Church purchases 823,000-square-foot Pacific Gateway Industrial development for $260 million

[TheDuke]

You need to understand the these topics: Zion as an Idea (United Order), the Land of Zion (The Promised Land), Zion Proper (Independence Missouri AKA New Jerusalem), and the Redemption of Zion (two separate phases: 1st- Financial Mammon which fails, and 2nd- Like unto Moses delivering the Israelites)

Sorry your list is you opinion and not supported very strongly with such vague scriptures. You tell me to better understand the concept (topics) of Zion, yet you seem to tangle them up. It doesn't work that way. I'm justified in saying that the children of Zion (which is none of the topics you list) are children of the place of Zion and the parents were "pure in heart" as Zion is defined................. Sorry, that is a direct application of verse 41. To now twist Zion into 5 parts depending on your opinion does not change the statements I made that are direct to the verses quoted.

[JandD6572]

I was the cleaning coordinator in my ward over a decade ago. I would pass around a signup sheet in sunday school class and 3rd hour classes. I got 4-6 volunteer families each week. We cleaned 4 months per year. They always showed up because they had volunteered on days they were available. This worked well for years. The bishopric then told me that they wanted all of the members of the ward to get the blessings of cleaning the church and not just those who volunteered. I was told to start assigning all active members of the ward to clean on the assigned days. Mandatory service was going to replace voluntary service. I said I wouldn't do it and asked to be replaced. They made me a primary teacher. Now, if more than half of the 4 families assigned show up, it is a good day.

If I were mandoed to do some church service I would try to do it. If I volunteer to do some church service I also try to do it.
The church can mando me any time they want and I won't complain, whether I do it or not depends on if I am functioning at the time, I could be sick or something could happen that I have to give priority to like plumbing or my foot might be killing me and I can't walk or drive.
I am not so proud that I cannot be told what to do and I am not so resistant that I take any of that personally.
If a church leader mandoed me to do something and I ended up not being able to do it and then that leader had a crapfit about it, I would know who the faith lesson was for.
I once failed to do something and my leader took it personal, afterward he refused to shake my hand AT church, that was his individual problem and does not reflect on the church at all.

sure, because the church can never demand you to do anything wrong. I won't even say what comes to mind when I hear so-called members that have their heads so far up the a$$es of church leadership. Shm! I've had my fill of the bullsh$% that you will miss out on the blessings if you do not clean the church buildings. little yuppies, walking dress right dress, never questions, never ask, just do it, because our precious bishop demanded it of us. This Mormon church has done nothing but made indirect slaves out of its members to build their bank accounts. Sadly it took me 57 years to realize this, 57 years of my life wasted, on lies and deceit.

[Craig Johnson]

I was the cleaning coordinator in my ward over a decade ago. I would pass around a signup sheet in sunday school class and 3rd hour classes. I got 4-6 volunteer families each week. We cleaned 4 months per year. They always showed up because they had volunteered on days they were available. This worked well for years. The bishopric then told me that they wanted all of the members of the ward to get the blessings of cleaning the church and not just those who volunteered. I was told to start assigning all active members of the ward to clean on the assigned days. Mandatory service was going to replace voluntary service. I said I wouldn't do it and asked to be replaced. They made me a primary teacher. Now, if more than half of the 4 families assigned show up, it is a good day.

If I were mandoed to do some church service I would try to do it. If I volunteer to do some church service I also try to do it.
The church can mando me any time they want and I won't complain, whether I do it or not depends on if I am functioning at the time, I could be sick or something could happen that I have to give priority to like plumbing or my foot might be killing me and I can't walk or drive.
I am not so proud that I cannot be told what to do and I am not so resistant that I take any of that personally.
If a church leader mandoed me to do something and I ended up not being able to do it and then that leader had a crapfit about it, I would know who the faith lesson was for.
I once failed to do something and my leader took it personal, afterward he refused to shake my hand AT church, that was his individual problem and does not reflect on the church at all.

sure, because the church can never demand you to do anything wrong. I won't even say what comes to mind when I hear so-called members that have their heads so far up the a$$es of church leadership. Shm! I've had my fill of the bullsh$% that you will miss out on the blessings if you do not clean the church buildings. little yuppies, walking dress right dress, never questions, never ask, just do it, because our precious bishop demanded it of us. This Mormon church has done nothing but made indirect slaves out of its members to build their bank accounts. Sadly it took me 57 years to realize this, 57 years of my life wasted, on lies and deceit.

