Here is the reply I sent:

"I guess we can speculate all we want, but in the end neither of us really know, because the church does, regardless of intentions, keep their finances secret - by every definition of the word. Therefore I don't know that the 2 billion dollar downtown megamall came from money that members gave with the intention of constructing religious buildings and helping the less fortunate, as Christ would want, or if it came from donations specifically for the purpose of business development. As I said before the tithing slip itself contains a disclaimer releasing them from any restricted use of funds, (though I am sure efforts are made where possible and I do thank/respect you for your efforts in this on a ward level). But you also don't know what happens once the funds hit Salt Lake. Likely only a handful people in the world actually Know. That's the problem with undisclosed finances, it breeds nothing but speculation, by me, by you, by your bishop, by that guy you respect who says he "knows things". It may work fine for major corporations, but Christ's church should not be run as a corporation. Christ would not want that, Besides, corporations breed corruption, even ones with the best intentions.

The way I see it, is the LDS church claims they way they use money is the will of God. So either it is, or it isn't. If it is, it should without question be transparent for all criticisms to be thrown at it and eventually fail. The church withholding financial information is the same as it withholding scriptures or history. It's the leaders taking control of the message instead of the message being apparent to all. People could complain about the Rome project but then if it's a good cause, then guess what? That bears itself out. People see the fruits of it and those critics who unfairly criticized are put in their place and everyone gains even more faith that what is being done at Temple Square is actually God's will, but the church doesn't do that. The church just shuts the blinders and says, "Trust us, we've got your best intentions in mind." Well, do they?

In the end the bottom line is this, if the church is unwilling to publish information on where exactly it’s getting money and how exactly it’s spending it, then the default assumption must be that such information would harm the church’s image. Think about what that means for a minute."

Looks pretty good to me.

Much thanks to /u/NotVeryUsefulTruths and /u/mr_dirk_diggler for their inputs and uh.. I may have blatantly plagiarized a sentence or two from both of you, I hope you're both cool with it ;)