B

We're really piling up the revenues from our investments in temples and chapels in places like Peru and the Democratic Republic of the Congo!

Now, now...there's no need to mock due to the variation in qualities of life. Just because a family in Utah making in the area of 100,000 may give 10,000 a year to the org doesn't mean the family in the DRC who is making significantly less, but giving the same rate, should be mocked for their contribution. The Church gets benefit with both groups. If, someday, the Church get's 5,000,000 people from the DRC giving them moneys, well, that may not be the small potatoes you imagine.


DanielPeterson
I'm not mocking the Congolese, David B. I'm mocking your silly economic theory.

And please drop "the org." It's insulting, as you know.

[_Stem]

Our old friend DCP is in top form when he criticizes Church critics for complaining about the corporate nature of the LDS Church:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/lds-inc-part-one.html

One of the more flat-footed aspects of his critique is his comparison of Church critics’ negative views of the multi-billion-dollar upscale shopping destination City Creek with Jesus feeding the 5000.

Think about that. DCP essentially takes critics to task for not seeing how LDS investment in upscale shopping in downtown Salt Lake City is just like Jesus feeding the 5000!

Seriously?

At the very least this sounds a very sour note, but it really misses the point of the message of the Gospels. One of the chief problems of Roman imperialism was that it worked extremely well for a tiny elite and ignored the needs of a vast underclass. Jesus is not depicted building a macellum (market) in Jerusalem. He aims his feeding and instruction at those on the wrong end of Roman imperialism in its cooperation with Jewish elites.

DCP might have focused on LDS welfare, education, etc. It is bizarre, however, to try to liken feeding 5000 hungry people to City Creek Mall.

Excellent post

[_Gadianton]

Those buildings and other efforts are GIFTS, David B. They don't make money. They serve.

Didn't he just get finished saying that City Creek "serves" because it makes money? lol

[_Kishkumen]

Excellent post

Thanks, Stem!

[_Dr Moore]

Yeah I don’t follow the logic about church buildings in the back and forth with David B either. I really don’t get why Kiwi57 claims the authority to redefine an investment as something that must either generate cash flow or be sold for a capital gain. First off, investments are risk capital which means they can be sold at a loss or expire worthless, like an investment in a fine dinner date or an investment in time playing video games instead of going to college classes. And, long term investments such as art or land can be and often are held indefinitely, across generations,, producing no realized direct monetary value, and yet serve as wonderful investments. The right piece of real estate may serve as a source of immense prestige, for instance, and a rare painting might become collateral against low interest perpetual loans to support lavish lifestyles and fund opportunistic short term high return investments afforded to the elite few with access to the right people at the right times. And of course some long term investment assets happen to produce no direct cash flow but tip the domino to incredible second order financial cash inflows, as the church demonstrates year after year through investments in temples and meeting houses.

Church buildings are most definitely not gifts. Unless it counts as a gift if I take my kids’ allowance and use it to buy a TV that they are sometimes allowed to use on my strict terms. Last time I checked, the church gives no deed or stake in the buildings to any members.

Church buildings are maintained for one reason: to further the aims of member retention and new member conversion. One does not have to stretch or be a critic or fan to see that practicality, and plenty of church leaders have been quoted from the days of the hyper growth building program to prove that motive. No big deal. Why make a fuss over it?

[_Kishkumen]

Church buildings are maintained for one reason: to further the aims of member retention and new member conversion. One does not have to stretch or be a critic or fan to see that practicality, and plenty of church leaders have been quoted from the days of the hyper growth building program to prove that motive. No big deal. Why make a fuss over it?

Mopologetics, my good sir. Esteemed colleague, it is all about not agreeing with anything that anyone could possibly construe as a criticism of the LDS Church. The LDS Church only ever does virtuous things for the best possible and most divinely inspired reasons. Criticism should stop before it starts. Only fools criticize the divinely guided LDS Church.

Logic is entirely beside the point.

[_Dr Moore]

Mopologetics, my good sir. Esteemed colleague, it is all about not agreeing with anything that anyone could possibly construe as a criticism of the LDS Church. The LDS Church only ever does virtuous things for the best possible and most divinely inspired reasons. Criticism should stop before it starts.

I should schedule a visit to the rectory to renew my Apologetic Engagement Recommend. My apologies for missing the last appointment, but in my defense our decorated colleague Symmachus asked for assistance with the copy room. WWJD?