The cost of doing business

[_asbestosman]

The only sloppy argumentation here is your elementary school "spaghettie [sic] monster" stuff. Which, I might add, is yet another FAIR/MAD cliché. Don't you have any original material of your own, asbestosman?

Just the potatochipmonkeystone. While I didn't come up with the spaghetti monster stuff, neither did FAIR/MAD. In fact, I thought that sort of argument was more in line with critics. In any case, my point is simple: just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean we are justified in believing whatever we want. Your argument would carry more weight if you mention that in your experience, those who do not open their books often have something embarassing to hide.

On the other hand, I think there may be good reasons to keep the books closed. Just look at the arguments made that the money should be going to feed the poor and so on. I think that is an overly simplistic view of both economics and morality. I guess if you don't believe the church is true then the idea that feeding people is more important than building temples makes sense. But if you really believe that the church is true, then I think templework--or at least providing the saving ordinances for mankind--is more important than feeding them. Now that doesn't mean one can neglect helping the poor. Without food and shelter nobody will care about salvation. However, I think that helping the poor is more the responsibility of individual people than it is the church's. It is up to us to be charitable by helping the poor. It is up to the church as a whole to provide the ordinances of salvation.

So what does a mall have to do with salvation? Nothing directly. It has to do with keeping the downtown area from decaying--and possibly investing money which the church tells us does not come from tithing. That in turn helps keep the environment around the temple better. I see no reason we should not take the church at its word about where the money comes from. Has the church proved itself untrustworthy about such matters about where the money comes from?

[_guy sajer]

The only sloppy argumentation here is your elementary school "spaghettie [sic] monster" stuff. Which, I might add, is yet another FAIR/MAD cliché. Don't you have any original material of your own, asbestosman?

Just the potatochipmonkeystone. While I didn't come up with the spaghetti monster stuff, neither did FAIR/MAD. In fact, I thought that sort of argument was more in line with critics. In any case, my point is simple: just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean we are justified in believing whatever we want. Your argument would carry more weight if you mention that in your experience, those who do not open their books often have something embarassing to hide.

On the other hand, I think there may be good reasons to keep the books closed. Just look at the arguments made that the money should be going to feed the poor and so on. I think that is an overly simplistic view of both economics and morality. I guess if you don't believe the church is true then the idea that feeding people is more important than building temples makes sense. But if you really believe that the church is true, then I think templework--or at least providing the saving ordinances for mankind--is more important than feeding them. Now that doesn't mean one can neglect helping the poor. Without food and shelter nobody will care about salvation. However, I think that helping the poor is more the responsibility of individual people than it is the church's. It is up to us to be charitable by helping the poor. It is up to the church as a whole to provide the ordinances of salvation.

So what does a mall have to do with salvation? Nothing directly. It has to do with keeping the downtown area from decaying--and possibly investing money which the church tells us does not come from tithing. That in turn helps keep the environment around the temple better. I see no reason we should not take the church at its word about where the money comes from. Has the church proved itself untrustworthy about such matters about where the money comes from?

In my opinion, there is no justification to keep the books closed. To demand or solicit money, then turn around and say, in essence, you're not accountable for it is arrogant and unethical in turns. Sure people may complain, but that's the price for being held accountable.

Yet another double standard by the TSCC: members are accountable to leaders for their actions and stewardship, but leaders have no accountability to members for their actions and stewardship.

I'm curious, what is your general philosophical position of the conditions under which organizations have no duty to be transparent or accountable to their members and funders for their finances? How would you apply this to other organizations? How many of these would you invest in, other than the Mormon Church?

Don't argue from convenience, argue from principle. One presumes your argument implies some general standard of ethics viz transparency and accountability. What is it? Or, are you just creating an argument ex post so as to justify what you wouldn't justify in any other situation because it's your self interest at stake, or that of an organization/tribe to which you are loyal?

[_asbestosman]

I'm curious, what is your general philosophical position of the conditions under which organizations have no duty to be transparent or accountable to their members and funders for their finances? How would you apply this to other organizations? How many of these would you invest in, other than the Mormon Church?

Don't argue from convenience, argue from principle. One presumes your argument implies some general standard of ethics viz transparency and accountability. What is it? Or, are you just creating an argument ex post so as to justify what you wouldn't justify in any other situation because it's your self interest at stake, or that of an organization/tribe to which you are loyal?

