Church's new City Creek Mall Plaza Complex commercial on TV

[HeirofNumenor]

2- re: global financial issues...They would be smart to buy up everything they can.

Since when is religion in charge of "global financial issues"?

You (deliberately?) missed what I said...This comment was in relation to to a prudent course of action for an entity which holds large amounts of currency from a nation which is about to either inflate its money supply or go bankrupt - that course is to buy up assets (ala Japan, China, Arabs) while you still can...

[HeirofNumenor]

These comments about the money should have been spent on the poor reminds me of complaints I saw made about the San Diego Temple:

In 1993 I was in San Diego for the open house and dedication of the temple. Some of the anti-Mormon pamphlets claimed that the Church had no business spending $25 million on the temple ( plus $7 million for the land and $16 million for the office building next door so the Church could secure rights to the parking garage and lots for temple patrons); rather that money should have gone to the poor instead of towards the temple.
The location, lot dimensions mandated a more expensive design than the planned 6 free-standing spires temple as in Boise, Dallas, and Chicago. While Pres. Hinckley toured another potential site in an average middle class area which allowed for a Boise style temple; he stated that the Holy Ghost rejected that site and confirmed the vastly more expensive La Jolla site. That site has much better access, and much higher visibility of the temple and for the Church- which goes to both PR and missionary work.

Anyone and everyone can and will find a reason to complain - about pretty much everything.

God & Church are not a democracy. Your demands of openness, and putting everything to a vote for common consent is equivalent to a legislature having to put EVERY decision it makes to the people in a public referendum. America's Founding Fathers saw that this did not work in ancient Greece, nor would it work in America. Similarly - it will not work in the Lord's church, which is based on priesthood leadership and revelation.

Or would you rather have us become like the Presbyterians and Lutherans - putting to a public vote for every decision, policy, or appointment?

[AussieOi]

i am sure nobody here has a problem with money being spent on temples and chaples.

but this is a shopping centre. a mall. the physical representation of mammon. analogous, metaphoric, quintessential, definitive, callit what you will

EVERY temple on this earth was built for less than the church spent on this shopping centre

but lets not confuse the issue eh

a few points for the 80% of readers who would no doubt be struggling with this,and our apparent charity,message of christ, message of king benjamin, no doubt struggling to reconcile all this with a church that seems to stand for so little.

don't let it bother you

what man does is irrelevant to what god wills. and we are all human.

the church is a big organisation and this is just an investment.a poor one, but just an income earner. vacant land/ parks would probably have been more harmonious for the surrounds, but its a corporation

the issue is NOT this, it is us. what will WE, individually do.

pay your tithing and do your bit and get on with it

the stewardship things are slightly correct, but improperly used here for no other reason than there is very little way to justify this monstrosity and church and this is the only retort they can find.

personally when i hear someone say the words "stewardship" or "return and report" i know i'm dealing with a Morbot and know im not on the same page as them with most things not doctrinally related

just sigh, and such is life

the church is telling all its members across the world it is not just a USA organisation but a SLC organisation. for good or bad right or wrong

[AussieOi]

God & Church are not a democracy.

true

so what you are telling us then, is that this is what god told the prophet he wanted built

he wanted that money spent on a mall right next to his house, and he did NOT want it spent on the poor or the needy or other things that can build his kingdom. is that what you are saying?

i agree. its HIS money, he can do what he wants with it

you are saying this is what he wanted?

[Mark]

God & Church are not a democracy.

true

so what you are telling us then, is that this is what god told the prophet he wanted built

he wanted that money spent on a mall right next to his house, and he did NOT want it spent on the poor or the needy or other things that can build his kingdom. is that what you are saying?

i agree. its HIS money, he can do what he wants with it

you are saying this is what he wanted?

This is where the rubber meets the road bloke. As a latter day saint do you believe that the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are prophets, seers, and revelators?

If so do you believe that they would approach decisions like this one in the spirit of fasting and prayer?

If the Lord was displeased with their decision to fund this project do you feel the Brethren would currently be acting in a state of open rebellion unwilling to submit to the Lords will in righteousness?

In good conscience how could you then sustain these men as prophets, seers and revelators as you will be asked to do in conference if you felt that their actions are not pleasing to the Lord?

Would they not disqualify themselves in their high and holy calling if in fact they are not following the Lords will in these decisions made with the funds of the church?

If in fact you feel the Brethren are not acting properly you should at least have enough personal integrity to take these objections to your file leaders and register those objections formally against the leadership of the church.

