The cost of doing business

[_asbestosman]

Where's the stewardship? Where's the accountabiliity? Where's the damned checks and balances?

The checks and balances come from God. Either He's in charge or He isn't. He can handle the job all by Himself. He just gives us the opportunaty to grow by allowing us some responsibility too.

No one's complaining about millions of dollars to build temples, or even keep temple grounds nice. But $6-8 billion to renovate the whole frickin' neighborhood is more than "nice". It's criminal. And no one cares, no one questions, no one even blinked. Incredible.

You did.

I may have blinked too, but it's not my place to do anything about it.

As to the 6-8 billion, it could be considered an investment instead of just throwing money down a hole (at least as long as they don't cut corners on construction).

[_Mercury]

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.

shoot the messenger, right JB?

[_guy sajer]

Because the church (or at least most Church's) exists for the benefit of the members, not the other way around. (Something like, "sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.") The church is, therefore, accountable to the members for providing the benefits members voluntarily sign up to receive. It, however, shirks this responsibility while instead demanding that members be held accountable for their membership.

The benefit is salvation. How does it shirk this responsibility? The church gives us the scriptures and has seminaries and institutes along with Sunday School and other meetings. It encourages daily prayer and seeking personal revelation. It gets members to strengthen eachother.

So, what makes you any different than thousands of other true believers who naïvely trusted their religious leaders believing them to act for God? Are you smarter, more enlightened, more street saavy?

What makes me different? Well it's obviously not smarts or street saaviness. Enlightenment? Only according to God's will I suppose. I certainly haven't done anything to earn it.

Would you endorse blindly entrusting religious leaders to act in their members' best interests absent any accountability as a general principle (assuming that those who do have equal faith in their religious leaders as you do)? If no, why are you an exception to the general principle? What makes your situation different? If yes, what is the likely outcome of this kind of systematic blind faith?

Endorse it? I suppose not although I would certainly understand those who have equal faith that God is providing salvation and that their religious leaders are the ones God has authorized to lead them in that endeavor. At the same time I would encourage them and me to continue searching for more truth and to attempt to understand other views. I don't recommend criticizing leaders that one believes stand as representatives and guides of God.

It shirks this responsibility by refusing to be held accountable for its actions. If offers services, but refuses any accountability for the delivery of the services, for the quality of those services, and for the benefit of those services. (There is no formal system for member feedback and input into policies, practices, doctrines, etc.). It refuses to account for what it does with money to, obstensibly, pay for those services and those offered to others. It keeps members in the dark about the rules that govern membership and the operations of the organization. Please point out to me (aside from the charade process of raising the hand to confirm leaders) any formal system that creates accountability of those in leadership to those over whom they have authority/stewardship.

Finally, your last sentence tells precisely why there is no accountability in the Mormon Church--members believe it is wrong to hold leaders accountable (criticize) for their policies, doctrines, and actions. You have allowed yourself to be totally disenfranchized under a very misguided theory that men in ecclesiastical leadership positions are beyond reproach, and more, holding them accountable is evidence of character flaw. And you get offended when some of us in the DAMU refer to you as sheep?

How many examples of ecclesiastical abuse, misdeed, exploitation, bone headedness, etc. would be sufficient to convince you that this is not a sound general principle?

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason:

Just to clarify, I found the information on RfM and brought it to another forum for comments; many of the posters there read from work, and exmormon.org is blocked as a 'hate site'. That is pointed out in my original post, and a link to the original post is provided. On this site, James Bond has provided links to the original posts as well.

Oh...Sorry. And thanks for the clarifiaction. Do we know how accurate the report is?

[_harmony]

Jason:

Just to clarify, I found the information on RfM and brought it to another forum for comments; many of the posters there read from work, and exmormon.org is blocked as a 'hate site'. That is pointed out in my original post, and a link to the original post is provided. On this site, James Bond has provided links to the original posts as well.

Oh...Sorry. And thanks for the clarifiaction. Do we know how accurate the report is?

I think it's at least as accurate as the church telling us no tithing funds were used.