I wouldn't invest money in any organization that didn't open the books for me. I think there is no duty to keep the books open to members, but members would be foolish to invest in such an organization. The difference with the church is that I'm not investing money so much as I'm investing time in my salvation. Opening the books will not change the likelihood that I have made the correct decision.

I do think that organizations have a duty to keep books sufficiently open to law enforcement officials so that they can be appropriately held accountable to the law.

[_guy sajer]

I'm curious, what is your general philosophical position of the conditions under which organizations have no duty to be transparent or accountable to their members and funders for their finances? How would you apply this to other organizations? How many of these would you invest in, other than the Mormon Church?

Don't argue from convenience, argue from principle. One presumes your argument implies some general standard of ethics viz transparency and accountability. What is it? Or, are you just creating an argument ex post so as to justify what you wouldn't justify in any other situation because it's your self interest at stake, or that of an organization/tribe to which you are loyal?

I wouldn't invest money in any organization that didn't open the books for me. I think there is no duty to keep the books open to members, but members would be foolish to invest in such an organization. The difference with the church is that I'm not investing money so much as I'm investing time in my salvation. Opening the books will not change the likelihood that I have made the correct decision.

I do think that organizations have a duty to keep books sufficiently open to law enforcement officials so that they can be appropriately held accountable to the law.

Why is there no duty to open the books to members? You realize that this statement runs counter to established ethical standards throughout the business and non-profit sectors?

So, to make sure, your general principle is that those who solicit money based on representations of what they're going to do with the money have no ethical obligation to account for what they're doing with the money?

As a general principle, how effective is this likely to be in creating trust and facilitating the efficient operation of the business and non-profit sector? Is it a general principle you'd like to see adopted by all organizations? What would be the likely result if it were?

Does your not feeling the need for financial disclosure by an organization offering salvation necessarily negate any ethical duties that organization might have toward you?

Further, if religious organizations follow a practice of non-disclosure, how can you be sure that you're getting the salvation you think you're getting?

[_asbestosman]

Why is there no duty to open the books to members? You realize that this statement runs counter to established ethical standards throughout the business and non-profit sectors?

I was thinking more along legal duties or what should be a legal duty when I previously responded.

So, to make sure, your general principle is that those who solicit money based on representations of what they're going to do with the money have no ethical obligation to account for what they're doing with the money?

I wouldn't call it an ethical obligation so much as a courteosy which one ought to extend, but which is not unethical to withhold.

As a general principle, how effective is this likely to be in creating trust and facilitating the efficient operation of the business and non-profit sector? Is it a general principle you'd like to see adopted by all organizations? What would be the likely result if it were?

Not effective in facilitating trust or efficient operation. I wouldn't like to see it adopted in general. The result would be that I would have less confidence in those that did such and would reward those who opened their books thus providing incentive for them to open them.

However, since I believe the church holds an effective monopoly on salvation (or rather God has given the church organization such), I feel that they have no incentive to change and it's none of my business to command the people with stewardship over me--at least if I'm looking for salvation.

Does your not feeling the need for financial disclosure by an organization offering salvation necessarily negate any ethical duties that organization might have toward you?

No, but I don't consider financial disclosure an ethical obligation--at least not in the sense of wrongdoing or sin. It certainly does seem to violate the categorical imperative which you alluded to.

Further, if religious organizations follow a practice of non-disclosure, how can you be sure that you're getting the salvation you think you're getting?

Let me clarify that I'm only speaking of financial non-disclosure, not non-disclosure in general. How can I be sure? I can't. I can only gain confidence by doing my best to seek the truth with God's help.

[_Who Knows]

members are accountable to leaders for their actions and stewardship, but leaders have no accountability to members for their actions and stewardship.

"People shouldn't be afraid of their churches, churches should be afraid of their people."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

This has always been a topic that has bugged the crap out of me (me being an auditor by profession). There is absolutely no good reason for the church to hide their finances from their members.

Additionally, the lack of accountability can foster an environment for sloppy/shady/fraudulent accounting shenanigans. I was always taught by the church to keep myself out of those types of situations (don't stay out late alone with a girl because it could lead to sex...). However, the church is doing the exact opposite. A bit hypocritical...

[_guy sajer]

Why is there no duty to open the books to members? You realize that this statement runs counter to established ethical standards throughout the business and non-profit sectors?

I was thinking more along legal duties or what should be a legal duty when I previously responded.

