smac97

This is particularly so given that the Office of the Presiding Bishop is, by scripture, charged with "administering all temporal things" (D&C 107:68). Managing the Church's money, or the oversight of managing it, sure seems pretty "temporal." See also here: This is the written "order of things." In 1996, Elder Packer gave a now well-known address: "The Unwritten Order of Things." In this BYU devotional address, Elder Packer emphasized that many Latter-day Saint protocols—seating, leadership deference, and administrative decorum—are often learned through observation rather than written in handbooks. It focuses on maintaining order, dignity, and spiritual focus in church administration. Elder Packer (!) was arguably the last of the Old School "doctrinaire" apostles. It it strains credulity that he would be ignorant of the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop, or that he would seek to circumvent both the written and unwritten "order of things" by barging into EPA in the way the multiple-hearsay anecdote describes. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for sharing this perspective. The Church originated in the U.S., but much of its mandate will be carried out in a world-wide way. My surmise is that the United States and Canada are by far the largest net contributors. A few other developed nations (such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and possibly New Zealand or Germany) are thought to be close to or at self-sufficiency, but exact figures are not public. The vast majority of countries and territories where the Church operates receive net subsidies from the central Church. Membership and activity figures in the U.S. and Canada seem to have slowed a lot, and over time may decline. If and when that happens, the financial condition of the Church may be adversely impacted in some big ways. I hope the Saints throughout the world are able to continue to pay tithing. I also trust that the Brethren can scale expenditures up and down as necessary to perpetuate its mandated responsibilities. Same here. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Apart from Nielsen, do you have any evidence to support this suspicion? Could you clarify how that is a problem or concern? As to matters of governance, why is oversight by the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric insufficient? I do recall this 2019 Tribune article: So we have 1) the Tribune saying what 2) Nielsen said 3) Richard Willes said 4) Elder Packer and Bro. Clarke said. Triple or quadruple hearsay. And I could not immediately find the Nielsen complaint itself, so I can't say how Mr. Willes would have been sufficiently aware of the contents of the communication between Elder Packer and Bro. Clarke as to be able to quote Elder Packer verbatim. In speculating based on multiple hearsay? Hard to falsify or verify speculation. I think the "fixed principles" will remain in place. I sure hope so, as they have worked very well. Except it's not "Nielsen's account." It's hearsay. I still don't understand how this is a concern. The finances of the Church fall under the stewardship of the Presiding Bishopric. Those men, and those in the First Presidency, have plenary access. I assume the Church Auditing Department also has plenary access. Could you elaborate on the controversy? You seem to presuppose that the Q12 not having comparable access is some sort of scandalous or problematic thing. Do you also think the members of the Seventy should have plenary access? The General Officers? I'm sorry, but there seem to be some unstated presuppositions that either I do not know about or do not share. The Council on the Disposition of the Tithes seems to exercise stewardship over the funds which are allocated to fund the operations of the Church. Would you agree with that? The Council would also seem to be aware of, and on board with, a portion of tithes being sent to EPA for investment/reserve purposes. Is it your belief that the Council has particularized supervisory/oversight responsibilities pertaining to EPA and how it handles those funds? Okay. This helps. What is it about the Q12 that is dispositive relative to EPA being "integrated" or not? You seem to presuppose that the Q12 should have oversight responsibilities, and that the current levels of oversight are improper/scandalous. Is that accurate? If so, what is the nexus between A) Q12 access to EPA info and B) EPA being an "integrated auxiliary." Where did nexus come from? Who established it? When? Where? Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for explaining your perspective on things. I do not think this is an either/or situation. As I noted previously, I think the Parable has a lot to do with the concept of stewardship. The Lord gives us "talents" and expects us to use them in His service. In the present discussion, the Parable is strikingly both figurative and literal. The "Lord" has "servants" entrusted with money, and they are instructed and commanded to make good use of it. I am reminded of this 2017 article: Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances, shows how church went from losing money to making money — lots of it Some excerpts: I think Quinn is slightly off in the tone of his comment, but he's substantively correct. I think Jacob 2 lays out the the guiding principles: I think there are times when the Lord ("the hand of providence") enables the Lord's covenant people to obtain "riches." Back then, there seemed to be numbers of Nephites who were so blessed, while others were not. But then things went sideways: Creating a class hierarchy is not what the Lord intended here. Jacob condemns this stratification and then explains what the proper purpose of riches is: I think the good numbers of the rank-and-file members of the Church have, for many years, have both worked to gain an education and skill sets allowing them to provide for themselves, and have also meaningfully observed the Law of Tithing. The Brethren, meanwhile, have for the last several decades stabilized and strengthened the Church's finances. They have done so through good stewardship. I can't help but notice that your comment, apparently intended to be scornful, actually parallels the Parable of the Talents: You: "Can you really imagine Jesus coming back and saying, 'You turned the widow's mite into a stock portfolio worth a trillion dollars! That's what I'm talking about! Well done, good and faithful servant!'" Matthew 25: To paraphrase your opening statement: Where you lose me is your belief that in this particular parable, money is a metaphor or simile conveying 'spiritual realities that finite human minds can grasp' and instead is not supposed to be taken literally. When it comes to the finances of the Church as administered by the Brethren, I think the Parable is intended to be both figurative and literal. I think the topic of the Brethren's stewardship of finances also needs to be viewed in context, taking into account important factors such as A) the principles enunciated in Jacob 2, B) the Brethren not enriching themselves, C) the objectively excellent manner in which the Church's finances have been handled for decades, D) and the challenges associated with administering large-scale humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Back to the Trib article: If the Church had continued to founder in these "cycles of near bankruptcy," I am sure our critics would have a lot to negatively say about it. And yet now, decades into the Church having "found its economic footing," our critics still have a lot to negatively say about it. What Quinn describes as "an American success story without parallel" you describe as "unsustainable and foolish." I think this is a very important aspect of the Brethren's success with their stewardship. Quinn surveys the Brethren's stewardship and sees "'an enormously faith-promoting story'" that, if seen as part of the "'larger picture,'" would have the Latter-day Saints "'breath{ing} a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'" You survey the same topic and see the Brethren's actions as "unsustainable and foolish." Quinn describes a 50+ (now closer to 60+) year process whereby the Church went from "think{ing} it could {not} meet its payroll" to "'an enormously faith-promoting story'" that, if seen as part of the "'larger picture,'" would have the Latter-day Saints "'breath{ing} a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'" You survey the historical span and see the Brethren's actions as "unsustainable and foolish." Again, that the Brethren are not enriching themselves is a very important factor, IMO. I think you have materially misunderstood my view. I strongly disagree. They went to extreme lengths to hide this from the membership, the general public, and from the SEC. By "buried or hidden away" I was referring to the Parable, in which the third servant did nothing to invest and enlarge the talent he had been given, and instead literally "buried" and "hid" it in the earth. The Brethren have done more than just keep the Church operating within its means. They have prudently set aside a portion for investment and growth. This comes across as an ad hoc rationalization. Given our interactions over the years, I can appreciate how you view the Church and its leaders with some measures of jaundiced cynicism. If the Brethren were wasting money, or if they were investing the Church's money in risky or unwise or "vice" ventures, or if they were enriching themselves, then I could see more justification for your position. As it is, though, none of these things is happening. The Brethren have, for some decades now, become excellent stewards of the Church's finances. The two principal grievances you seem to hold are 1) the Church is not sufficiently "transparent" regarding the Church's finances, and 2) the Church does not spend enough of its funds on humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Is this a fair restatement of your position? If so, I think there is some merit to both, but not enough for me to join you in your cynicism. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. What is your basis for thinking this? Over the decades, I've heard repeatedly things like: ... According to Bednar and Hinckley, that is exactly the approach the Church takes--live on less than you take in, and save the rest for a rainy day. The Church has responsibilities that we as individuals don't have, and the duration of those responsibilities are not reflected in our individual lives. For me, I don't feel like I have a responsibility to provide financially for much of anything beyond me and my wife. My children are now adults and should not look to me to provide for them in any long-term sense. Their lives are their responsibilities. If I end up being able to leave them some inheritance, that would be nice. But it's not an obligation. In contrast, the Church has responsibilities for millions, and in some ways billions, of people. The programs and mandates of the Church need to be managed and funded in multi-generational ways that do not apply to us as individuals. The Church's stewardship is effectively perpetual, ours is not. The Church has stewardship over continuing the programs and mandates of the Church, we do not. This sounds like a post hoc rationalization. I'm okay with that. Habit Ten of the Hollis book: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." We can proceed without having persuaded the other of our respective stances. Wise, Forward-Looking Stewardship I would say wise, forward-looking stewardship begins with having an internally coherent vision and goals for the organization. Okay. Do you think the Church is lacking in this regard? If so, could you elaborate? That is quite a reasonable point as an abstraction. I'm not sure what it would look like if attempted to put into practice. Perhaps you could provide some illustrations of such optimization? Also, is it possible that Joseph, while managing Egypt's foodstuffs during times of plenty, also encountered calls for "the reserves" to be "optimized, not maximized"? Put another way, can your worldview accommodate the possibility that the Brethren are aware of things of which you are not, and that these things may have an substantial impact on the "optimization" versus "maximization" thing you reference above? Do you think there are other principles also in play here? That is an interesting statement. Could you elaborate on how you propose to gauge what the Church "needs" to have in reserve? And does your calculus include developments with the Church ten years from now? Thirty? Fifty? Broadly speaking, the Church seems to be growing the fastest in areas of the world that tend to be poor, even impoverished. Quinn's last book was rather eye-opening for me, as it seemed to strongly indicate that the Church is subsidizing its presence in most of the world: "{T}he U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work {in other countries}."' "Quinn says {that} the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns." I struggle to square the foregoing with your "the church doesn't need very big reserves" commentary. This is very illuminating. That you for sharing. What "expenses" do you think would be cut? Missionary work? Temples? Humanitarian/philanthropic work? Education? Is it possible that the Brethren would not want to "cut expenses" as to its various mandates, particularly if they could avoid such cutting by maintaining substantial reserves? Could you elaborate? "Sufficient" for what? What metric are you using here? In 2010 "the {Church's operations in the} Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue." What programs do you think the Church should cut in that country so that you would be satisfied? My parents served three missions: Samoa, Fabens (Texas) and Zimbabwe. None of these countries, I think, sustain themselves financially as to the Church's various programs, and almost certainly do not generate enough money to pay for international humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. I struggle to understand what you mean by "appropriately sized reserve fund." The Church is not profligate. The Brethren are not enriching themselves, and the Church's programs are designed to be financially constrained. I am glad of that. And if and when the Church finds ways to prudently distribute more of its funds, I will celebrated each such increase. Meanwhile, however, the Church is operating within its means, and it has wisely invested surplus funds so that it now has a substantial reserve. I am very grateful to the Brethren for these things. I wonder if the Church's current financial condition is a partial fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 3: The Lord could have just poured down gold coins on the roof of the Church Administration Building. Or He could command His children to tithe and donate in other ways (Malachi 3:10), which donations, when coupled with wise stewardship by His servants, (as mandated in Matthew 25), have yielded financial blessings to the Church as a whole. I like the second way better, as it allows each of us to contribute in whatever ways we can. There is a huge distance between committing fraud and being an example of best practices. I agree. I wonder, though, if we are situated to competently assess what the "best practices" of the Church are or should be, particularly given its particularized mandates. I think most observant Latter-day Saints are broadly supportive of the Brethren, and they have enough assurances to maintain that support. The Church will never be able to placate all its members, let alone its critics and detractors. I think there will never be a point at which the Church's critics would say "Yes, the Church is managing its finances well"? Instead, endless faultfinding and goalpost-moving and nebulous demands of "more" and "not that" will be the order of the day. I agree with all that. But you don't seem to give these things much credit or significance. Am I wrong about that? Again, given your perspective, I can appreciate how you could reach these conclusions. The Brethren sure seem to have a firm grasp on things. Elder - formerly Presiding Bishop - Causse is not in the Q12. He has spoken many times of working to expand the Church's humanitarian efforts. Not really the stuff we'd expect to see of a group who are "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition." For me, I think the Brethren are doing an excellent job of managing the Church's finances. I do not resent or object to the Law of Tithing. I think it is ennobling. I think consecrating a tithe it is as important to discipleship as it is to consecrate work and time and effort. Three reasons. First, I just want to keep the record straight on what happened and how people's beliefs evolve over time. Right. But why this topic in particular? Okay. Could you elaborate on this? My sense is that there really aren't very many Latter-day Saints who cared back then or care now. And of those who did care, many not only do not feel "betrayed," they feel vindicated by the outcome of the tithing lawsuits, in which the Church was exonerated of accusations of misconduct. More broadly, the Latter-day Saints who are really paying attention to the Church's finances are coming to the conclusion that Quinn suggested back in 2017: At the same time, I think plenty of Latter-day Saints do not want their faith publicly disparaged and insulted, things they hold sacred profaned, their intelligence and character disputed, their leaders ridiculed and insulted, and so on. Do you likewise have "empathy" for those feelings of consternation and frustration? I really don't think so. I think Huntsman, along with most of us, never had any substantial misunderstanding or misapprehension about City Creek. I think Huntsman's lawsuit was pretextual. To be sure, there are some Latter-day Saints who objected to City Creek. But the Brethren cannot take a "We'll only do things that will nobody anywhere will find objectionable in any way" sort of approach to the Church's finances. The Parable of the Talents warns against that. I don't know what you mean by "seems like an attempt to gaslight." If anything, this thread - and the various other threads pertaining to City Creek and the tithing lawsuits - have illuminating what appears to be mostly disagreements based on splitting hairs, differences of opinions and value judgments, and presuppositions about the Church generally. You are making this up as a post-hoc rationalization. I don't think so. If it was factually inaccurate, I think you would be able to pick it apart. I think there's quite a bit more to EPA than that. I don't think any of this is incompatible with what I have said. If the Church has broken the law, then it should be held to account. That is not what has happened, though. This conversation isn't about legal v. illegal, but is instead about highly subjective value judgments about what the Church should do with enormous sums of money. We can and should have these conversations, but I think they were more effective without the disparagements and vitriol. Thank you for explaining your view so clearly. I appreciate you taking the time to share it. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the reserve fund “is not used to help fund the Church’s religious, educational, and humanitarian mission” and that its “sole purpose is for unspent tithing to be saved.” Presiding Bishop Christopher Waddell addressed this directly in the 2023 60 Minutes interview when he said: That statement makes clear that the reserves are being used to support the Church’s core mission — temples, meetinghouses, missionary work, education, welfare programs, and disaster relief. The idea that EPA’s sole purpose is simply to warehouse unspent tithing appears to rest almost entirely on David Nielsen’s interpretation of the internal accounting. While Nielsen is certainly entitled to his perspective, the Church’s own leaders have consistently described the reserves as a prudent reserve designed to provide long-term stability and the ability to continue the Church’s work even in difficult or disruptive times. Managing those funds wisely allows the Church to plan clearly for both present and future needs rather than living hand-to-mouth. I agree that reasonable people can disagree about the ideal size of such a reserve or how transparent the reporting should be. But the claim that the reserves have no connection to funding the Church’s mission doesn’t align with the statements from Church leaders or how the funds are actually deployed. Thanks, -Smac