I as mistreated by individuals on several occasions, it never made the church wrong to me.

[InfoWarrior82]

How did the church get the money to invest in business holdings in the first place?

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Where did it come from, then?

[InfoWarrior82]

You need to understand the these topics: Zion as an Idea (United Order), the Land of Zion (The Promised Land), Zion Proper (Independence Missouri AKA New Jerusalem), and the Redemption of Zion (two separate phases: 1st- Financial Mammon which fails, and 2nd- Like unto Moses delivering the Israelites)

Sorry your list is you opinion and not supported very strongly with such vague scriptures. You tell me to better understand the concept (topics) of Zion, yet you seem to tangle them up. It doesn't work that way. I'm justified in saying that the children of Zion (which is none of the topics you list) are children of the place of Zion and the parents were "pure in heart" as Zion is defined................. Sorry, that is a direct application of verse 41. To now twist Zion into 5 parts depending on your opinion does not change the statements I made that are direct to the verses quoted.

So you are denying the scriptures, then?

At the very least, do you understand that there is a difference between Zion (The United Order), and Zion (The physical Place) ? If Zion is a physical place, where is it?

More importantly: Has Zion been redeemed?

Who are the servants in the Lord's parable? Who are the ones that built the foundations, but then disregarded the commandment of the Lord to build the watchtower, by putting tithing money into the stock market instead? WHO IS THAT?

[TheDuke]

I'm not denying the scriptures and yes I agree there are many definitions of Zion. I am looking for support of how it must fit your timeline due to the one scripture and one interpretation of the many for Zion.

Frankly, I haven't much of a clue anymore about what Zion is. Most of what is stated is extrapolation of extrapolations. Like the constant mapping that Zion will be like the failed United Order. BTW studies show the united order (originally called the united firm) was set up for only 14 people in OH and was to improve the land and sell to others. It doesn't look like JS first attempt had anything to do with Zion at all. Just a collective to increase land values. And when Oliver left, he got screwed. Just history, yet it keeps being stated as a basis for what Enoch did and what Jesus will do................ no basis. Perhaps correct, but no basis in true scriptural interpretation.

[Pseudonym]

How did the church get the money to invest in business holdings in the first place?

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Where did it come from, then?

When the Church first moved to the west there was investments in land (from Canada to Mexico) and a lot of investments in industries. Perhaps you remember ZCMI, the children hospital, KSL, and Bonneville. In addition, it is not unusual for members to donate land and other (in kind) to the Church upon their death. Such funds and donations are not part of the other funds donated. In addition, the church has other sources of income such as Deseret Industries.

The main point I wanted to highlight about donations – is that complaints that the church is squandering designated funds – is unfounded and simply not true. The doctrine of economics that was established from the beginning (Joseph Smith) is the concept of industry as expressed by the term Deseret. Which is to create an environment where the Saints are productive even as individuals. The concept is hard to understand when individuals are not concerned about production but rather concerned about selfishly worrying about and lusting over what they think others are accumulating.

The donations are very explicit and exact to what is advertised. There is no overhead charge taken off the top. It does not help the poor if there are no opportunities for them to become productive. It is never just about money. And helping the poor is never about someone else’s money. We could discuss economic principles but it is my impression that some posters are more interested in complaining than accomplishing anything. More than anything I regret that the opportunities for service in the church have dropped considerably since my youth – and yet there seems to me to be more complaining about expectations of service.

[InfoWarrior82]

How did the church get the money to invest in business holdings in the first place?

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Where did it come from, then?

When the Church first moved to the west there was investments in land (from Canada to Mexico) and a lot of investments in industries. Perhaps you remember ZCMI, the children hospital, KSL, and Bonneville. In addition, it is not unusual for members to donate land and other (in kind) to the Church upon their death. Such funds and donations are not part of the other funds donated. In addition, the church has other sources of income such as Deseret Industries.

The main point I wanted to highlight about donations – is that complaints that the church is squandering designated funds – is unfounded and simply not true. The doctrine of economics that was established from the beginning (Joseph Smith) is the concept of industry as expressed by the term Deseret. Which is to create an environment where the Saints are productive even as individuals. The concept is hard to understand when individuals are not concerned about production but rather concerned about selfishly worrying about and lusting over what they think others are accumulating.