So, to make sure, your general principle is that those who solicit money based on representations of what they're going to do with the money have no ethical obligation to account for what they're doing with the money?

I wouldn't call it an ethical obligation so much as a courteosy which one ought to extend, but which is not unethical to withhold.

As a general principle, how effective is this likely to be in creating trust and facilitating the efficient operation of the business and non-profit sector? Is it a general principle you'd like to see adopted by all organizations? What would be the likely result if it were?

Not effective in facilitating trust or efficient operation. I wouldn't like to see it adopted in general. The result would be that I would have less confidence in those that did such and would reward those who opened their books thus providing incentive for them to open them.

However, since I believe the church holds an effective monopoly on salvation (or rather God has given the church organization such), I feel that they have no incentive to change and it's none of my business to command the people with stewardship over me--at least if I'm looking for salvation.

Does your not feeling the need for financial disclosure by an organization offering salvation necessarily negate any ethical duties that organization might have toward you?

No, but I don't consider financial disclosure an ethical obligation--at least not in the sense of wrongdoing or sin. It certainly does seem to violate the categorical imperative which you alluded to.

Further, if religious organizations follow a practice of non-disclosure, how can you be sure that you're getting the salvation you think you're getting?

Let me clarify that I'm only speaking of financial non-disclosure, not non-disclosure in general. How can I be sure? I can't. I can only gain confidence by doing my best to seek the truth with God's help.

You are aware, no doubt, that your position makes you very vulnerable to being a victim of malfeasance. The world, even the Mormon Church, is full of people just itching to take advantage of naïve people like yourself.

The Mormon Church may have a monopoloy on salvation, but certainly not on morality. Those in its employ are every bit as human as anyone else and no less prone to temptation or to succumbing to it, including those in high leadership. (We have sufficient examples of malfeasance by high Mormon leaders at every level of leadership to demonstrate this point.) Without any means to hold them accountable to members, what is to ensure that they behave as they should? It may be God's church, but it is run by men.

Also, while you may not feel it neccesary to hold church leaders accountable for their financial stewardship, others do. Why should your preferences for non-disclosure Trump their "rights" or preferences for disclosure?

Finally, financial transparency is a different side of the same coin. Mormon leaders aren't financially transparent or accountable because they know they can get away with it. The systematic apathy of Mormon faithful regarding transparency and accountability empower further non-disclosure and non-accountability.

The irony of all this is that the Mormon Church is a voluntary organization created, one presumes, for the benefits of its members, not the other way around. If there is one-way transparency, it is rightly downward, not upward. Mormon leadership has comletely turned the principle of accountability on its head, and it has gotten away with it because people like you have let it.

[_harmony]

It's so good to have you back, Guy!

[_asbestosman]

The Mormon Church may have a monopoloy on salvation, but certainly not on morality. Those in its employ are every bit as human as anyone else and no less prone to temptation or to succumbing to it, including those in high leadership. (We have sufficient examples of malfeasance by high Mormon leaders at every level of leadership to demonstrate this point.) Without any means to hold them accountable to members, what is to ensure that they behave as they should? It may be God's church, but it is run by men.

But either God is at the helm or or He isn't. I believe their accountability to God is sufficient. I do not consider the tithing which I donate to the church to be my money. It is God's money and He seems perfectly content to allow them make the decisions--in counsel with Him. They don't need my advice or criticism. Call it a condition of faith.

Also, while you may not feel it neccesary to hold church leaders accountable for their financial stewardship, others do. Why should your preferences for non-disclosure Trump their "rights" or preferences for disclosure?

In no way should it and I hope I never gave the impression that such ought to be the case. I simply feel that their rights for that preference does not Trump the church's right to make a different choice. Those who feel otherwise are free to leave the organization--if they think that their salvation is worth less than the need to continually demand change based on what they feel their rights are.

Finally, financial transparency is a different side of the same coin. Mormon leaders aren't financially transparent or accountable because they know they can get away with it. The systematic apathy of Mormon faithful regarding transparency and accountability empower further non-disclosure and non-accountability.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way they will still be criticized for spending money on things that certain people disagree with whether that's for temples, universities, or even businesses such as broadcasting or malls.

The irony of all this is that the Mormon Church is a voluntary organization created, one presumes, for the benefits of its members, not the other way around.

I agree that it is. However, I believe that the benefit is salvation, not some social welfare program.

If there is one-way transparency, it is rightly downward, not upward.

Why?