I forgot to address these two questions. On money coming out on those two occasions, they are "the exceptions that prove the rule." The money that came out was ultimately for commercial purposes, not charitable. That distinction allegedly matters when evaluating whether or not EPA is a charity. Personally I get less worked up about that then other people might--I think the Church had a moral obligation to bail out Beneficial Life, and I think investing in Salt Lake City's downtown is a better use of resources than capitalizing Bank of America, United Healthcare, and Meta. Regarding Bishop Waddells' answers, I'd ask a ton of followup questions on this. The big one is whether or not the apostles are permitted to see Ensign Peak's investment earnings. We know the apostles are allowed to see tithing donations, but are they allowed to see the Church's total earnings? I'm quite sure they are not. If I'm right, that indicates it really isn't that integrated. Assuming followup questions for Bishop Waddell are not available (as a practical matter, as he likely does not visit this board), could you explain your assessment of Bishop Waddell's statement here: "In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work— education work, all the work of the church they fund." Do you think he was telling the truth, or not? EPA was organized in, I think, 1995 or 1997. Bishop Waddell was speaking in 2023. I would think he was speaking of the status quo in 2023, rather than providing a long retrospective accounting for the last 28 or so years. In any event, it seems like we can only gauge Bishop Waddell's comments based on the information we have. Do we have more evidence than just Neilsen? I don't understand what you mean by "more integrated than it really is." Are you suggesting that EPA is autonomous? I understand the concern, I think. I surmise that EPA operates with a high degree of professional autonomy in its day-to-day investment decisions (its job is, after all, to make wise investments, within parameters set by the Brethren as indicated by the absence of "vice" stocks), which can make it feel less “integrated” with the Church than, say, a local ward or a Church-owned university. However, per the IRS: As I understand it, EPA was created and exists solely to manage the Church’s prudent reserve in order to support its core mission (temples, meetinghouses, humanitarian aid, education, missionary work, etc.). Ultimate oversight rests with the Presiding Bishopric and the First Presidency (notably, the Q12 apparently does not have oversight responsibilities). The fact that it employs professional investment staff and uses sophisticated vehicles is not unusual — many large churches and religious organizations have similarly structured investment arms. The IRS has long accepted this structure and has never challenged EPA’s status as an integrated auxiliary, even after public scrutiny in 2019 and 2023. That’s a strong indicator that it meets the legal standard, even if the arrangement looks different from a small local auxiliary. I agree that reasonable people can debate where the line should be drawn between a church’s religious activities and its financial stewardship. But the legal test for “integrated auxiliary” has never required the kind of micro-management that would make EPA look like a typical congregational program. So could you elaborate? To what extent and in what ways is EPA not, in your view, sufficiently "integrated"? Thanks, -Smac