[_asbestosman]

It refuses to account for what it does with money to, obstensibly, pay for those services and those offered to others.

Wrong. Tithing is used for those services among other things, but I do not pay tithing so that those services will be provided. I pay tithing because that's what God has asked of me.

It keeps members in the dark about the rules that govern membership and the operations of the organization.

The minute details perhaps, but it's pretty simple to stay in good standing. Stay away from grey areas. Keep the commandments.

Please point out to me (aside from the charade process of raising the hand to confirm leaders) any formal system that creates accountability of those in leadership to those over whom they have authority/stewardship.

Again, they will be held accountable by God. If I have faith then I think this is sufficient. If not, I should either quit or seek to develop faith.

You have allowed yourself to be totally disenfranchized under a very misguided theory that men in ecclesiastical leadership positions are beyond reproach,

Wrong.

and more, holding them accountable is evidence of character flaw.

A character flaw? Not necessarily. It is evidence that one does not have faith that God has entrusted them with this position, that God is in charge, and that God has not asked me to be a backseat driver. I think it possible that someone might have good reason to be suspicious.

And you get offended when some of us in the DAMU refer to you as sheep?

I still have a brain. If I (in my arrogance) decide that salvation isn't worthwhile--or that they cannot provide it--I will accept the consequences of not following.

How many examples of ecclesiastical abuse, misdeed, exploitation, bone headedness, etc. would be sufficient to convince you that this is not a sound general principle?

But the problem with that is it seems God is helping guide the church and prevent it from falling due to bone headedness, etc.

Actually when it comes to ecclesiastical abuse I am somewhat concerned. I would like to see some changes made to bishops interviews, but not so much to protect the interviewee as to protect the bishops from false accusations. Yet I also recognize that there would be great value in protecting the interviewees as well.

Anyhow, I don't see how opening the books will change those other items.

[_rcrocket]

Finally, your last sentence tells precisely why there is no accountability in the Mormon Church--members believe it is wrong to hold leaders accountable (criticize) for their policies, doctrines, and actions. You have allowed yourself to be totally disenfranchized under a very misguided theory that men in ecclesiastical leadership positions are beyond reproach, and more, holding them accountable is evidence of character flaw.

"Disenfranchisement" is a term which applies to "rights" provided, denied, or protected by a majority-controlled government. The concept does not apply to voluntary organizations, especially those protected by the First Amendment, which have the power to create a religion which requires its adherents to be "sheep." You may mock and ridicule the organization for its sheeplike behavior, you may disagree with it, but the organization has the protection of law to behave that way. It does not "disenfranchise" anybody; by definition, an adherent may choose to be a sheep or not.

Similarly, a First Amendment organization has the complete freedom not to account for its finances to its adherents. By definition, as the LDS faith defines itself, a First Amendment organization may choose to espouse a belief that it accounts only to the Lord. Sam Brannan once said that he'd turn over tithing funds he'd collected to Brigham Young if the latter could produce a receipt from God. Brannan was excommunicated and died a murderer and a derelict. The kingdom has rolled on and over the likes of you.

P

[_guy sajer]

It refuses to account for what it does with money to, obstensibly, pay for those services and those offered to others.

Wrong. Tithing is used for those services among other things, but I do not pay tithing so that those services will be provided. I pay tithing because that's what God has asked of me.

It keeps members in the dark about the rules that govern membership and the operations of the organization.

The minute details perhaps, but it's pretty simple to stay in good standing. Stay away from grey areas. Keep the commandments.

Please point out to me (aside from the charade process of raising the hand to confirm leaders) any formal system that creates accountability of those in leadership to those over whom they have authority/stewardship.

Again, they will be held accountable by God. If I have faith then I think this is sufficient. If not, I should either quit or seek to develop faith.

You have allowed yourself to be totally disenfranchized under a very misguided theory that men in ecclesiastical leadership positions are beyond reproach,

Wrong.

and more, holding them accountable is evidence of character flaw.