The donations are very explicit and exact to what is advertised. There is no overhead charge taken off the top. It does not help the poor if there are no opportunities for them to become productive. It is never just about money. And helping the poor is never about someone else’s money. We could discuss economic principles but it is my impression that some posters are more interested in complaining than accomplishing anything. More than anything I regret that the opportunities for service in the church have dropped considerably since my youth – and yet there seems to me to be more complaining about expectations of service.

But where did the church get the investment money to begin with? All from donated properties? Source? The only methods that are adverstised by the church are 1: Tithing 2: Fast offerings 3: Donating to the "Humanitarian Fund". Do you have a link where one would be able to donate another way?

[TwochurchesOnly]

Panattoni and Link Logistics purchased the 42-acre site from The Boeing Co. for $60 million in early 2020.

$200million increase in price in 2 years?! Is there a Fort Knox Annex on the property or something?

Somebody made a KILLING on that deal....

Follow the money - I'd like to know who the somebodies are...

[TwochurchesOnly]

So do we think this would be used to house the Lost 10 Tribes, or the City of Enoch?

[InfoWarrior82]

I'm not denying the scriptures and yes I agree there are many definitions of Zion. I am looking for support of how it must fit your timeline due to the one scripture and one interpretation of the many for Zion.

Frankly, I haven't much of a clue anymore about what Zion is. Most of what is stated is extrapolation of extrapolations. Like the constant mapping that Zion will be like the failed United Order. BTW studies show the united order (originally called the united firm) was set up for only 14 people in OH and was to improve the land and sell to others. It doesn't look like JS first attempt had anything to do with Zion at all. Just a collective to increase land values. And when Oliver left, he got screwed. Just history, yet it keeps being stated as a basis for what Enoch did and what Jesus will do................ no basis. Perhaps correct, but no basis in true scriptural interpretation.

Read those verses again. The timeline is simple.

The foundation is laid... (Joseph Smith Jr.)

They start to go into apostasy by being slothful in keeping the commandments of the Lord by not building a watchtower and investing the money instead.

The enemy comes in and destroys the vineyard.

Another servant is called by the Lord who finally redeems Zion with much power and authority.

So, it's very simple. Zion is not yet redeemed. There was an attempt, but it did not go well. The children of Zion in this verse refers to those who have entered into the covenant but did not keep the commandments in order for Zion to be redeemed.

41 Behold, here is wisdom concerning the children of Zion, even many, but not all; they were found transgressors, therefore they must needs be chastened

We live upon the land of Zion, but New Jerusalem has not been built and the United Order was not realized.

A seminary student should be able to understand this parable.

[TheDuke]

I get that general timeline, but to say Zion has been started and failed has no support. For all you/I know it has not yet even been attempted to be built! And separate the story of Zion of place, Zion of pure-in-heart from United Order. it is conflating too many things. You yourself said all these things are different. But frankly this land is here, was here, and will be here so I don't see how that plays in.

IMO there never will be a United Order.... that has NOTHING to do with Zion. IF you disagree, show some scriptures that talk to that communist/socialist society (sure run by Jesus if you will as party chairman). Any mapping of UO to Zion is non-supportable. I have said this many times and never been refuted by a single scripture. Never has the economic or government of Zion been described, only the spirit and in Enoch's case a quick discussion of army or at least the fear of the opposing army.

[Christianlee]

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Where did it come from, then?

When the Church first moved to the west there was investments in land (from Canada to Mexico) and a lot of investments in industries. Perhaps you remember ZCMI, the children hospital, KSL, and Bonneville. In addition, it is not unusual for members to donate land and other (in kind) to the Church upon their death. Such funds and donations are not part of the other funds donated. In addition, the church has other sources of income such as Deseret Industries.

The main point I wanted to highlight about donations – is that complaints that the church is squandering designated funds – is unfounded and simply not true. The doctrine of economics that was established from the beginning (Joseph Smith) is the concept of industry as expressed by the term Deseret. Which is to create an environment where the Saints are productive even as individuals. The concept is hard to understand when individuals are not concerned about production but rather concerned about selfishly worrying about and lusting over what they think others are accumulating.

The donations are very explicit and exact to what is advertised. There is no overhead charge taken off the top. It does not help the poor if there are no opportunities for them to become productive. It is never just about money. And helping the poor is never about someone else’s money. We could discuss economic principles but it is my impression that some posters are more interested in complaining than accomplishing anything. More than anything I regret that the opportunities for service in the church have dropped considerably since my youth – and yet there seems to me to be more complaining about expectations of service.