I would agree with that. Would you also agree that the Parable also pertains to matters of stewardship? Yes, of course. But the master in the parable was a materialistic, worldly man whose goal was to have more money. The master is also intended to represent Jesus Christ, would you agree with that? I think it can be jarring for metaphors to have potentially incongruent implications. Hence the "master" in the Parable of the Talents might be seen as avaricious. The servant views the master as "hard" or harsh, leading to inaction. I see this as the servant’s unrighteous judgment of God’s character. He projects fear and hardness onto the Lord, leading to slothfulness and inaction. The master repeats the servant’s own words back to him not to endorse that flawed view of Himself as harsh or exploitative, but to condemn the servant by his own logic: “If you knew I was so demanding, why didn’t you at least do the safe, minimal thing to produce some return?” This exposes the excuse as invalid—fear-based misunderstanding of God does not justify burying one’s gifts. As this Ensign article explains, the third servant’s false perception of the master stifled his own growth and caused him to miss the master’s mercy and grace; his unrighteous judgment of God led to poor self-judgment and lost opportunities. Biblical metaphors and similes describing God (or Christ) often use vivid, earthly imagery to convey spiritual realities that finite human minds can grasp. Just as “as a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10) emphasizes the sudden, unexpected nature of the Lord’s return—catching the unprepared off guard, not implying criminality or stealthy wrongdoing—other metaphors can be misread literally as attributing negative human flaws (harshness, pettiness, cruelty, or arbitrariness) to God if taken out of context. Latter-day Saint teachings, like the interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, consistently stress that such language reveals God’s perfect character (love, holiness, justice, zeal, and sovereignty) rather than imputing ill will; any “negative” perception usually stems from the observer’s flawed perspective or incomplete understanding, not from God Himself. Other examples: "Jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15). “Consuming fire” or “devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24; 9:3; Hebrews 12:29; also Malachi 3:2 as “refiner’s fire”). God as a lion, leopard, or bereaved bear (Hosea 5:14; 13:7–8; also Amos 3:8). “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15:3; also Psalm 24:8; Isaiah 42:13). And so on. In each case, the metaphor serves to convey profound truths about God’s nature (holiness, zeal, justice, sovereignty) in language humans can relate to, while the broader scriptural witness and modern revelation (e.g., Doctrine and Covenants emphasis on God’s love and mercy) guard against misreading these as flaws. As with the Parable of the Talents, the danger lies in projecting imperfect human motives onto God rather than trusting His perfect character and responding with faith, diligence, and reverence. Latter-day Saint leaders encourage studying these images prayerfully to deepen appreciation for God’s goodness, not to fear a capricious deity. Going back to the Parable of the Talents, I think your point about the purpose of the parable ("the importance of using talents (skills, money, time) to serve God") and mine ("stewardship") go hand in hand. I appreciate you being direct about this and continuing the conversation. I can see why the Church’s reserve fund strikes you as, in your previous words, going "waaaayyyy beyond 'prudent'" and into "hoarding." That’s an understandable reaction when the numbers are large, and it’s a question worth wrestling with honestly. At the same time, I think the Parable of the Talents actually pushes us in a different direction. The master doesn’t condemn the first two servants for ending up with significantly more than they started with. He praises them precisely because they actively put their talents to work and multiplied them through diligent effort. The one he calls “wicked and slothful” is the servant who simply buried his talent—keeping it completely inactive and unproductive. The master even points out that the bare minimum would have been to put the money with the exchangers to earn some increase. In the parable’s own logic, faithful stewardship means productive multiplication in service to the master’s objectives, not passive "hoarding." From what I’ve seen, the Church’s approach aligns far more with the first two servants than the third. The reserve isn’t being buried or hidden away; it’s being carefully invested and multiplied so the Church can sustain and expand what we believe are the Lord’s priorities on a global, multi-generational scale—building temples at a pace never seen before, providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief in over 200 countries, supporting education, strengthening families, and preparing for future growth or hard times. I also can't help but think that the Church's planning is qualitatively different from any of us as private individuals. Most of us think about, at most, our future selves and our children, and perhaps our grandchildren. We hope to provide for ourselves, and then maybe leave something for our kids and grandkids. But that's about as far as our perspective goes. The Church, I think, is attempting to anticipate circumstances involving both a lot more time and a lot more people. Joseph in Egypt is today lauded for insisting that Egypt save during the seven years of "plenty," but I suspect he had detractors who did not have the foresight Joseph and God had regarding the coming seven years of famine. Moreover, I have previously written at some length about how the Church having huge financial reserves is a fairly recent phenomenon (just in the last few decades), and also that distribution/funding of humanitarian and philanthropic and religious efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (internationally, with huge amounts of money potentially in play, with dozens/hundreds of "partners" and governments and such with whom the Church must cooperate) requires huge measures of due diligence and vetting. This is particularly so given recent discoveries of widespread graft and corruption in NGOs and nonprofits which purport to be trying to do good things, but which are squandering and wasting and stealing a lot. Put another way, I wonder if the Church - like many other wealthy individuals and organizations - struggle with finding worthwhile and reputable partners with whom they can work to put money and resources and such to good and productive use. I’m genuinely interested in your perspective on this. What do you see as the practical difference between wise, forward-looking stewardship (especially for an organization responsible for millions of members worldwide) and the kind of "hoarding" you’re describing? Where would you draw the line? I’m always trying to think more carefully about these things, and I value hearing where my own view might need sharpening. Not quite. My point was that fretting over whether a specific dollar on the balance sheet is tied to specific dollars on the income statement is what's silly. Okay. It's a legitimate, or at least sensible, policy choice to say that the Church wants to limit its annual spending to about 85%-90% of its annual tithing revenue. Given that conservatively, the Church's investment income revenue is double its tithing revenue, this leads to a situation where perhaps 70% of total revenue goes to increasing the size of the reserve fund, and the remaining 30% goes to religious and charitable endeavors. If deploying resources that way aligns with the Church's values, then sure; that is sensible. Okay. Okay, I think that helps. What may be important to some may seem "silly" to others. That's fair. Here is the part of Paul Rytting's declaration that is most relevant. Read this, I pray thee. I cannot, for it is redacted. I The redacted parts of Rytting's declaration might settle the issue one way or the other, but I don't know what it says. but I'm confident Nielsen is right. Okay. I am hoping to understand the evidentiary basis for your certitude. Okay. But if all of this is coming down to "semantics" and "silly," why does this topic seem to be such a bone of contention? You don't think the Church lied. The Ninth Circuit agrees with you. The Tenth Circuit and the U.S. District Court did not "reach" the issue of false statements. So after lots of spilled ink and legal fees and online discussions, where do you think we end up? Are we still where have have been for years? You think the Church should spend down more of its invested reserves, as the Brethren are currently - in your view - "hoarding" money. I think the Church's finances are, after 150+ years, finally stabilized and well in hand, perhaps in perpetuity. This is, in my view, a paradigmatic departure from where we as an institution have been. It is also a paradigmatic departure from where most of use are or ever will be. My financial decisions contemplate the next 30+ years, and end with my children (or, perhaps, my grandchildren). The Church is managing many billions of dollars, mostly acquired relatively recently. The Church has what could be called fiduciary obligations, and also substantial practical and logistical constraints on how much money it can reasonably and responsibly and effectively distribute. The Brethren, who are charged with these heavy responsibilities, are not enriching themselves, and they are educated and experienced men, and they are good and decent men. They are not avaricious, and I don't think they are irrationally holding on to money for the sake of holding on to money. Hinckley made the assurances, the courts determined that definition #2 of "using tithing" is the proper definition when interpreting his remarks. I have no problem with that, and would have and basically did argue that this was the case all along. But a lot of members misunderstood him. With transparency, this misunderstanding could have been avoidable. But the lack of transparency doesn't imply fraud. Okay. Assuming, arguendo, that a lot of members did indeed misunderstand Pres. Hinckley as regarding the funding of City Creek, could you elaborate on why that is such an important issue for you? Okay. So where does that put us? Has all this just been a combination of (A) the Church has been exonerated regarding the allegations of fraud in the tithing lawsuits, and (B) the arguments about EPA are an a protracted and ongoing "woulda coulda shoulda" sort of thing, where reasonable minds can disagree about what the Church should do with its money? Yes. We are a society governed by laws, and the Church appears to be operating within the confines of those laws. Would you agree with that? Okay. Are you suggesting that EPA not paying more taxes amounts to a burden the "hard-working population of people, many of whom can't afford healthcare"? If the EPA were paying more taxes, would that improve the ability of hard-working Americans to afford healthcare? I'm not quite sure I see the nexus between the two items. EPA is not a for-profit hedge fund operating for private gain (I say this because you have, over the years, repeatedly characterized EPA as a hedge fund). It is, instead, an integrated auxiliary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized under long-standing U.S. tax law (Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) and related provisions governing churches and their supporting organizations). Its sole purpose is to manage reserves that help fund the Church’s religious, educational, and humanitarian mission—temples, meetinghouses, welfare programs, disaster relief, and missionary work. Like every other tax-exempt religious organization in America (Catholic dioceses, Protestant denominations, Jewish federations, etc.), its investment earnings are not subject to income tax precisely because they support exempt purposes. You are right that any large, successful institution benefits from the stability and rule of law our society provides. That’s true of universities with billion-dollar endowments, hospitals, and every other 501(c)(3) organization. The policy question is whether we want to single out religious organizations for special taxation while leaving their secular counterparts untouched. Historically, the United States has chosen not to do that, in large part because of First Amendment protections and the recognition that churches provide enormous voluntary social services that reduce the burden on government. As for the future: if Congress decides to overhaul the tax code and repeal or narrow the tax-exempt status of churches and their auxiliaries, that change would apply across the board—not just to the Church. EPA’s “free ride” is the same ride every other religious body in America has been given for more than a century. The real debate is whether that historic policy should be changed, and if so, what the consequences would be for the millions of Americans who rely on the charitable, educational, and humanitarian work those organizations perform. I assume you would want this legislative change to apply to all churches and 501(c)(3) and such. Is that accurate? Yes. Reducing spending and waste and graft and corruption would also help a lot. I assume the Church and EPA would be subject to the same laws as apply to everyone else. It appears that the IRS is not showing any favoritism to the Church or to EPA, but I don't think it or Congress would exempt them from such an overhaul. Do you concur? Thanks, -Smac