Do the right thing Aussie. You too Thinker. And you Col. And anyone else here who feel the Brethren are not doing the Lords will in their offices. Show us all what you are made of. Make your stand now. :-w

[SempiternalHarbinger]

It's self righteous and not Christ like at all. If you are concerned about the poor, help them.

Why do you think I pay 10% of my income to the church and give generously in fast offerings?

If you are concerned about vanity, work to eliminate that attribute from your own life and the lives of those under your stewardship.

Who do you think you are - my keeper? I'm about as frugal and thrify a Dad/Father as you'll find buddy as I have no desire to obtain the vain things of this world that don't have some kind of spiritual/family purpose... and guess who's taught its members for dozens of years to avoid vain ambitions?

Don't however, criticize the brethren called to lead the church and pretend that you are doing it for charitable reasons.

Please get off your high-horse - I am not criticizing - I'm merely asking why billions for a luxury mall instead of allocating those monies for causes a church should be engaged in?

Your position is akin to the liberals who are so concerned with creating social programs for the poor with everyone else's money.

) =;

Stop worrying about what the Church does with money that is outside your stewardship.

Sorry, but those of us concerned about a church using billions for a mall are perfectly within our right to ask questions.

Whatever truth b known/col.Flagg. Don't even pretend for one second that this is about the poor or merely asking questions. Your not asking questions your condemning the Lords anointed. That's what's going on here. If you were merely asking questions, I would have no problem. I know allot of good people are in the middle on this issue. Fine. I have no problem with this. But to act as if all your doing is asking questions is not true. Your not asking questions but are casting stones. And to say those who support the mall are blindly following is also off the mark.

D&C 18:20
Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.

And If anyone really thinks this mall takes away food from the poor is sorely mistaken. Weather that mall was or was not built it would not change one thing in regards to the poor and those who stand in need. What would you have the church do, donated $5 billion to governments to feed their people? Well, you can guarantee only a tenth a percent (if that) would actually get to the people who stand in need. It's not like the church can walk into any country and start feeding and clothing people. Not how this world is run. It's just delusional to think this mall takes away from the poor. It's sad to see some on here make this the issue. What will it be...... build a mall???? or feed the poor???? As if this was the decision our leaders were faced with and they actually chose a mall over feeding the poor. For all those who are questioning this, may the Spirit be with you this weekend over general conference that one may know the truthfulness of the messages presented by the Lords anointed.

@Aussie.... I have no idea what you are blabbing about to me... None of it made any sense. I was sharing an expirence about a friends family who felt the spirit while attending temple square and you go on some tirade full of nonsense. :-\

[patriotsaint]

Stop worrying about what the Church does with money that is outside your stewardship.

It is not outside my stewardship, as I already explained.
It is right inside my stewardship & I am response-able.
According to you, we're supposed to look the other way & keep our traps shut & just praise our leaders, no matter what they do, even when it is obviously counter to what Jesus taught.
According to you, we are supposed to stick with our own families, maybe venture over to support our leader's shopping center spent with funds intended for the poor, otherwise, stay in our "stewardship" in our own little town wards, & forget the almost 1,000,000,000 men, women & children who are starving to death.

"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me...
"Inasmuch as ye have done NOT it unto one of the least of these, ye have NOT done it unto me."-Matt 25:40,45

Your explanation was bunk before and it is now as well. I already explained why your "people starving" stance is ludicrous, but go ahead and keep on quoting that same scripture in Matthew and ignoring all the scriptures I've quoted as well as those posted by others that show your position to be in error.

[patriotsaint]

It's self righteous and not Christ like at all. If you are concerned about the poor, help them.

Why do you think I pay 10% of my income to the church and give generously in fast offerings?

If you are concerned about vanity, work to eliminate that attribute from your own life and the lives of those under your stewardship.

Who do you think you are - my keeper? I'm about as frugal and thrify a Dad/Father as you'll find buddy as I have no desire to obtain the vain things of this world that don't have some kind of spiritual/family purpose... and guess who's taught its members for dozens of years to avoid vain ambitions?

Don't however, criticize the brethren called to lead the church and pretend that you are doing it for charitable reasons.

Please get off your high-horse - I am not criticizing - I'm merely asking why billions for a luxury mall instead of allocating those monies for causes a church should be engaged in?

Your position is akin to the liberals who are so concerned with creating social programs for the poor with everyone else's money.

) =;

Stop worrying about what the Church does with money that is outside your stewardship.