A character flaw? Not necessarily. It is evidence that one does not have faith that God has entrusted them with this position, that God is in charge, and that God has not asked me to be a backseat driver. I think it possible that someone might have good reason to be suspicious.

And you get offended when some of us in the DAMU refer to you as sheep?

I still have a brain. If I (in my arrogance) decide that salvation isn't worthwhile--or that they cannot provide it--I will accept the consequences of not following.

How many examples of ecclesiastical abuse, misdeed, exploitation, bone headedness, etc. would be sufficient to convince you that this is not a sound general principle?

But the problem with that is it seems God is helping guide the church and prevent it from falling due to bone headedness, etc.

Actually when it comes to ecclesiastical abuse I am somewhat concerned. I would like to see some changes made to bishops interviews, but not so much to protect the interviewee as to protect the bishops from false accusations. Yet I also recognize that there would be great value in protecting the interviewees as well.

Anyhow, I don't see how opening the books will change those other items.

Well, it appears we are no closer to agreement than before. I find your views typical of others I have talked to about this. You see yourself as having faith. I see you as naïve and foolish (on this issue) and almost begging for someone to take advantage of you. You probably see me in similarly unflattering terms.

In the end, you support a system that cannot be upheld as a general principle, as experience teaches with no doubt that granting authority such carte blanche without any earthly accountability invites abuse, malfeasance, dishonesty, arrogance, and so forth. When you can convince me that Mormons are systematically more honest and moral than the rest of the population drawn from similar social strata, then I might find your arguments credible.

I will say in conclusion that the weight of evidence and experience is heavily on my side. I can point to almost countless examples showing how the general principle you espouse does not work in practice, and you can only give me assurances of your faith in God. I like my chance of being right on this one.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason:

Just to clarify, I found the information on RfM and brought it to another forum for comments; many of the posters there read from work, and exmormon.org is blocked as a 'hate site'. That is pointed out in my original post, and a link to the original post is provided. On this site, James Bond has provided links to the original posts as well.

Oh...Sorry. And thanks for the clarification. Do we know how accurate the report is?

I think it's at least as accurate as the church telling us no tithing funds were used.

Well not really. I do believe President Hinckley when he says this, but at the same time understand that it does not really matter that it does not come from the tithes. All church resources ultimately source back to tithing or some other contributions by members. The key phrase is opportunity cost. Be spending whatever is spent on the mall there is that much less to feed to poor, clothe the naked, assist the widow. All this can be currently done as well because they church does have other funds. But you were correct it stating that a lot of hospital in Africa could be built with 6.8 billion dollars.

Personally I agree that dumping this much money into down town SLC is a bad thing to do. But then nobody asked me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Finally, your last sentence tells precisely why there is no accountability in the Mormon Church--members believe it is wrong to hold leaders accountable (criticize) for their policies, doctrines, and actions. You have allowed yourself to be totally disenfranchized under a very misguided theory that men in ecclesiastical leadership positions are beyond reproach, and more, holding them accountable is evidence of character flaw.

"Disenfranchisement" is a term which applies to "rights" provided, denied, or protected by a majority-controlled government. The concept does not apply to voluntary organizations, especially those protected by the First Amendment, which have the power to create a religion which requires its adherents to be "sheep." You may mock and ridicule the organization for its sheeplike behavior, you may disagree with it, but the organization has the protection of law to behave that way. It does not "disenfranchise" anybody; by definition, an adherent may choose to be a sheep or not.

Similarly, a First Amendment organization has the complete freedom not to account for its finances to its adherents. By definition, as the LDS faith defines itself, a First Amendment organization may choose to espouse a belief that it accounts only to the Lord. Sam Brannan once said that he'd turn over tithing funds he'd collected to Brigham Young if the latter could produce a receipt from God. Brannan was excommunicated and died a murderer and a derelict. The kingdom has rolled on and over the likes of you.

P

I agree with P on this. There is no legal or US Constitutional reason for the Church to account to anyone including it's members. On the other hand, personally, I believe it is the right and even moral thing to do.