I would agree with that. Would you also agree that the Parable also pertains to matters of stewardship? Yes, I understand your perspective. In many ways, I think our prior conversations about this have touched on Habit Five of the Hollis book: "Hunt for the Best Argument Against You." That is, I think, what you provide. I think we vary in both our respective presuppositions and our ultimate conclusions and value judgments, and I am okay with that. Having previously argued about these matters extensively, I will here deploy Habit Ten: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." The second item here is not in dispute, but the first one appears to be. I previously inquired about evidence to rebut the statement that "{t}he vast majority of these funds {tithes and donations received from members} are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church." I'm content to leave this unanswered. You said the whole question of tithing vs. investment earnings is “silly” because money is completely fungible and there are multiple ways to rationalize any expense. While dollars are fungible in the sense that any one can be spent anywhere, nonprofits and churches routinely differentiate funds by source and purpose — through fund accounting, board-designated reserves, donor restrictions, and fiduciary obligations. Could you explain why the Church’s long-standing public distinction (vast majority of tithing used immediately for core programs, with only a portion methodically set aside as a “prudent reserve” for investment) is meaningless or silly, rather than a legitimate, transparent policy choice? Also, even though money is fungible once received, organizations (especially tax-exempt nonprofits) are required to track and report funds according to their source and intended use — for legal compliance, donor trust, tax purposes, and stewardship. The Church’s First Presidency has repeatedly made exactly that distinction in official statements. If fungibility makes every such distinction irrelevant, wouldn’t that logic apply to any nonprofit that maintains operating reserves, endowments, or restricted funds? Or do you see a meaningful difference in the Church’s case? Yes, that's fair. I have a couple of reasons for believing this is true. First, David Nielsen said it is true in his report. Okay. What are your thoughts about the affidavits submitted by the Church? Do you regard them as credible? Apart from Nielsen's affidavit, are you aware of any evidence to suggest that this is the way the Church actually did "do it" this way? I would like to better understand what you are saying here. As I understand it, in behavioral economics, “mental accounting” usually refers to an individual bias where people irrationally value money differently based on its source (e.g., treating a tax refund like “free money”). But in organizational accounting — especially for churches and nonprofits — segregating funds by source and purpose would seem to be standard and required practice, not "bias." This is how, for example, boards fulfill their fiduciary duties and honor donor intent. Am I correct in thinking that you see the Church’s public statements about tithing and reserves as falling into that individual cognitive-bias category, rather than as a deliberate accounting and communications policy? Also, given that the Church has consistently told members for decades that tithing is used first and foremost for religious programs (with only a prudent portion going into invested reserves), isn’t applying different rationalizations for different categories of spending actually the expected and transparent approach, rather than inconsistency? The 2025 Ninth Circuit en banc decision in Huntsman (11-0) seems to have reviewed the exact same facts and fungibility arguments you’re making. The court still held that no reasonable person could find the Church misrepresented the source of funds for City Creek, because it had always said it would use earnings on invested reserves (not principal tithing) for such projects. If fungibility makes the entire distinction “silly,” why do you think the unanimous court treated the Church’s source-of-funds explanation as meaningful and non-misleading instead of dismissing it the way you have? You have concluded that the question is silly because one could rationalize any spending either way. But the Church has never claimed all spending comes from investment earnings — it has repeatedly said the opposite: the vast majority of tithing is spent immediately on the Church’s mission. If that is the case, what would a non-silly version of this distinction look like to you? For example, if the Church maintained formal internal categories for immediate-use tithing versus the invested reserve (exactly as its public statements describe), would that change your view, or does fungibility render even that irrelevant? This particular detail has nothing to do with Nielsen's argument. Nielsen's argument is, as I recall, that EPA doesn't qualify as a public charity because it never actually uses any of its resources for anything charitable. Therefore the IRS should classify it as a private foundation rather than a public charity and tax it as such. The Church argues that since it is an integrated auxiliary of the Church, whether or not it is doing anything charitable needs to be evaluated by looking at the Church as a whole and not looking at EPA in a silo. Nielsen counters that it can't be an integrated auxiliary unless it is already a public charity and since it isn't a public charity it can't be an integrated auxiliary. I think this is clearly a unique situation that wasn't anticipated when the laws were written. I've seen companies request Private Letter Rulings from the IRS for issues that were much, much smaller than this one. “The fundamental claim to me is that Ensign Peak brings money in, and it’s the Hotel California. It never comes out,” Professor Phil Hackney told 60 Minutes. He said the claims about the Mormon church’s investment fund are complex and in a gray area." Interesting stuff, this. You noted Nielsen’s argument creates a circularity: EPA can’t be an integrated auxiliary unless it’s already a public charity, but Nielsen says it isn’t a public charity because it makes no direct charitable distributions. The Church’s position is that EPA is evaluated as part of the integrated Church as a whole. Do you see any support in the IRS regulations or case law for the Church’s holistic view (i.e., that an auxiliary’s charitable purpose can be satisfied by supporting the parent church’s exempt purposes rather than making standalone distributions)? Also, Professor Hackney’s “Hotel California” line is colorful, but how does it's "{money} never comes out" claim work in light of, for example, EPA funds having been used for City Creek and Beneficial Life? Also, what are your thoughts about Bishop Waddells' 2023 remarks to 60 Minutes (the same piece in which Phil Hackney weighed in)? "In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work— education work, all the work of the church they fund." The Church's position is that EPA is an integrated auxiliary of the Church as a whole — so its charitable purpose is fulfilled by supporting the parent organization’s mission, not by making standalone distributions like a typical foundation. In Nielsen’s view (as stated directly in the 60 Minutes interview and his original IRS whistleblower complaint), the routine cash/Treasury-account transfers (the “average of nine transfers per month” Bishop Waddell described) do not count as meaningful use of Ensign Peak’s funds for charitable or exempt purposes. Put another way, until and unless the Church is selling down the invested assets in that main portfolio and transferring those proceeds to support church operations, humanitarian work, etc., Nielsen argues it doesn’t satisfy the requirements for a public charity or integrated auxiliary. In his eyes, simply moving money around in the checking-account side while the retirement-account side keeps growing indefinitely doesn’t count. Nielsen’s criticism is substantive (it raises a real, non-frivolous interpretive question under IRS rules), but it is fundamentally a disagreement about degree and policy interpretation, not a clear-cut, black-or-white violation of the law. As I understand it, the law does not impose a bright-line spending requirement on EPA the way it does on private foundations (which must distribute ~5% of assets annually). Public charities and integrated auxiliaries of churches get much broader latitude: Churches and their integrated auxiliaries are automatically treated as public charities and are exempt from many normal filing and oversight rules. There is no IRS rule that says “you must spend X% of your portfolio each year or lose exempt status.” The IRS has long allowed religious organizations to maintain large endowments/reserves that are invested for future needs (this is the Church’s exact “prudent reserve” theory, drawing on the parable of the talents). In other words, the law leaves room for judgment about how much use is enough to satisfy “operated exclusively for” the church. Nielsen is arguing for a stricter, more aggressive interpretation — essentially “if you’re not regularly selling down the principal and spending it, it doesn’t count.” The Church and its defenders say the reserves exist precisely to be available when needed, and the regular cash-account transfers plus occasional large draws (City Creek earnings, Beneficial Life, operational funding) are sufficient. Nielsen is not just making a subjective “they should spend more” complaint. He is pointing to a genuine tension in how the operational test applies to a massive, perpetually growing reserve. That part is substantive. But his view is not compelled by the black letter of the law. It is one reasonable interpretation among others, and the IRS’s long silence (6.5 years with no action on his complaint) suggests the agency does not see a clear, enforceable violation. Interesting stuff, to be sure. I think most Latter-day Saints are A) generally unaware of and indifferent to the particulars of the Church's large-scale financial management efforts, and B) generally feel that the Church is doing a good job with its finances (no systemic problems/scandals, the Brethren are not living profligate lives, there is a lot of "visible" stuff to see from the Church's efforts, etc.). Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for clarifying this. Could you elaborate? From the Church in 2019: If you have contrary evidence (to rebut the statement that "{t}he vast majority of these funds {tithes and donations received from members} are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church"), could you provide some references for me to review? Okay. Do you have any evidence to substantiate that this is what is happening? I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are saying this latter idea ("of the Church running 100% of its operations off of investment earnings and using 100% of tithing to increase the size of the reserve fund") is what is actually happening? I'd be willing to hear the Church’s side of the story if it wanted to dispute this particular allegation, but personally I’m fairly confident it is true--that is the way I’d expect a professional treasurer to do it. In the law, there is a concept called a "prima facie case," that is, that a party has presented a legal claim that is supported by sufficient, initial evidence, making it appear valid "at first sight" or "on its face". It establishes a rebuttable presumption of truth, meaning the case will proceed or succeed unless the opposing party introduces evidence to refute or contradict it. You seem to be suggesting that Nielsen has made a "prima face case" that "the specific funds that were used to pay for the mall were pulled out of EPA before they earned any interest." Is that a fair characterization of your position? If so, could you elaborate on how you reached that conclusion? It has been quite a while since we discussed the "whistleblower" matter. Mr. Nielsen filed his complaint in 2019. Is it your understanding that his complaint is still pending or otherwise "open" with the IRS? I have no understanding of this, but would speculate that it is in a perpetual status of being “received but not investigated.” Assuming your speculation is accurate, do you think Nielsen's argument re: EPA is factually and legally correct? If so, why do you think the IRS has not done anything with this complaint? I appreciate your input. While we seldom agree on ultimate issues pertaining to the Church, I have found much value in listening to your perspective over the years. Thanks, -Smac

It has been quite a while since we discussed the "whistleblower" matter. Mr. Nielsen filed his complaint in 2019. Is it your understanding that his complaint is still pending or otherwise "open" with the IRS? Even if the Church and EPA are all legally one organization, how do you see the distinction (or lack of one) between tithing dollars and other sources of income? Tithing is tax-free and the bulk of it is used to fund the Church's religious purposes, and a portion of tithes is sent to EPA for investment purposes, and still other funds can come from for-profit sources, and therefore can be taxable. Do you think that difference still matter when we’re talking about how funds flow internally? This is interesting. One piece I am trying to square is the Ninth Circuit’s handling of it in the Huntsman case. The initial 2023 panel decision seemed to agree with you that the definition of “tithing funds” (principal vs. earnings) was ambiguous enough for a jury. But the full en banc court in 2025 unanimously ruled the other way, saying no reasonable person could conclude the Church misrepresented the source once you factor in their clarification about using earnings on invested reserves. I would like to better understand how you weigh those two rulings. Does the whistleblower’s accounting of the specific account outweigh the en banc court’s conclusion, in your view? Or is there a different reason you see Definition 1 as the right lens here, even after the final decision? Also, do you think there is strong factual evidence that Nielsen's allegations ("the specific funds that were used to pay for the mall were pulled out of EPA before they earned any interest") have been established? It has been quite a while since we discussed the "whistleblower" matter. Mr. Nielsen filed his complaint in 2019. Is it your understanding that his complaint is still pending or otherwise "open" with the IRS? Thanks, -Smac

You previously asked me: Also you (from 2024) : Tithing donations were in fact indirectly used, as Craig Paxton said. Saying “it’s all tithing” is a straw man that has nothing to do with what was then said or with my point now. And here: Using tithing to generate investment income which is then used to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall. Nobody is changing the definition of “tithing.” Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them. ... If “interest on unspent tithing” was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly. And here: “Indirect” has everything to do with it because it is something we’ve been discussing on this board for about 12 years now. Based on the responses of faithful Saints to these topics, a plurality of Latter-day Saints thought when Hinckley said “no tithing would be used” he meant no tithing would be used directly, and no tithing would be used indirectly. And here: And here: Hammers are one of many tools used to make houses. Houses are used for shelter. Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course. And here: And here (this is me responding to you) : You are the one advancing it. You've said things like this: "Nobody is changing the definition of 'tithing.' Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them." You've taken ownership of this pig-in-a-poke idea. "We acknowledge..." You responded: From a certain point of view, this is true. But acknowledging that the people I’m quoting are saying things that are logically coherent doesn’t make the idea mine. And here: And here: It seems like even if you disclaim originating the "indirect tithing" concept, you have advanced it and ratified it over and over. Okay. I appreciate the clarification. I am struggling to reconcile it with your various prior statements, some of which are quoted above, which appear to specifically ratify and endorse this distinction: "Tithing donations were in fact indirectly used, as Craig Paxton said." "Using tithing to generate investment income which is then used to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall." "{W}e acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them." "If 'interest on unspent tithing' was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly." "Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course." "After all, if you believe in logic then logically, indirectly using something is still using it." "{L}ogically, using tithing income to generate investment income to buy a mall is indirectly using tithing to buy a mall. That is logical..." "From a certain point of view, this {'we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them'} is true." "Yes, in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money." "Logically, using interest earned on unspent tithing to fund the mall would be using tithing to fund the mall; indirectly using something is still using it." Could you clarify what your perspective is? Are you saying that the direct/indirect distinction is "silly"? It seems like you have been advancing arguments, for some years now, which presuppose that the direct/indirect differentiation is, in your words, "fact," something "we acknowledge," axiomatic ("of course"), and so on. Could you help me understand how your perspective is not relevant to your arguments? Thanks, -Smac