Sorry, but those of us concerned about a church using billions for a mall are perfectly within our right to ask questions.

You can act affronted all you want, but your sanctimonious behavior isn't fooling anyone. You, Thinker and others bashing the brethren in this thread remind me of the Pharisees that the Savior so strongly condemned. So pious in your "devotion" that you accuse the innocent.

"AT that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." (Matt 12:1-2)

After explaining why they were wrong the Savior then said, "if ye had known what this meaneth, ... ye would not have condemned the guiltless." (Matt 12:7)

So keep on criticizing the brethren and implying that they have somehow left the path of wisdom and righteousness. Keep using cherry picked scriptures to support your positions. Keep ignoring the quotes and scriptures that don't support your position. Keep up the disingenuous front that you are somehow deeply concerned for the welfare of the Church. Those with eyes to see can recognize your pharisaical attacks for what they are.

[AussieOi]

God & Church are not a democracy.

true

so what you are telling us then, is that this is what god told the prophet he wanted built

he wanted that money spent on a mall right next to his house, and he did NOT want it spent on the poor or the needy or other things that can build his kingdom. is that what you are saying?

i agree. its HIS money, he can do what he wants with it

you are saying this is what he wanted?

This is where the rubber meets the road bloke. As a latter day saint do you believe that the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are prophets, seers, and revelators?

non sequitor. this is how you work mark.
irrelevant

If so do you believe that they would approach decisions like this one in the spirit of fasting and prayer?

please provide proof that they did


If the Lord was displeased with their decision to fund this project do you feel the Brethren would currently be acting in a state of open rebellion unwilling to submit to the Lords will in righteousness?

again, non sequiter mark. why are you and others incapable of thinking these man can make decisions without god telling themwhat to do?

also,are you saying then, that if this didnt come from god therefore (because it is a building for spending money) they must therefore be rebellion here?

where in this discussion has their going against his will or they being rebellious EVER been discussed?


In good conscience how could you then sustain these men as prophets, seers and revelators as you will be asked to do in conference if you felt that their actions are not pleasing to the Lord?

again, mark. this. does. not.follow mark
i am sick of your mindless rant saying anyone who disagrees with YOUR view of the LDS world is apostate
are you incapable of more sensible communication that this mark?
5 years and you are as predictable as sunset



Would they not disqualify themselves in their high and holy calling if in fact they are not following the Lords will in these decisions made with the funds of the church?

what are YOU freudianly saying mark? that unless this was his will it would have to be not his will?
hey, you are saying it

for what its worth, who says he even cares about us
tiffany
200,000 of his children die EACH and EVERY week,for lack of food and glucose basically
nordstroms
i doubt he really cares that much about us fat white LDS plebs to waste his time putting it into the mind of men who have been taught from the same scriptures you and i read and can make up their own minds
the gap
he lets us have what we want
armies and navies,blood and horror



If in fact you feel the Brethren are not acting properly you should at least have enough personal integrity to take these objections to your file leaders and register those objections formally against the leadership of the church.

grow up mark, we've seen this response from you 5000 times and it doesnt cut it alright.its your easy answer when you dont know what to say "well why dont you take it to your line LEADER and see how that flies" so howd that work for sophie scholl again mark?

Do the right thing Aussie. You too Thinker. And you Col. And anyone else here who feel the Brethren are not doing the Lords will in their offices. Show us all what you are made of. Make your stand now. :-w

i call you out mark
you too are saying that this is what the lord wanted?
he specifically told them he wants a $1.5,or $2b or $5b or $500m it doesnt matter

170 years after crossing the plains this is what he wanted
you tell me. which is it. 3 options for you

1. he told them to build it
2. he told them NOT to build it
3. he didnt tell them anything they just made the decision

[AussieOi]

@Aussie.... I have no idea what you are blabbing about to me... None of it made any sense. I was sharing an expirence about a friends family who felt the spirit while attending temple square and you go on some tirade full of nonsense. :-\

temple square or the shopping mall?

is that meant to be a macho god as your avatar?

[AussieOi]

“The Whole Church is Under Condemnation”: The Talk that Changed the Church
April 2, 2008
By Bruce Nielson

April 1986: President Benson presides over his first General Conference. Did anyone listening to his humble little talk, called “Cleaning the Inner Vessel,” realize that it would send ripples through the Church and start a massive change in Church policy and doctrine?

President Benson said:

Unless we read the Book of Mormon and give heed to its teachings, the Lord has stated in section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants that the whole Church is under condemnation: “And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.” (D&C 84:56.) The Lord continues: “And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written.” (D&C 84:57.)