But where did the church get the investment money to begin with? All from donated properties? Source? The only methods that are adverstised by the church are 1: Tithing 2: Fast offerings 3: Donating to the "Humanitarian Fund". Do you have a link where one would be able to donate another way?

I read recently the church receives about 7 billion per year in tithing. 6 billion is used to fund the church and the rest is invested for a rainy day.

[InfoWarrior82]

I get that general timeline, but to say Zion has been started and failed has no support. For all you/I know it has not yet even been attempted to be built! And separate the story of Zion of place, Zion of pure-in-heart from United Order. it is conflating too many things. You yourself said all these things are different. But frankly this land is here, was here, and will be here so I don't see how that plays in.

IMO there never will be a United Order.... that has NOTHING to do with Zion. IF you disagree, show some scriptures that talk to that communist/socialist society (sure run by Jesus if you will as party chairman). Any mapping of UO to Zion is non-supportable. I have said this many times and never been refuted by a single scripture. Never has the economic or government of Zion been described, only the spirit and in Enoch's case a quick discussion of army or at least the fear of the opposing army.

The United Order is simply the Law of Consecration, my man. Go back to the scriptures. Feast on them.

[TheDuke]

I’m not sure where the logic comes dry. To say “the law…” is a communal system is like saying Adam was the GofE. UO maybe an attempt at implementing a law or principle but it was only a specific construct. And it didn’t work in any attempt.

[Vision]

How did the church get the money to invest in business holdings in the first place?

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Where did it come from, then?

When the Church first moved to the west there was investments in land (from Canada to Mexico) and a lot of investments in industries. Perhaps you remember ZCMI, the children hospital, KSL, and Bonneville. In addition, it is not unusual for members to donate land and other (in kind) to the Church upon their death. Such funds and donations are not part of the other funds donated. In addition, the church has other sources of income such as Deseret Industries.

The main point I wanted to highlight about donations – is that complaints that the church is squandering designated funds – is unfounded and simply not true. The doctrine of economics that was established from the beginning (Joseph Smith) is the concept of industry as expressed by the term Deseret. Which is to create an environment where the Saints are productive even as individuals. The concept is hard to understand when individuals are not concerned about production but rather concerned about selfishly worrying about and lusting over what they think others are accumulating.

The donations are very explicit and exact to what is advertised. There is no overhead charge taken off the top. It does not help the poor if there are no opportunities for them to become productive. It is never just about money. And helping the poor is never about someone else’s money. We could discuss economic principles but it is my impression that some posters are more interested in complaining than accomplishing anything. More than anything I regret that the opportunities for service in the church have dropped considerably since my youth – and yet there seems to me to be more complaining about expectations of service.

Except when Bishop Edgeley admitted in the article titled "mormon inc." that occasionally tithing funds are used on the for profit side when investments go bad. I posted a link to that article on a thread on this forum years ago.

[Alexander]

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Where did it come from, then?

When the Church first moved to the west there was investments in land (from Canada to Mexico) and a lot of investments in industries. Perhaps you remember ZCMI, the children hospital, KSL, and Bonneville. In addition, it is not unusual for members to donate land and other (in kind) to the Church upon their death. Such funds and donations are not part of the other funds donated. In addition, the church has other sources of income such as Deseret Industries.

The main point I wanted to highlight about donations – is that complaints that the church is squandering designated funds – is unfounded and simply not true. The doctrine of economics that was established from the beginning (Joseph Smith) is the concept of industry as expressed by the term Deseret. Which is to create an environment where the Saints are productive even as individuals. The concept is hard to understand when individuals are not concerned about production but rather concerned about selfishly worrying about and lusting over what they think others are accumulating.

The donations are very explicit and exact to what is advertised. There is no overhead charge taken off the top. It does not help the poor if there are no opportunities for them to become productive. It is never just about money. And helping the poor is never about someone else’s money. We could discuss economic principles but it is my impression that some posters are more interested in complaining than accomplishing anything. More than anything I regret that the opportunities for service in the church have dropped considerably since my youth – and yet there seems to me to be more complaining about expectations of service.

Except when Bishop Edgeley admitted in the article titled "mormon inc." that occasionally tithing funds are used on the for profit side when investments go bad. I posted a link to that article on a thread on this forum years ago.

Do you have a link?

[Vision]

Where did it come from, then?