That is a frustration, to be sure. So have mine. We have more information now than we did in 2012. Substantively, though, my understanding has not really changed: The Church invests a percentage of tithing revenue. I have know about this for a long time. I have no objection to it. In fact, I think wise stewardship - mandated in the Parable of the Talents - would effectively require the Brethren to manage the finances of the Church as they have been. It was not until N. Eldon Tanner came on board in the 60s that the leadership of the Church stabilized - hopefully permanently - the finances of the Church. No tithes were used to fund City Creek. I think there was barely a colorable legal claim, but it did not withstand judicial scrutiny. And given the factual allegations in the tithing lawsuits, I think that scrutiny was barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine. "Tithes" are monies voluntarily contributed by the Saints and earnings/interest on invested tithes are not tithes. This is effectively axiomatic. It is only a point worth mentioning here because Huntsman et al. presented a contrary notion (pretextually, IMO) to the Courts. It didn't work. Frankly, I think most Latter-day Saints have given little to no thought to any of these points. I have, but that's because I am an attorney, and because I regularly interact with critics of the Church who are prone to raise critiques associated with these issues. That makes sense, particularly when the topic is framed in sensationalistic terms, as some critics are prone to do. It takes some time and study and effort to find that the reality does not really match up to the sensationism. Same here. Candidly, I have a hard time crediting Huntsman with a good faith belief that Pres. Hinckley made fraudulent statements to the Church. Not only would that have been quite out of character for both the man and his calling, it also makes no sense in and of itself. Why would Pres. Hinckley publish a lie that could be rather easily detected? Why would Pres. Hinckley lie about the Church not using tithes when the contrary proposition would have been entirely legal and feasible? I agree that it can be a sort of cop-out or cheap shot when deployed against others, which is why A) I applied it to myself only, and B) queried Analytics as to his self-assessment ("I am curious about what @Analytics feels his 'accurate beliefs' and 'desired conclusions' have been regarding the Church and City Creek...") rather than impose my own assessment onto him. Yes. I think the challenge is for us to use reasoning to pursue "accurate beliefs" rather than a particularized set of "desired conclusions." I love the Church and believe it is what it claims to be, but I don't do myself or anyone else any favors by viewing it through rose-colored glasses. No need, mostly, as I think the Church's conduct is overwhelmingly good and appropriate. I agree. I apologize, both to you and @Analytics, if I gave the impression I was doing that. I intended to elicit his own assessment of his "motivated reasoning." Thanks, -Smac

Agreed. It's definitely something both of our perspectives and beliefs are susceptible to. Bias is a very real thing. From the link: I think most of us would like to say we are striving for "accurate beliefs," but sometimes we may actually be pursuing "desired conclusions." Hence the value of this message board. Folks like @Analytics have perspectives on the Restored Gospel that, in many respects, substantially diverge from my own. If I was interested in only "arriv{ing} at desired conclusions," I would go find an echo chamber. Instead, I come here to test and vet my beliefs about the Restored Gospel by listening to what its critics have to say. Sometimes they have valid observations, but mostly I think their commentary is more about fundamental - and not empirically testable - presuppositions than about the "facts." For my part, I have no particular or vested interest in what a handful of Latter-day Saints thought about City Creek in 2012. As it is, I think most (nearly all?) of them - and most informed Latter-day Saints today - had and have a pretty accurate understanding of things, including that the Church invests a percentage of tithing revenue, the Church has publicly disclosed the previous point for quite a while (since at least 1991), no tithes were used to fund City Creek, "tithes" are monies voluntarily contributed by the Saints, earnings/interest on invested tithes are not tithes, and they disagree with the notion/characterization that "indirectly using tithing money is still using tithing money" and/or “{i}nterest on tithing money is still tithing money" (this concept is, I think, the sine qua non of the tithing lawsuits), investing a portion of tithes is morally wrong/improper, Pres. Hinckley and other leaders of the Church were "disingenuous" and/or engaged in "money laundering" relative to City Creek, the leaders of the Church have, for many decades now, been excellent stewards of the Church's finances, and the leaders of the Church are not living profligate lifestyles or otherwise squandering/misusing Church funds to enrich or unduly benefit themselves. This thread, and others about the "tithing" lawsuits, have for some had a sort of "Mirror of Erised"-style effect on some participants. While my "desired conclusions" would have been for the Church to be exonerated of the accusations of fraud and misconduct, I would also want to have "accurate beliefs" about the Church's conduct relative to City Creek. If the Church has done something wrong, I think it needs to be held accountable. Consequently, in these threads I have found some value in examining the lawsuits which have sought to apply neutral principles of law. As it happens, the Church has been altogether vindicated, such that "accurate beliefs" and "desired conclusions" overlap almost perfectly. I am curious about what @Analytics feels his "accurate beliefs" and "desired conclusions" have been regarding the Church and City Creek, both before and during and after the adjudication of the tithing lawsuits. Roger? Thanks, -Smac

I can see how smaller "pay as you go" churches and charities may lack the means and/or desire to maintain an endowment fund, but some larger churches and charities routinely set aside surpluses (donations exceeding immediate operating needs) and invest them prudently. Plenty of sensible and appropriate reasons for this, such as planning for long-term sustainability (to weather economic downturns, fund future projects (e.g., building temples, schools, church programs, humanitarian/charitable work, etc.), or to provide ongoing support when donations fluctuate), wise stewardship (the Parable of the Ten Talents), and so on. For the average small local church or charity, investing donations is uncommon. For larger denominations, well-resourced nonprofits, universities, hospitals, and some major religious organizations, it is common and prudent. The bulk of tithes and offerings are used directly to sustain the operations of the Church. The speculation about the Church's other income is interesting, but still speculative. What the Church should do with its accumulated wealth is indeed a challenge. You and others (such as Teancum) have come up with proposals that are facially appealing (such as a rote "spend{ing} 5% of their principal on their philanthropic mission" rule) , but perhaps not practical or prudent if put into practice. I have previously characterized this idea in provocative terms, but I have lately been working on turning over a new leaf, so I won't re-visit that characterization (and will, instead, retract it and apologize for it). In recent months we have seen substantial evidence of widespread corruption and malfeasance in NGOs and charitable organizations. A sampling: The Erosion of Trust: How Scandals and Systemic Failures Have Transformed Public Perception of NGOs Beyond the Bribe: Corruption and Fraud in Local-Level NGOs Biggest Nonprofit Scandals in Recent History The dark side of giving: Exposing charity fraud A Timely Warning About a Projected Rise in Charity Fraud ‘Everybody’s hiding their skeletons’: A gloves-off conversation on aid diversion and double standards (Humanitarians should talk about the reality of fraud and mismanagement, aid leaders say.) Fraud Risks in Nonprofits: Trends and Strategies for 2025 When government outsources compassion, fraud moves in Nonprofits: The Scam of the NGO is Bigger Than You Think 76 Fake Charities Shared a Mailbox. The I.R.S. Approved Them All. The Church has, I think, been quite smart to carefully vet its partners in philanthropic/humanitarian efforts. From 2020: What the Presiding Bishopric has to say about the finances of the Church and the faith of its members (Emphasis added.) The Church is not alone in facing challenges to large-scale financial support of philanthropic/humanitarian efforts: Billionaire Philanthropists Have Discovered a New Way to Give Away Their Fortunes An interesting challenge, to be sure. Okay. But the psychology behind this is eyeopening. 14 years ago, Craig Paxton correctly explained how the mall was financed, and the “overwhelming consensus” here was he was saying offensive anti-Mormon lies. I just don't think you are accurately stating/characterizing what the denizens of this board said/thought in 2012. For example, Craig said this: "It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall." Also Craig: "Classic Money Laundering...So can the Church really claim that they didn’t use tithing funds to fund the City Creek mall? Ummm I suppose so…but is it really an honest statement to claim such or is the church just being disingenuous?" You are characterizing this as Craig having "correctly explained how the mall was financed." I think most Latter-day Saints took exception to his denigrating characterizations ("disingenuous," "money laundering," etc.), and also with the "indirect" use of tithes argument. Mola Ram: "Acutally yes, the church can claim it because they did not." Pahoran: "No, it's just truthful {for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall}." Cobalt: Jeff K.: "The question of tithing money tied to a mall is a red herring that still has not been proven." Minos (responding to Craig) : "Those are unpleasant accusations. You do need to follow board guidelines and support them." JAHS apparently had some qualms about the concept of investing excess contributions. Cobalt commented: That's how it would be used in a "rainy day," but until the rainy day, the money has to be put somewhere, and the church probably doesn't want to just deposit it with bankers. They'd rather make more lucrative investments in real estate, etc. And so on. Some Latter-day Saints may have had qualms about the Church funding City Creek. I think Craig's inflammatory and accusatory and inaccurate ("money laundering") framing of the issue is what provoked most of the Latter-day Saint commentary. Craig said this: "It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall." Also Craig: "Classic Money Laundering...So can the Church really claim that they didn’t use tithing funds to fund the City Creek mall? Ummm I suppose so…but is it really an honest statement to claim such or is the church just being disingenuous?" "Disingenuous": "Money Laundering": Can you see how some might disagree with your bland characterization of "Craig Paxton correctly explained how the mall was financed"? It seems he was doing quite a bit more than that. I think Cobalt, and I, and most other Latter-day Saints did not dispute the general concept of "Member Pays Tithing --> Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested à Investments Earn Return --> $$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall." Craig and Cobalt were both correct on this point. They were both correct because of the information they had from public statements made by Pres. Hinckley, such as his 1991 remarks cited by Cobalt: Based on this, I surmise that disagreement with Craig arose less from his aligned-with-Pres.-Hinckley's-remarks summary of the Church setting aside a percentage of its income to build reserves, and more from his inflammatory framing of that point. That is, I think most objected to and disagreed with Craig accusing the Brethren of being "disingenuous" and engaging in "money laundering." I think the disagreement comes down to presuppositions you have (such as "indirectly using tithing money is still using tithing money") that Latter-day Saints do not share. Thanks, -Smac

I guess I don't see the implication of "wrong" or "inappropriate" you do. The Church's explanation, cited by the Ninth Circuit, is shot through with references to the Church investing its reserve funds (which funds include tithing funds) : "During the time the Church was developing City Creek, the Church primarily invested its reserve funds through a separate entity called Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc. Ensign Peak held both reserve funds and earnings on invested reserves. The Church used Ensign Peak funds to finance the City Creek project." "The Church contended that the City Creek project had been funded with earnings on invested reserves, not direct tithing contributions, and that this was consistent with its public statements." "{Paul Rytting} stated that all the funds allocated to the City Creek project came from earnings on the Church’s reserve funds invested by Ensign Peak, meaning that no principal reserve funds (i.e., funds taken directly from Church members’ tithing contributions) were used." "Although the Church stated that no tithing funds would be used to fund City Creek, it also clarified that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used. The Church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds include tithing funds." "President Hinckley qualified the assertion that tithing funds would not be used by noting that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used." "{Pres. Hinckley's statement} drew a distinction between principal tithing funds, coming directly from Church members, and earnings on the funds that the Church sets aside from its annual income (which includes tithing funds)." "Because each relevant Ensign Peak account held enough earnings on invested funds to cover the funds appropriated for City Creek, any commingling of principal tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds cannot support Huntsman’s fraud claim." "Finally, the term 'earnings of invested reserve funds' was not so ambiguous that the Church could have expected or intended its relevant audience—here, Huntsman—to misunderstand what it meant. ... {T}he Church would have expected Huntsman to be aware of its explanation that reserve funds included tithing funds." {From the Bress Concurrence}: "There is no dispute that only earnings on invested tithed funds were used to finance the project; the principal on the tithed funds was not used." The Church has been investing tithes for many years. That the Church chose not to use tithes to fund City Creek does not mean that investing tithes is per se "wrong" or "inappropriate." "Troubling" is, I think, a possibility, but that would be regarding this specific project, not investing tithes as a general principle. Habit Ten of the Hollis book suggests that we "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." I am okay with you and I disagreeing on this issue. Thanks, -Smac