Now we not only need to say more about the Book of Mormon, but we need to do more with it. Why? The Lord answers: “That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.” (D&C 84:58.) We have felt that scourge and judgment!

The Prophet Joseph said that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” (Book of Mormon, Introduction.) The Book of Mormon has not been, nor is it yet, the center of our personal study, family teaching, preaching, and missionary work. Of this we must repent.

Only a teenager at the time, this is one of the few general conferences of which I remember well. Our family concentrated our family scripture reading on The Book of Mormon shortly thereafter.

President Benson has actually delivered a similar message in his talks as President of the Quorum of the Twelve. In 1975 he had given a similar message but with tamer rhetoric. (link) In a 1985 talk he broached the subject again, with somewhat stronger rhetoric. (link) But it was the 1986 talk, after he was President of the Church, that we felt the real impact from this message. Soon President Benson became known as “The Book of Mormon President” due to his reoccurring emphasis of the Book of Mormon.

How did a re-emphasis and re-discovery of the Book of Mormon change the Church? It was after 1986 that the Church made marked changes. We emphasized:

The scriptures as the basis for our teachings. (2 Nephi 4:15-16; 1 Nephi 19:23; Alma 13:20; Alma 17:2)
The basic doctrines of salvation over folk-doctrines.
Teachings on Jesus Christ as our Eternal God. (Mosiah 15:1-5; Title Page; 2 Nephi 26:12)
Salvation through the Grace of Christ and not by the merit of our works. (Alma 22:14; 2 Ne. 2:8; Alma 34:12; 2 Ne. 9:7; Alma 34:8-16)
The role of faith in salvation. (Alma 34:8-16; Ether 12:6; Moroni 7:38)
The role of having a covenant relationship with Christ. (Mosiah 5:5-8; Mosiah 6:1-2; 1 Nephi 13:23; Mosiah 18:10, 13; Alma 7:15; 3 Nephi 21:22)

The Book of Mormon’s teachings on the above subjects are strong and certain. Looking back years later, Dalin H. Oaks reviewed how President Benson’s ministry had changed the face of the Church. (This talk is worth reading in its own right.) “The subject I believe we have neglected [that put the Church under condemnation as per President Benson's Book of Mormon emphasis] is the Book of Mormon’s witness of the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ and our covenant relationship to him. …”

Oaks went on to say:

I believe that for a time and until recently our public talks and our literature were deficient in the frequency and depth with which they explained and rejoiced in those doctrinal subjects most closely related to the atonement of the Savior. A prominent gospel scholar saw this deficiency in our Church periodicals published in a 23-year period ending in 1983. I saw this same deficiency when I reviewed the subjects of general conference addresses during the decade ending in the mid-1980s.

It is interesting that mid-1980′s is also the time that many people see as when the Church tried to “fit in” better by attempting to “[depict] themselves as yet another Christian denomination alongside various other Protestant denominations…” (link)

But pretend for a moment that you are watching two different Churches go through two very different changes. Church A is re-discovering the teachings of the Book of Mormon and finding they should emphasize certain doctrines more that they coincidentally have in common with other Christian religions. Church B is “trying to fit it” by redefining itself to be more Protestant? Would these two very different changes look different to an observer? Is it possible that how one perceives the change tells us more about the observer than of the observed?

And yet, there should be some important and observable differences between Church A and Church B: Does anyone accuse the LDS Church of trying to “fit in” by emphasizing the sovereignty of God to predestinate salvation? (Alma 13:3; 2 Ne. 2: 27-29; 2 Ne. 10: 23; Hel 14:30-31) Does anyone accuse the Church of downplaying the importance of obedience in the salvation process? (2 Nephi 31:19-20, Moroni 6:4; Mosiah 5:5, 8) Does anyone accuse the Church of believing in “the priesthood of the believer” and downplaying their own authority claims? (Alma 6:1, 8; Alma 13; 2 Nephi 6:2; 3 Nephi 11:21) Does anyone accuse Mormons of believing that all you have to do is accept Christ, even right at the end of life, and you are “saved?” (Alma 34:32-37) Does anyone accuse Mormons of downplaying the importance of Baptism as modern Protestants do? (2 Nephi 31:5, 17; 3 Nephi 11:33-34)

Note: All links open to a new page.

[ChelC]

Aussie, I understand your position to be this:
God neither sanctioned nor prohibited this endeavor.