Mormon leadership has comletely turned the principle of accountability on its head, and it has gotten away with it because people like you have let it.

What else can I do? If they have salvation and I trust God, then all I can do is have faith that it is either for the best, or God will correct it when necessary.

[_Jason Bourne]

I was visiting the FLAK forum and found this post that Cap't Jack had brought from RfM (thanks, Cap't):

I just came from a meeting at our corporate headquarters where the subject of instruction was the current building projects and projected projects in Utah and SLC and how we (my company) are going to meet the needs.

Some interesting facts that came from the meeting.

1. The City Creek Center:

a. Our company estimates that the true cost will be $6 – $8 billion dollars. This is based on the following facts.

1. This is a fast tract project. The construction of one 22 story tower and two 18 story towers would normally take three to five years alone. Add in all the auxiliary buildings, infrastructure (sewer, waterlines, communication lines, etc. - oh yes and the mole people tunnels), street level improvements, etc. It costs a lot of money to keep a project like this on track for the short amount of construction time available. After all they are destroying two city blocks and replacing them new in 48 months (project end date to be 2011). As the presenter stated “Imagine if two city blocks in Manhattan were to be removed and replaced, oh that’s right, the “Freedom” towers and complex are. Could that be done in 48 months? NO WAY. The “Freedom” tower alone is projected to take six to eight years.“ (by the way, the Freedom tower is only one city block).

2. Competition from current construction projects for labor. Legacy Highway, Draper Temple, South Jordan Temple, TRAX expansion, Commuter Rail, Housing projects like Kennecott Day Break, Retail and Commercial construction to service the current construction projects etc., all have placed a demand on available man power and crafts. To compete with these projects the City Creek Center construction companies (Jacobson, Oakland and Big D) are going to have to pay premium wages and salaries. This means no more day labors at $5.25 per hour. Our company projects that a helper is going to be paid $14.50 per hour. Can you say Hurricane Katrina prices?

3. Competition from current construction projects for materials. To compete with the current projects the City Creek Center construction companies (Jacobson, Oakland and Big D) are going to have to pay premium prices for materials. Even with the Mormon church buying direct from the manufacturers, the materials will be more expensive as the delivery dates will cause the materials to be rush orders. The Mormon church is notorious for waiting until the last minute to purchase materials (maybe they think that construction supplies will be found on-site every morning like “manna” from heaven?). This fact of delayed buying caused the conference center costs to rise from the projected $315 million estimate to the final cost of $1.1 billion.

4. There currently is a shortage of qualified workers. Our company estimates that when started City Creek Center will demand an extra 25 000 to 35 000 workers. Our company estimates that mid project there will be over 100 000 construction workers needed. These individuals will have to come from out of state. (So, if you can swing a hammer and bend a nail, head to SLC, hell if you own a hammer come to SLC). Funny side note, unless they make construction of the City Creek Center a mission calling, the influx of workers are not going to be Mormon. So not only are they going to over pay for the workers, they will loose 10% more of their money.

5. The cost of just getting to “zero dirt” our company estimates will be between $450 - $650 million. This includes demolition of the current buildings, moving and relocating (breaking leases) tenants out of the current buildings, removing all current utilities and replacing with new that meet up to date requirements (seismic, materials, etc.).

One of the presenters expressed the biggest concern. FAST TRACK = FAST CRAP. What he means is that the City Creek Center will be built on 7 day cures for the concrete (7 days is the minimum allowed, whereas 28 day is the best cure), hastily constructed supports, minimum welds, and every other short cut that can be done to save time.

He pointed out that the Conference center was a fast track and it is already having major problems (leaking roof, panels falling off, interior wall are wet, etc.).

Yes kiddies, believe it or not, there is more. Part 2 is coming soon.

Some comments:

1. $1.1 freakin' billion for the Conference Center? That's 3 times the cost they estimated! and what's up with the leaking roof, panels falling off, wet interior, etc? Why are we never told about this stuff?

2. $6-$8 BILLION for a freakin' SHOPPING MALL?!?!?! What the hell? Why aren't people freaking out? Is it because we've been lied to, once again?

3. Shoddy construction, for $8 billion? I'm definitely in the wrong business. When that puppy comes tumbling down, will the church's pockets be deep enough?

I can hardly wait for Part 2.

Well it seems it is for more then a mall, but very costly indeed.

On another note, I wonder how Capt Jack's employer would feel about him posting detailed information about a custumers project on the web. This seems highly inappropriate.