All eleven judges, yes. And not just the arguments, but the evidence presented by the Church, and the corollary lack of evidence presented by Huntsman: It's not like this case was a close call. A unanimous decision from the circuit Huntsman chose because he felt it would be most advantageous to him. And the case was adjudicated on the factual merits. Phrases like "No reasonable juror" and "Huntsman has not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do" demonstrate both the strength of the Church's factual and legal position and the weakness of Huntsman's. The Church also won a unanimous decision in the Tenth Circuit. And before Judge Shelby. I think the credit belongs to the attorneys, sure. But also to the Church, whose conduct was within the law. And also, conversely, the very poor lawyering of Huntsman's and Gaddy's lawyers, and whomever was representing the consolidated plaintiffs before Judge Shelby. I spent nearly ten years representing mortgage lenders and servicers. My success rate was, I think, probably north of 97%. I'd like to think it was because I was a great attorney. And I did do a pretty good job. But then, all that litigation centered on loan documents that had been heavily vetted and well-drafted, and loan servicers overwhelmingly did a good job at servicing loans. But most of all, I won so often because the legal theories I was arguing against were factually and legally quite poor. I think the same should be said about the tithing cases. I don't follow. The Ninth Circuit quoted the five public statements centering around Pres. Hinckley's statement. The two declarations were not presented to the Church, but I don't see how they were "different than the presentation the church gave the members." We can't see what "most members" believed, but we can look at what members of this forum said, because we did talk about it. We seem to have different perspectives about what the denizens of this board had to say about Pres. Hinckley's remarks, years after the fact. And I'm not sure what sort of probative weight the opinions of the denizens of this board have about the merits of Huntsman's lawsuit. As an actuary, I find that statement meaningless. Actuarial mathematics is based on the concept that money grows with interest. Remember when I took issue with Sam Brunson claiming "every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two." Two illustrate why, I told you about how two of my friends happened to both testify on Capital Hill together, so I watched the hearing, and happened to remember this interesting question: Could you give me, the insurance industry in general, how much of, say, auto insurance, health insurance, and long-term insurance, how much goes for claims? In long-term care insurance, the company relies on interest income to pay claims, and it would be misleading to distinguish between principal and interest in this question. Professor Cohen interpreted "premium" as meaning "premium plus accumulated interest," and that is exactly the right way to do it. Citing the American Academy of Actuaries: Mathematically, dividing the present value of claims by the present value of premiums (both discounted to policy issue) is identical to accumulating both premiums and claims with interest until the end of the policy and dividing them. The point with all of this is that to honestly evaluate whether "most of the premiums were paid out in benefits", you can't look just at premiums--you also have to look at premiums and the interest income the premiums generate before it is spent on claims. You have to look at it that way to come up with a number that is understandable, meaningful, fair, and comparable. The value of money is intrinsically linked to time. Interest is the mechanism that links the two. So it isn't the least bit contradictory for somebody to say, "I gave the Church $200,000 over the last 20 years. The accumulated value of those donations is $330,000." That is how I look at it. But to me, it was always quite obvious what the Church was really doing. What the Church "was really doing" and what the Church told the public had no substantial distinction between them, quoth the Ninth Circuit. That doesn't answer the question. I can understand why somebody would be concerned with the church using its resources on a commercial venture in downtown Salt Lake City, but if the Church makes the decision this is a good use of resources, why say principal can't be used but interest can be? I don't think the Church said "principal can't be used but interest can be." Rather, Pres. Hinckley said: Can you help me understand how you get "principal can't be used but interest can be" from this statement? Are you possibly focusing on Bishop Burton's statement (“None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members. That is not how we use tithing funds.”)? Here is the thing. The Church did "use tithing money indirectly." That is an undisputed fact. I think the "indirect tithing" concept is disputed. I am not sure this is an accurate summary. But I'm not particularly interested in establishing or refuting what a handful of Latter-day Saints on this board thought in 2012. Thanks, -Smac

I'm sure a lot of money was spent. Well, the nice thing about the American legal system is that it has a strong adversarial component. So when it comes to compiling "basket{s} of evidence," both sides can do so if the case is litigated on the merits. That appears to have been the case here. The Church had substantial evidence in support of its position, and Huntsman did not. The Federal Rules of Evidence are indeed intended to "curate" (that is, "to select, organize, and present content, items, or information, typically with expertise, to provide a polished or meaningful collection") evidence. Is your "carefully curated" comment intended to suggest that the Church hid or obfuscated about relevant evidence? If so, could you elaborate? Or am I off base here? I'm not sure we are well situated to speculate on how "most Latter-day Saints interpreted {Pres. Hinckley's} remarks." Moreover, the Ninth Circuit held that "no reasonable juror" could find that the Church made any misrepresentation about the funding of City Creek. Now, we would all say, "The money came from the Church's reserves that are held by Ensign Peak Advisors. The Church operates on a fraction (e.g. 90%) of its tithing revenue, and the remainder is put into a "rainy day fund" it calls its "reserves." The money in that fund grows with investment income and new tithing revenue. The money for the mall came from interest earned on this reserve fund (or if you are a pedantic actuary, you'd say, "the $1.4 billion for the mall was a lot less than its annual investment income, so rather than reinvesting $1.4 billion of its investment income in Nvidia etc., it was invested in the mall. In that sense, the money came from investment earnings and not directly from tithing)." That's what we would say now. But how many Latter-day Saints said that then? I think the Latter-day Saints would have referred to Pres. Hinckley's remarks, such as this one: And this 2003 statement by Presiding Bishop Burton: And this 2006 statement in the Ensign: And this 2007 Deseret News quote: And this 2012 statement attributed to Keith McMullin: The Ninth Circuit reviewed these and concluded: This seems fairly straightforward. Huntsman's view is summarized as follows (from the Bress Concurrence) : What are your thoughts about this last bit: "only earnings on invested tithed funds were used to finance the project; the principal on the tithed funds was not used"? I'm not sure about that. Pres. Hinckley said tithes were not used. I believed him. His comments, and the other ones cited above, have been ratified as factually true by the Ninth Circuit. My thinking has not changed at all. I don't think I ever believed that. I have never thought it problematic for the Church to invest tithes. To the contrary, I think the Brethren would be poor stewards if they had not invested tithes. I think a reasonable argument could be made for Latter-day Saints to be concerned about a substantial investment of tithes in a commercial venture in downtown Salt Lake City, where such a venture would (indirectly) benefit mostly the Utah Latter-day Saints. I also think it would be appropriate for Latter-day Saints to be concerned if Pres. Hinckley had been dishonest in his statements. But he wasn't, so most of us weren't. Not sure about that. The Parable of the Talents comes to mind. Robert F. Smith in 2018: Since the monies and property held by the LDS Church likely all go back ultimately to tithing contributions, all that means is that current tithing contributions are not being used for such real estate investment. However, if the Lord gives some talents to a guy (as in the parable of the talents), and he invests them and expands their value (which the Lord praises), then the original talents have now been exceeded. Even though such monies are fungible, it is also true that no actual tithing monies were used to invest in the City Creek project. The statement that tithing money was set aside as a reserve is simply a way of saying that it was invested and thus expanded in value. The LDS Church no doubt has billions in such reserves, although I haven't read Mike Quinn's recent book on LDS Church finances. Since the Lord himself praises such investment strategies, the Brethren are very wise to create such reserves so that they can then expand them still further. And again here: It is not a lie to say that tithing funds were not used, because they weren't. The LDS Church has long invested monies into real estate and other businesses which produce greater value. That's what investments are for (as in the parable of the talents), to grow the principal. Having done that, one need only use that extra money for further investments. Makes good practical sense, and City Creek is merely one more investment in a long line of good investments. Banks and investment companies do exactly the same thing. Me in 2018: By that reckoning it is a "flat out lie" that I have ever earned any income. My parents paid for all my needs during childhood. I then went into the Army, and then on a mission, then to college, then to college again, and now here I am. But I never would have been able to get to college without my parents' financial support. So my income from my job really isn't mine. It's my parents. Of course, my parents started out with their parents supporting them, so they never made any income, either. And neither did my grandparents, who relied on my great-grandparents, and so on, ad infinitum. By your reasoning, my salary isn't attributable to anything I have done. "EVERYTHING" that I have done or ever will do was paid for by my parents, and grandparents, and so on. That's your reasoning. And it doesn't seem to hold up well. I am reminded here of the Parable of the Talents: ... So let's postulate about this servant. He starts with ten talents. He keeps the original five talents given to him by his lord in one Bag 1, and the additional five talents he earned in Bag 2. The servant then goes out and uses the five talents from Bag 2 to buy and ox and some seeds and a field, and uses the former to plow and sow the latter. He then tends the field, reaps a harvest, and ends up earning 15 talents. The servant now has twenty talents, five of which remain in Bag 1, and fifteen in Bag 2. So the question is this: Did the servant use any of the money from Bag 1 to earn the fifteen talents in Bag 2? Well, no, he did not. He used the original five talents in Bag 2 to earn an additional ten talents, also put into Bag 2. The servant reports as much to the tax collector, who collects taxes on the fifteen talents in Bag 2 (the money in Bag 1 is not taxable under the laws of the land, so the collector leaves it alone). However, let's say that the servant has a neighbor who harbors some genuine spite and antipathy for the servant. The neighbor is looking for any reason, any argument to find fault with the servant. So the neighbor publicly accuses the neighbor of "flat out lying" to the tax collector. The tax collector speaks with the servant, determines that only money from Bag 2 was used to buy the ox and seeds and field, and then determines that since only money from Bag 2 was used for the crop venture, the servant was speaking truthfully and accurately, and the neighbor had borne false witness (perhaps ignorantly). The neighbor, thwarted in his efforts to harm by the servant, is furious. "He lied!" he shrieks. "Full stop!" The tax collector is confused as to why the neighbor is being such a meddlesome busybody and intruding into the affairs of the servant and his lord (particularly since the servant has fully complied with the laws of the land). The collector just shrugs at the neighbor's ranting and false accusations and moves on to the next town. The servant, meanwhile, is preparing the next venture to turn the 15 talents into 25. In the days and weeks ahead, he keeps the five talents in Bag 1, and does not use them for commercial ventures. He does, however, occasionally transfer talents from Bag 2 to Bag 1, as needed. Food for thought. Me in 2019: City Creek can be seen as an application of the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25. I wonder if DCP had this in mind when he said this: "Semitic peasants catching fish for a living are spiritual in a way that middle class gringos selling shoes or iPhones can never hope to be." He was being ironic, but do you see his point? That there is nothing wrong with seeking God's help in our mortal endeavors? If the ancients could pray over their economic efforts (flocks and fields), why can't we do the same with our economic efforts (in this case, "selling shoes or iPhones")? Me in 2020: I'd say no. The parable of the talents comes to mind. The master gave three servants five talents, two talents, and one talent repsectively. Two of the servants thereafter multiplied the talents, such that they presented the master with, respectively, ten talents and four talents, respectively. The master ended up with fifteen talents, having given his servants eight to begin with. How do we characterize the seven additional talents? Are they the Lord's? Or, in the alternative, are they . . . well, there is no alternative, is there? The seven additional talents are the Lord's regardless of how they are characterized. ... I would think so. Tithes are donations from the members. Profits derived from soundly investing those donations are not donations from the members. Again, consider the Parable of the Talents. Did the master give his servants eight talents, or fifteen? Me in 2021: I disagree. Interest on tithing money is not "still tithing money." And the Church should have used some portion of tithes for "speculative business projects." See, e.g., the Parable of the Talents, the amazing success of Ensign Peak, etc. And it's neither a half-truth nor an outright lie to say that tithes weren't spent on City Creek. Yep. ... First, I think the Church should be "involved in commercial ventures." The Church needs to prudently manage the funds donated to it. The only way to do that is to invest "in commercial ventures." It would be inappropriate for the Church to not invest in commercial ventures. Second, the prudent investment of funds is manifestly congruous with the mission of the Church. The Parable of the Talents and other scriptural provisions about wise stewardship make that pretty clear. Third, I don't think Bro. McCluskey speaks intelligently for "what the general membership expect." Fourth, there is nothing hypocritical about investing money. Bro. McCluskey is essentially declaring that the Church should do what the third servant did in the Parable of the Talents: bury money in the ground and do nothing with it. That . . . did not turn out too well for the third servant, while the first and second - the ones who took the money and invested it and made more - were called "good and faithful." Fifth, the Church can and ought to walk and chew gum at the same time. It can fulfill its four-fold mission and act as a proper steward of sacred funds. Amulek in 2022: Obedience to God's commandment is what I pay tithing for. And, personally, I'm grateful that the Church doesn't take their leftover funds and just bury them in the ground like the slothful servant in the parable of the talents. Me in 2023 (responding to you) : I think it is unwise, even foolish, to suggest - as you seem to be doing - that "sacred" funds of any sort are somehow desanctified if they are invested. That makes no sense at all. The Brethren would be poor stewards if they did not invest "sacred" funds. The Parable of the Talents is worth consideration here. Me in 2023 (again responding to you) : Having been a Latter-day Saint all my life, I feel fairly comfortable in speculating about the many hundreds of faithful Latter-day Saints of my acquaintance. If called upon to assess the funding of City Creek and the Church's public statements about it, I think virtually all of them would reach conclusions substantively akin to those of Robert's and Amulek's and mine above. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit found that "no reasonable juror" could have found that the Church made any misrepresentation. I did not. I find "indirectly" to be an infinitely regressive kind of thing. Because there had been questions raised about it? Because a reasonable argument could be made for Latter-day Saints to be concerned about a substantial investment of tithes in a commercial venture in downtown Salt Lake City, where such a venture would (indirectly) benefit mostly the Utah Latter-day Saints? Because the Church felt the venture had some risk, and so wanted to provide assurances that "principal" would not be used? Those are the ones that come to mind, and that's from someone on the outside looking in. The distinction the Church draws—direct tithing vs. earnings on invested reserves—has held up legally, but critics argue it’s a distinction without a meaningful difference to the average member. That tension may have been why Pres. Hinckley felt it necessary to speak so plainly. Not sure about that: "The overwhelming consensus among the faithful participants (JAHS, Pahoran, Scott Lloyd, Mola Ram, LeSellers, Jeff K., etc.) was that tithing money was not used — either directly or indirectly — for City Creek. They repeatedly rejected the critics’ 'indirect tithing' chain as an unsupported assumption and insisted the funds came from separate commercial/investment sources (ZCMI, real estate, etc.)." The Church could say that it doesn't want to spend more on X this year than it receives in investment income this year. But this is generally a type of mental accounting. I think the Church should be more transparent with its members about its finances. It is an indisputable fact that it indirectly financed the mall through tithing, as defined by JAHS in that thread. "Indirectly financed" is infinitely regressive. And it does not appear to be a concept accepted by the Ninth Circuit. I think most Latter-day Saints didn't really care about the funding of City Creek, and did not need to parse out the particulars of Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement or the subsequent statements from other Church sources. I think the tithing lawsuits were pretextual and contrived, and not really about "tithing" at all. Anyway, I appreciate your comments. Thanks, -Smac