Is that correct?

If so, follow the logic. If this endeavor were so incredibly wrong, why did God fail to intervene? Can't have it both ways.

[Juliette]

Oh how I love you men and women who honor and defend our Church. Hang in there!

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken ahard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the bguilty taketh the ctruth to be hard, for it dcutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might awalk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

4 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did exhort my brethren, with all diligence, to keep the commandments of the Lord.

[Thinker]

i agree. its HIS money, he can do what he wants with it

you are saying this is what he wanted?

The problem is that people are equating church leaders with God.
They are NOT God.
God is God.
God is light, truth & LOVE.

Our church is named after Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ condemned the love of money & prioritized loving others.
Plain & simple.

The fact that others are trying to justify evil, in some ways, is more evil than the evil itself.
This is how many "legions" have been persuaded to do evil.

[Thinker]

Oh how I love you men and women who honor and defend our Church. Hang in there!

You mean, how you love those who worship & defend men over God, no matter what evil is done.
How about honoring & defending he who our church is named after?

Don't you see, Juliette? You are casting Jesus' teachings down, in favor of men who use sacred funds to build shopping malls.

[AussieOi]

Aussie, I understand your position to be this:
God neither sanctioned nor prohibited this endeavor.

Is that correct?

my belief yes

If so, follow the logic. If this endeavor were so incredibly wrong, why did God fail to intervene?

we are irrelevant
he has better things to do
what,we need a lighning bolt to see the folly?

Can't have it both ways.

on the contrary,WE shouldnt expect to have it either way



in regards to folly. one only needs to look into possibly half the decisions by joseph smith
saw god
regular revelations (the canonised kind)
saw angels
made LOTS of bad decisions
when did our faith become so shallow that we deified our leaders?

[patriotsaint]

i agree. its HIS money, he can do what he wants with it

you are saying this is what he wanted?

The problem is that people are equating church leaders with God.
They are NOT God.
God is God.
God is light, truth & LOVE.

Our church is named after Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ condemned the love of money & prioritized loving others.
Plain & simple.

The fact that others are trying to justify evil, in some ways, is more evil than the evil itself.
This is how many "legions" have been persuaded to do evil.

Nonsense. I'm beginning to think you should have chosen the name accuser instead of thinker. Just because you accuse the brethren of loving money more than people does not make it true. Just because you accuse people on this forum of worshiping leaders does not make it true. Were you part of the meetings they had regarding this project? Do you know their hearts? Where is your proof?

You dive headlong into your false paradigm and make whatever assumptions are necessary in order to bolster your position.

[Mark]

Oh how I love you men and women who honor and defend our Church. Hang in there!

You mean, how you love those who worship & defend men over God, no matter what evil is done.
How about honoring & defending he who our church is named after?

Don't you see, Juliette? You are casting Jesus' teachings down, in favor of men who use sacred funds to build shopping malls.

It can't get any clearer than this. Thinker and those who stand with him think the Brethren are misusing sacred funds to make friends with Babylon. They believe the Brethren are fallen and in a state of apostasy. This is the stand they are making. Those on this forum need to see this as it is. Is this church led by men who have lost the spirit of God and are more interested in profits than being prophets. Take your stand. I reject this argument outright and call it as it is: speaking ill of the Lords annointed and a violation of sacred temple covenants.

[awake]

speaking ill of the Lords annointed and a violation of sacred temple covenants.

Pointing out what one believes to be 'error or wrongdoing', even in leaders, is not 'speaking ill of the Lord's anointed', it is even a commandment to do so. All saints who have been through the temple are considered the 'Lords annointed'.

We are commanded to determine, judge and discern whether members and even all leaders are righteous or not and if their teachings and actions are true and correct or not. For it is our obligation and responsibility to not allow ourselves to be led astray by anyone, even prophets, who can error and be wrong and even fall.

Even Joseph Smith pointed out to the Church when some of the apostles were in error or when they fell and did evil. He was not speaking ill of the apostles, he was warning the Saints of their errors, so they wouldn't be led astray by them.

We are warned that there will be many false teachings and doctrines in the Church today, even taught by some leaders. Thus, we are to be alert and discerning and warn others when we feel we see such errors.

Speaking ill of someone is when we intentionally spread falsehoods about someone, with the intent to hurt them by our speech.

It is not when we, hopefully lovingly, warn others of a leader's errors, so people aren't deceived by what may be falsehoods.

Even if we are wrong in our assessment, if our intent was good, it is not evil speaking. Speaking evil means we intend to do evil against a person.