When the Church first moved to the west there was investments in land (from Canada to Mexico) and a lot of investments in industries. Perhaps you remember ZCMI, the children hospital, KSL, and Bonneville. In addition, it is not unusual for members to donate land and other (in kind) to the Church upon their death. Such funds and donations are not part of the other funds donated. In addition, the church has other sources of income such as Deseret Industries.

The main point I wanted to highlight about donations – is that complaints that the church is squandering designated funds – is unfounded and simply not true. The doctrine of economics that was established from the beginning (Joseph Smith) is the concept of industry as expressed by the term Deseret. Which is to create an environment where the Saints are productive even as individuals. The concept is hard to understand when individuals are not concerned about production but rather concerned about selfishly worrying about and lusting over what they think others are accumulating.

The donations are very explicit and exact to what is advertised. There is no overhead charge taken off the top. It does not help the poor if there are no opportunities for them to become productive. It is never just about money. And helping the poor is never about someone else’s money. We could discuss economic principles but it is my impression that some posters are more interested in complaining than accomplishing anything. More than anything I regret that the opportunities for service in the church have dropped considerably since my youth – and yet there seems to me to be more complaining about expectations of service.

Except when Bishop Edgeley admitted in the article titled "mormon inc." that occasionally tithing funds are used on the for profit side when investments go bad. I posted a link to that article on a thread on this forum years ago.

Do you have a link?

I have 2244 posts on the forum it's in one of those. Not sure how to search my posts.

[Silver Pie]

How did the church get the money to invest in business holdings in the first place?

What we do know is that it was not from tithing funds, missionary funds, humanitarian funds, fast offerings, perpetual education fund or Book of Mormon funds. If anyone is concerned about donating funds for the poor – unlike most other funds to help the poor there is no overhead costs. That is much better than government funds (including Social Security) that takes 60% + for their overhead.

Tithing is put into an account to collect interest for three years. The interest is considered "investment income". Sorry, I don't recall the source. It was talked about here some years ago.

[Silver Pie]

I have 2244 posts on the forum it's in one of those. Not sure how to search my posts.

Is this it?

I wish I could find the old business week article that Bishop Edgley admits that tithing funds do flow into the business side if needed. I quoted it on here in the past but don't have the patience to search all my posts. Once I read that quote I no longer trust in the arm of flesh.

Here it is. I thought it was Edgely but it is McMullin that was quoted in the article

"Besides having final say on major transactions, the church owns all of DMC’s shares. And each year the holding company, like all church businesses, donates 10 percent of its income to a church fund. In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.” McMullin declined to elaborate on whether the church has been bailing out subsidiaries."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... make-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So when the Church spokesperson says no tithing funds were used for this project how can you believe them.

(I clicked on your username, then "search user's posts" (something like that). What popped up had a search line at the top, so I searched "tithing" and finally found this post.

[Silver Pie]

Or this one?

Col Flagg,

Besides the City Creek Mall involves no tithing funds.

George Clay

Clay me thinks you should pull your head out of the sand and stop believing every word spoken over the pulpit and do some investigating of your own. Parroting the party line is easy to do, but a few facts could help you open your eyes. Below is a quote by Keith McMullin the presiding Bishop. You make the claim that the CC Mall involves no tithing funds but how do you know? It is possible. You probably never read the business week article about Church finances because you were told not to, but a little reading outside the box can help you with your conversion.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... e-money#p1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Besides having final say on major transactions, the church owns all of DMC’s shares. And each year the holding company, like all church businesses, donates 10 percent of its income to a church fund. In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.” McMullin declined to elaborate on whether the church has been bailing out subsidiaries.

[Silver Pie]

I never heard if you had evidence the church had even used tithing funds for CCM. Many people leave the church money in their wills. Also, the church has run many businesses over the years, is it not possible that they are using proceeds from other business ventures to finance new ones?

The Newsweek article contained verification that tithing monies are used to bail out the for profit businesses the church owns, not specifically King Herrod's Temple (CCM)

"Besides having final say on major transactions, the church owns all of DMC’s shares. And each year the holding company, like all church businesses, donates 10 percent of its income to a church fund. In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.” McMullin declined to elaborate on whether the church has been bailing out subsidiaries."

wow.

I think the way I have read it as well is that the tithing monies go into a holding area, and over a couple years get dispersed. Then some of that money is used to fund church businesses, and than that profit was used for the mall? So it is still tithing money, just not direct.

