That's what 'ajax' just did with City Creek and Hinckley's lie.
I knew about City Creek Mall before I came to a crisis of nonbelief. Once I regained an eternal perspective, it just didn't bother me anymore.
I don't strive to give everything to God as I once did. That may be good or bad. I'm happy with my level of commitment and I'll be rewarded or cursed accordingly. I no longer believe that God cheats or gives a pass to some and not others as I once was told in the LDS church. I'm comfortable in being in a community where enough of them see it my way.
Last edited by ajax18 on Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Late to this discussion but it seems to me that Hinckley might have been at least arguably telling the truth in saying no tithing funds were used to build the mall, even though tithing funds were used to underwrite it.
I'm not an expert in real estate financing but I believe that underwriting is essentially putting up collateral for a loan. So it sounds to me as though the Church borrowed money to build the mall by posting investment funds, generated from tithing, as collateral. If in fact that mall turned out to be profitable and there was never any default on the loan, then none of the pledged investment funds would have been touched.
Were the investment funds then "used" to build the mall? Well, in a way they were and in a way they weren't. They weren't used in the way that most people think of money being used, namely by being spent. When you're rich enough, though, there are other ways to use money besides spending it. Putting up that investment hoard as collateral would likely have let the Church secure a lower interest rate, for example, than it otherwise could have obtained. That's a use of the money.
Underwriting is not a use that's completely different from spending, because it involves some risk of losing at least some of the money, if you end up in default on the loan. (At least I think that's the deal.) But perhaps the Church leaders were very confident that that wouldn't happen and that the investment funds were in no danger at all. Unless we really credit them with prophetic powers there must have been some risk, but I think one reason that rich people get richer is that you can often save quite a bit in interest fees with little risk to your capital just by reassuring a lender that you have the capital. There may really be some amount of free lunch attached to merely having a big blob of cash, if you play your cards right. And so I think there may be a case to be made that underwriting a project with a big blob of cash does not count as using that cash.
If I'm not all wrong in my understanding of how underwriting works, anyway, then Hinckley may at least arguably just have been saying that the mall was not bought by spending tithing funds, and that might well have been true.
Late to this discussion but it seems to me that Hinckley might have been at least arguably telling the truth in saying no tithing funds were used to build the mall, even though tithing funds were used to underwrite it.
You have to look at what Hinckley actually said:
President Hinckley proclaimed “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."
Using tithing funds to underwrite the City Creek endeavour is using tithing funds to acquire and develop it.
Serious question here. Why would they secure a loan where they have to pay interest vice just using a fat stack of tithing money? I’d think paying for something in cash would be the better move, no?
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Late to this discussion but it seems to me that Hinckley might have been at least arguably telling the truth in saying no tithing funds were used to build the mall, even though tithing funds were used to underwrite it.
I'm not an expert in real estate financing but I believe that underwriting is essentially putting up collateral for a loan. So it sounds to me as though the Church borrowed money to build the mall by posting investment funds, generated from tithing, as collateral. If in fact that mall turned out to be profitable and there was never any default on the loan, then none of the pledged investment funds would have been touched....
Why do you think the church took out a commercial loan?
I don't think the Church would go to a commercial lender, fill out an application, pledge collateral, etc. It is much too secretive to go through that process and disclose its assets to a nosey lender.
What I think it did was it "borrowed" money from Ensign Peek in the same way that you would borrow money from your 401(k), or more accurately, in the same way you would "borrow" money from your savings account to pay for a big expense like a luxury automobile, and then "pay back" the loan by depositing money back into the savings account over the next few months or years.
But that's just an educated guess.
Last edited by Analytics on Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offerings are given in faith. In fact, I would say that the faith that it takes to offer up part of what we have takes the faith of a little child. We can come up with all sorts of rationalizations for not paying a tithe to the Lord.
I do believe that my wife and I and our family have been blessed throughout our lives by paying an honest tithe.
I honestly don’t see a problem with the church having a rainy day fund. Or families for that matter.
I honestly don’t see a problem with the church having a rainy day fund. Or families for that matter.
Of course Jesus taught that you should NOT have a rainy day fund, and instead should sell all you have, give it to the poor, and not plan or worry about tomorrow.
Other than people who take the teachings of Jesus seriously, nobody has criticized the Church for merely "having a rainy day fund." The question is how big should the fund be? What I'm talking about here applies to any church or any non-profit organization that collects charitable donations that are ostensibly for some noble purpose. Such organizations can save too much.
Using standard guidelines used by charities, if the Church spends $5 Billion a year preaching the gospel, perfecting the saints, and redeeming the dead, then its rainy day fund shouldn't be much more than $5 Billion. A rainy day fund that is 25 times the annual budget is not a rainy day fund. It is hoarding. It is saving money for the sake of saving money. It is making money an end unto itself.
Late to this discussion but it seems to me that Hinckley might have been at least arguably telling the truth in saying no tithing funds were used to build the mall, even though tithing funds were used to underwrite it.
I'm not an expert in real estate financing but I believe that underwriting is essentially putting up collateral for a loan. So it sounds to me as though the Church borrowed money to build the mall by posting investment funds, generated from tithing, as collateral. If in fact that mall turned out to be profitable and there was never any default on the loan, then none of the pledged investment funds would have been touched....
Why do you think the church took out a commercial loan?
I don't think the Church would go to a commercial lender, fill out an application, pledge collateral, etc. It is much too secretive to go through that process and disclose its assets to a nosey lender.
What I think it did was it "borrowed" money from Ensign Peek in the same way that you would borrow money from your 401(k), or more accurately, in the same way you would "borrow" money from your savings account to pay for a big expense like a luxury automobile, and then "pay back" the loan by depositing money back into the savings account over the next few months or years.
But that's just an educated guess.
A pretty good one, in my opinion. To me, bottom line is the lds church uses donated funds and then privately benefits from tax exemptions in ways that just barely, and only technically, follow the law. They keep every bit of information they can hidden, and take advantage of sincere people in truly repugnant ways. It is not a moral or ethical position to take.
A rainy day fund that is 25 times the annual budget is not a rainy day fund. It is hoarding. It is saving money for the sake of saving money. It is making money an end unto itself.
Why would the church save money only for the sake of saving money?