It is Christlike and loving to lovingly point out errors, even in our leaders.

For everyone and anyone can fall & led us astray, IF we don't have the Spirit to discern truth from error and right from wrong.

[Fiannan]

Aussie, I understand your position to be this:
God neither sanctioned nor prohibited this endeavor.

Is that correct?

If so, follow the logic. If this endeavor were so incredibly wrong, why did God fail to intervene? Can't have it both ways.

I am not sure the final destination of following this logic is as clear cut as you think. There are many decisions that may be not be directly from God and this may be one. Our leaders are given the task (in a corporate sense) to maximize the resources of the Church. Does God give insider information? Doesn't the Church hire financial consultants who approach our leaders on business ventures or did President Monson get a vision for building a mall?

I do not care if the mall is owned by the Church...but don't condemn me if I joke about the young women getting their thong underwear at one of the fashionable stores at "The Mormon Mall." And if my daughter decides to get a bunch of ear-ring piercings I will tell her to do it at "The Mormon Mall" since if done at a jewelery store at "The Mormon Mall" that might make it more justifiable if a more uptight member questions her.

[ATL Wake]

"The City Creek multi-billion dollar project has excited a lot of criticism. The result has been dismay by many faithful Latter-day Saints. Their anxiety over the project has become the subject of many conversations on the Internet.

To grapple with this outpouring of criticism and in some cases disgust, the church has paid employees and volunteers who post on-line responses using personas, or anonymous identities to beat back those who express concern. Many of the multiple personas are put up by the same church employee.

The arguments advanced by those who are concerned about the investment in the City Creek shopping center most often cite scripture. Their observations are based on sincere belief, supported by positions taken from scripture study, and reflect honest concern. The defense is based on the concept of supporting the leadership, sustaining the church's prophet, and uses comments taken from church talks, sermons, etc.

The gulf between these two positions is one of the great divisions in the church today. The numbers of those holding these two positions are not equal, however. The one is held by sincere, believing members of the church who honestly disagree with the use of these funds for this elaborate, costly project. The other is advanced for the most part by paid employees or volunteers who are doing so using multiple personas to justify the church's conduct.

In the realm of political debate, the production of artificial arguments by personas has been termed "astroturf" because it is not real. The artificial "astroturf" is in contrast to the grassroots movement of people. When enough "astroturf" has been sent out by the political machines, the grassroots will often respond. What began as fiction, or hope, turns into actual public opinion. The political parties and big business employ these techniques all the time now.

Interestingly, there are those inside the church's organized effort who do not believe the arguments they are advancing. Some of them have been persuaded the church's position is in fact wrong. They continue to make the arguments. It is their job. But they do not believe in the position they advance.

It is a fascinating moment to watch. It will be equally interesting to see if conference visitors from around the United States and the world visit the City Creek project and return dismayed, or return home gratified to see this expensive investment by the church."

[Fiannan]

Okay ATL Wake I googled your post and found the sourceof at least the first part at some place called Denversnufferblogspot http://denversnuffer.blogspot.se/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there any verification that the Church is using its employees to spam the net in favor of the mall?

[HeirofNumenor]

I think the fact that Denver Snuffer is posting that speaks volumes as to it's (lack of) credibility.

[juniper]

I am deeply dissappointed with members that dont sustain and support the Lords chosen leaders! The Prophet is the Lords mouthpiece! If they want to invest on a mall to revitalize dowtown SLC then I will Support it! Its as simple as that!!!! We dont know all the details or the reasoning behind it, for all we know there is a wise purpose in the mall. I will not particapate in evil speaking of the Lords annointed.

[A Random Phrase]

So, which of you guys is a shill?

To grapple with this outpouring of criticism and in some cases disgust, the church has paid employees and volunteers who post on-line responses using personas, or anonymous identities to beat back those who express concern. Many of the multiple personas are put up by the same church employee.
. . .
The gulf between these two positions is one of the great divisions in the church today. The numbers of those holding these two positions are not equal, however. The one is held by sincere, believing members of the church who honestly disagree with the use of these funds for this elaborate, costly project. The other is advanced for the most part by paid employees or volunteers who are doing so using multiple personas to justify the church's conduct.
. . .
I'd like readers to note I've not taken a position in this post. It does not deal with anything other than the events unfolding and how the reactions are being advanced and defended. Nothing more.
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/ ... jacob.html

shill
   [shil] Slang .
noun
1.
a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2.
a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill?s=t