I think the tithing lawsuits were contrived. I don't think any of the plaintiffs were confused about what Pres. Hinckley said, but they feigned confusion because they used City Creek as a pretext to get the Church in court. I think he did. From the Ninth Circuit: The Ninth Circuit, all eleven of them, apparently found the Church's statements sufficiently clear as to be explaining "that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used," that "the sources of the reserve funds include tithing funds," and that "the Church {explained} ... what it said it would do." I can appreciate your perspective. I think Pres. Hinckley was quite clear in his remarks. He presupposed that Latter-day Saints understood what "tithing" means, and he differentiated tithes from other sources of revenue. I also think "only the critics" had an incentive to misconstrue Pres. Hinckley's remarks, such as by trying to make them seem "fraudulent." I agree that "salary" is well-defined, both by the IRS and in a more generalized sense. I don't think there is much of a dispute about "tithing" either. I think Huntsman's lawsuit was a contrived effort to generate a dispute where none existed. Yes. And those sources of income can be tracked, such that the Church know which of its investments are using which sources of income. For example, from the Ninth Circuit decision in Huntsman: ... Huntsman argues that the Church committed fraud by misrepresenting the source of funds for the City Creek project and Beneficial Life. ... No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project. Although the Church stated that no tithing funds would be used to fund City Creek, it also clarified that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used. The Church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds include tithing funds. Huntsman has not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do. President Hinckley qualified the assertion that tithing funds would not be used by noting that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used. In his 2003 announcement of the City Creek project, Hinckley stated: (Emphasis added). That statement thus drew a distinction between principal tithing funds, coming directly from Church members, and earnings on the funds that the Church sets aside from its annual income (which includes tithing funds). The four subsequent statements that Huntsman points to, which state without qualification that tithing funds were not used for City Creek, can only be understood within the context of Hinckley’s earlier statement distinguishing between tithing funds and earnings on reserves, and they therefore do not support Huntsman’s fraud claim. The Church had also long publicly indicated that “reserve funds” come at least in part from tithing funds. In a 1991 statement, Hinckley suggested that tithing comprises the bulk of the Church’s annual income and budget. In that same statement, Hinckley said that “a fixed percentage of the [Church’s] income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible ‘rainy day.’” In 1995, he repeated that message, stating that “each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” Because Hinckley stated that tithing funds are critical to the Church’s annual income and budget, those statements necessarily implied that the reserves contained tithing funds. ... Nielsen’s declaration does not contradict the conclusion that Ensign Peak held sufficient earnings on invested reserve funds to fund the project without using principal tithing funds. Nielsen testified that Ensign Peak’s senior leadership and other employees “referred to . . . all [Ensign Peak funds] as ‘tithing’ money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal,” and that the approximately $1.4 billion that Ensign Peak appropriated for City Creek came from tithing funds. The presentation slide that Nielsen submitted with his declaration indicated that “1,400mm over 5 years” was withdrawn from Ensign Peak’s “investment reserves” for City Creek. Even accepting the facts asserted in Nielsen’s declaration as true, they do not show that principal tithing funds were used for the City Creek project. Neither Nielsen’s statement nor the Ensign Peak presentation slide distinguished between principal and earnings, so neither contradicts President Hinckley’s public statement that only earnings would be used. They also do not conflict with Ensign Peak’s financial records, which show that Ensign Peak held sufficient earnings on reserve funds to finance City Creek. Moreover, even accepting Nielsen’s account that Ensign Peak employees used “tithing” to refer interchangeably to both principal and earnings, that does not support Huntsman’s claim because President Hinckley drew a distinction between those types of funds in his public statements. Huntsman would have us conflate what Pres. Hinckley differentiated. Huntsman filed suit in California because, per his lawyers, they figured California judges would be more amenable to his way of viewing things relative to the Church. And he ended with 11 appellate judges rejecting his argument, and none accepting them. Could you clarify what you mean here? You described tithing as "one of the Church’s sources of income," right alongside dividends, interest, real-estate gains, etc. But you also said that once the money is in the funds, it’s all "fungible" and spending comes from the funds rather than from any specific source. Could you help me understand how those two ideas fit together in your mind? Is tithing still a meaningfully distinct category once it’s received, or does the fungibility make the original source, for you, irrelevant for tracking purposes? I am trying to see the bridge between the technical accounting reality you’re describing and the legal claims in the tithing lawsuits. From your viewpoint, is the core issue that the Church should have kept tithing dollars in a completely separate, traceable bucket, or that the fungible nature of the money makes the whole conversation about ‘tithing’ misleading by nature? Thanks for walking through that example and the Northwestern Mutual analogy—that helps me see how you’re thinking about this. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the accounting flow so clearly. Just so I’m tracking you correctly: You are saying that once money is received, it all sits in funds and becomes fungible. When the organization spends money (whether it’s a mall project or salaries), it’s spending from the funds, not from any specific source of income like tithing or investment returns. So labeling a particular expense as ‘paid for by investment income, not tithing’ is really just a helpful heuristic rather than a precise accounting fact. Is that a fair summary? If so, I have a couple of questions I’d genuinely like your thoughts on, because I’m trying to reconcile this with how the whole tithing conversation has played out: In your view, is that same ‘heuristic’ standard something the Church should have used when its leaders spoke publicly about tithing funds (for example, when President Hinckley or others described how certain projects were funded)? Or does the sacred nature of tithing create a different expectation for how those funds are described to members? I’m curious how you see the Northwestern Mutual analogy mapping onto a religious organization. With an insurance company, premiums are basically customer payments under a contract. Tithing, from the members’ perspective, is a sacred offering given directly to God with the understanding that it will be used for the Lord’s purposes. Does that difference in the source and intent of the money change anything about how strictly the ‘fungibility’ principle should apply, or is it - in your view - still exactly the same? If all money is truly fungible once it’s in the funds, what would it even look like for the Church (or any nonprofit) to be fully transparent about tithing versus investment income? Is there a way to communicate that distinction that wouldn’t feel misleading under the accounting rules you’re describing? I’m not trying to score points here—I’m honestly trying to understand how you’re connecting the technical accounting reality with the way the lawsuits and the public statements are being framed. Your perspective on this is helpful. Thank you, -Smac