One has to ask though, with tens of thousands of hard working righteous Mormons having a hard tome making ends meet, why the Billion dollar mall? So are those profits going to go into the storehouses and such? Or only make the few richer?

May I ask, can you imagine Jesus cutting ribbon saying "lets go shopping" while thousands of hard working LDS families cannot even afford to shop there? Etc

[Vision]

I have 2244 posts on the forum it's in one of those. Not sure how to search my posts.

Is this it?

I wish I could find the old business week article that Bishop Edgley admits that tithing funds do flow into the business side if needed. I quoted it on here in the past but don't have the patience to search all my posts. Once I read that quote I no longer trust in the arm of flesh.

Here it is. I thought it was Edgely but it is McMullin that was quoted in the article

"Besides having final say on major transactions, the church owns all of DMC’s shares. And each year the holding company, like all church businesses, donates 10 percent of its income to a church fund. In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.” McMullin declined to elaborate on whether the church has been bailing out subsidiaries."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... make-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So when the Church spokesperson says no tithing funds were used for this project how can you believe them.

(I clicked on your username, then "search user's posts" (something like that). What popped up had a search line at the top, so I searched "tithing" and finally found this post.

That's the one. Thanks for taking the time to find it.

[Vision]

Or this one?

Col Flagg,

Besides the City Creek Mall involves no tithing funds.

George Clay

Clay me thinks you should pull your head out of the sand and stop believing every word spoken over the pulpit and do some investigating of your own. Parroting the party line is easy to do, but a few facts could help you open your eyes. Below is a quote by Keith McMullin the presiding Bishop. You make the claim that the CC Mall involves no tithing funds but how do you know? It is possible. You probably never read the business week article about Church finances because you were told not to, but a little reading outside the box can help you with your conversion.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... e-money#p1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Besides having final say on major transactions, the church owns all of DMC’s shares. And each year the holding company, like all church businesses, donates 10 percent of its income to a church fund. In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.” McMullin declined to elaborate on whether the church has been bailing out subsidiaries.

Im surprised the link still works.

[Pseudonym]

But where did the church get the investment money to begin with? All from donated properties? Source? The only methods that are adverstised by the church are 1: Tithing 2: Fast offerings 3: Donating to the "Humanitarian Fund". Do you have a link where one would be able to donate another way?

I am a little concerned with what appears to me to be misunderstanding of wealth. A great deal is explained in the Book of Mormon. Wealth is the natural byproduct of industry. It is also the blessing of an industrial society. In Church history the term for industry is deseret. Part of understanding wealth is understanding that the cycle of wealth requires giving back. Sustainable wealth requires giving back. Tithing, contrary to what many seem to argue, is a source of individual wealth more than wealth for the institution to which tithing is donated. Wealth can seemingly be achieved without giving back but that attitude of wealth is not sustainable.

Now I would give a little history lesson. When the Latter-day Saints arrived in the west they had to initiate their own economy. This was done over decades of cooperation. Since the LDS society could not count on any government for their economy, they were forced to establish their own economic structure. The saints established organizations within the Church to hold legal water and mineral rights for the benefit of society which is the ever-false claim of governments (at least my opinion).

What few understand is that the Saints endured a limited economy for decades and when the great depression hit the rest of the country – it was business as usual among the western Saints. By the end of WWII the west (including the Saints) held critical elements of a new economy in the USA. There is now a new term called critical earth elements (sometimes called rare earth elements). I am not sure how to proceed at this point without becoming political. Water and mineral rights are critical to modern economic development – especially in the wester US. When the Saints were driven from the USA into the west it was with great sacrifice. The initial journey west cost the lives of 1 in ever 5 Saints. But it also put them in the middle of the critical earth elements which the Church has some holdings.

There are in our modern society a generation (similar to cycles in the Book of Mormon) that have lost the understanding of deseret. They simply do not understand the virtue of the attitude of industry. They want to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifice of others. They want to take without giving anything back or giving back as little as possible. So, they think not to pay tithing – thinking the Church is too rich and that they can be selfish and not contribute. That attitude has never sustained any economy – ever. Economic ruin begins with that attitude of taking what one can and refusing to give back in return. The economic truth is that one of the great joys of life is in industry (deseret) and being productive – which is the foundation of LDS doctrine of economics.

The greatest help for everyone – especially the poor is to help them understanding the economy of deseret – that there is both personal wealth and joy in being productive. It is my personal belief that we are teaching a generation to be slothful and unproductive - which includs the attitude of debt.