It was not intended as derogatory. I am one of the looky-loos, after all. I did not intend it as disparaging. Thanks, -Smac

Not sure about that. In any event, it is not relevant to the Huntsman lawsuit. I uploaded that thread to Grok with the following query: The response: "They repeatedly rejected the critics’ 'indirect tithing' chain as an unsupported assumption and insisted the funds came from separate commercial/investment sources (ZCMI, real estate, etc.)." "Only a very small number of critics (Craig Paxton, LDSToronto, etc.) pushed the 'indirect tithing' argument, and they were vigorously rebutted." I'd have to go back and look at the particulars, but my recollection is not congruent with what you are saying. In any event, the point is moot relative to the Huntsman lawsuit. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see his claim as necessarily involving a definitional argument. You disagree. I am okay with that. I don't think that would work in a fraud context. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit still found that the Church did not make any misrepresentation. I think a fraud claim based on an infinitely regressive "indirect use of tithing" claim would have little chance of surviving Rule 12(b) scrutiny, let alone a factually-fleshed-out assessment under Rule 56. Okay. I'm not sure asking about "indirect use of tithing" amounts to endorsing what you are imputing onto the Latter-day Saints on this board in 2012. And in any event, how a handful of self-selected looky-loos may have felt about City Creek in 2012 has no bearing on the Huntsman case or any of the others. It seems to be the argument you are advancing now, though. Am I misunderstanding that? "They repeatedly rejected the critics’ 'indirect tithing' chain as an unsupported assumption and insisted the funds came from separate commercial/investment sources (ZCMI, real estate, etc.)." "Only a very small number of critics (Craig Paxton, LDSToronto, etc.) pushed the 'indirect tithing' argument, and they were vigorously rebutted." See above. As a legal matter, the "indirect use of tithing" is, I think, wholly untenable. I think Pahoran said that. I don't know if his speculation is correct. Well, not quite. The comment was this: "Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall..." Nothing here about "money {} trac{ing} back to tithing." The response: "Perhaps because it is a malicious falsehood being repeated by those whose goal is to undermine the Church?" Thanks, -Smac

Yep: "No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project."

The Ninth Circuit already addressed this: "No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project." For myself, I think this was an error, as I don't think the Ninth Circuit should have "reached" this issue, and should instead and held that the Church Autonomy doctrine barred such an inquiry. As it is, though, the inquiry was made, and the Church was exonerated. And on steroids, no less. "No reasonable juror..." The Church also did not challenge the jurisdiction of the federal court in California. That doesn't mean jurisdiction was proper (it almost certainly was not), just that the Church's attorneys elected, as a litigation strategy, to let things stand. In any event, I'm not sure you are correct here. I have not reviewed the summary judgment motion itself, but the en banc decision specifically states: "In the alternative, the Church argued that summary judgment was warranted under the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine." I don't think this is correct. The Church made both arguments: "The Church moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had made no misrepresentations. The Church contended that the City Creek project had been funded with earnings on invested reserves, not direct tithing contributions, and that this was consistent with its public statements." "In the alternative, the Church argued that summary judgment was warranted under the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine." I'm not sure that is correct. First, Huntsman was asking the courts to "look at" the "definition of 'tithing,'" as his case required the courts to define tithing in such a way as to conflate "tithing" with "earnings of invested reserve funds {derived, in part, from invested tithes}." The Ninth Circuit declined to go along with Huntsman's proposal, and instead went with what the Church defined and differentiated. Again, from the en banc decision: I think the Ninth Circuit should not have taken sides on the definitional issue, even though it did in a way favorable to the Church. I think it should have instead applied the Church Autonomy doctrine and declined to adjudicate the dispute at all. Where you see a "blunder" I see a "they showed their hand." I really don't understand what you are saying here. How is this a "blunder"? Their strategy all along was to conflate tithing with other funding sources (such as, for example, "earnings of invested reserve funds"). Rather than a mistake, it was the lynchpin of their entire case. Are you sure? Again, from the en banc decision: "The Church moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had made no misrepresentations. The Church contended that the City Creek project had been funded with earnings on invested reserves, not direct tithing contributions, and that this was consistent with its public statements." "In the alternative, the Church argued that summary judgment was warranted under the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine." Huntsman appears to not have "shifted to the definition of tithing," but rather was forced to respond to the Church's Church Autonomy argument (which, I think, necessarily dives into the definitional issue). Perhaps we should review the summary judgment motions to make sure. I think this sort of gives away the game. The judicial inquiry was not about "how normal Saints would interpret Hinckley's assurances." Huntsman's lawsuit was about what Huntsman thought. I think "what the Church was doing" was "obvious" from the get-go. I don't think Huntsman was ever confused about City Creek, or what "tithing" means, or any of that. I think he had an axe to grind against the Church, apparently about LGBT issues, and used the lawsuit as a pretext to impugn the character of the Church's leaders and the Church as an institution. The closest you could get to a court evaluating "how normal Saints would interpret Hinckley's assurances" would be the consolidated case before Judge Shelby. He never reached the Church Autonomy doctrine or the definitional issue. I appreciate that this is your perspective. I do not share it. We had this same discussion back in 2024 (I am, in my "turning over a new leaf" efforts, omitting the more aggressive/adversarial comments) : ... The "indirect use of tithing" is infinitely regressive. By your reasoning, the most virulent anti-Mormons on the planet are, in some circumlocutory way, "tithepayers." A Latter-day Saint pays a tithe to the Church. The Church uses a portion of its pooled tithing income to subsidize tuition at BYU. A BYU student, whose tuition was subsidized by the Church's tithing income, graduates and starts a business selling widgets on Amazon. An ardent anti-Mormon purchases three such widgets, allowing the BYU grad to realize a profit. That profit is, by your reasoning, "tithing." At the time, you did not address the above point about your "indirect use of tithing" argument being "infinitely regressive." I would be interested to hear what you have to say about it now that you are bringing it up again. No worries if you are not inclined to do so. And yet, they did. And they did because it was the crux of their lawsuit. They could not do this. They were not litigating a class action lawsuit. The case was about how Huntsman, and only Huntsman, supposedly "interpret{ed} {Pres.} Hinckley's comments." And the Ninth Circuit did, in fact, answer this question: "No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project." Thanks, -Smac

Some said the money used for the mall was tithing and others said that it wasn't, right? Yes. The sine qua non of the tithing lawsuits was about whether "tithing funds" was used to fund City Creek, and ipso facto what "tithing funds" means. From the above post: I think the Church Autonomy doctrine should have functioned as a "threshold" bar to the lawsuits. "That statement {by Pres. Hinckley} thus drew a distinction between principal tithing funds, coming directly from Church members, and earnings on the funds that the Church sets aside from its annual income (which includes tithing funds)." The entire dispute was about what did, and did not, count as "tithing." Rather than abstaining from adjudication of this dispute (per the Church Autonomy doctrine), the Ninth Circuit weighed in by defining "tithing funds" (the exact phrase Pres. Hinckley used) as "{money} coming directly from Church members," and that it did not include "earnings on the funds that the Church sets aside from its annual income (which includes tithing funds)." I think that is a reasonable definition, as the Ninth Circuit let the Church define "tithing funds." However, even though the Ninth Circuit ended up siding with the Church, I think it erred by "taking sides" on the definitional issue, as doing so contravened the Church Autonomy doctrine. I think Judge Bumatay and the other concurring judges had the better argument, namely, that the Church Autonomy doctrine should have precluded the court from "taking sides" at all. @Analytics proposes that disputes about "tithing" could be adjudicated as being "purely secular." That may have been hypothetically possible had the meaning of "tithing funds" not been in dispute. But it was in dispute, and that dispute was not "purely secular" because there is no way for a "secular" court to adjudicate which of the competing interpretations of "tithing funds" should apply to Pres. Hinckley's remarks without rendering an "ecclesiastical" decision (that is, the Court, rather than the Church, deciding what does and does not count as "tithing funds"). Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if we might both be right in different ways. I’m open to correction here, but my understanding is that the historic legal standard (de jure) for sex-segregated facilities has been biological sex — so a biological male entering the women’s bathroom was technically in violation of the law or policy, even if “passing.” At the same time, I can see how in practice (de facto) someone who presented as female was often undetected or met with a kind of generalized indifference, which allowed them to use those facilities without issue. Does that distinction make sense to you, or do you see the historic status quo differently? I appreciate you explaining your view — this really gets to the heart of our disagreement, and I’m glad we’re talking about it. I quite agree that we should never have invasive searches or genital checks at bathroom doors. That would be wrong and impractical. At the same time, I think the claim that we have “no access” to someone else’s biological sex without invasive testing overstates the reality. For the vast majority of post-pubertal adults, biological sex is highly observable from physical traits — height, shoulder width, jawline, voice, Adam’s apple, hand size, etc. That’s why the historic system worked for generations with very little conflict. Enforcement wasn’t by inspection; it was by signage, social norms, and complaint-driven response when someone clearly didn’t belong. The old status quo wasn’t “use the bathroom that matches your presentation or gender identity.” The standard was biological sex. A biological male entering the women’s bathroom was technically (and practically) out of place under that rule — even if he presented as female and often went undetected. The real proposed policy change is moving from that objective, sex-based standard to self-identified gender as the deciding factor. That’s what’s new, and that’s why I am evaluating it as opposed to returning to the biological-sex rule while expanding single-use/family bathrooms for anyone who wants more privacy. I’m not trying to make anyone’s life harder. I just don’t think we should solve one person’s discomfort by removing the privacy and safety protections women and girls have always had in those vulnerable spaces. Does that distinction make sense to you, or do you see the historic standard differently? I appreciate you explaining your thinking — it helps me understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that for the vast majority of trans people the goal really is just to pass and be left alone. That’s not lost on me. At the same time, I wonder if we are sort of talking past each other on a couple of key points. First, I think there is a fairly broadly-held position that biological women and girls have a legitimate expectation of privacy in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. That space was designed around the reality of sex-based differences — not around how convincingly someone presents. When a biological male (even one who passes well) is present, many women experience that as a loss of privacy, regardless of the individual’s intent. Assuming we were to attempt to overcome or rebut or repudiate this position, how would we respond to it? Second, I am concerned that basing access on “passing as the gender of your choice” creates exactly the subjective judgment problem you mention. Who decides what counts as “passing”? Many trans women do not "pass," and biological women would understandably prefer not to become the de facto bathroom police — having to evaluate appearances, confront people, or feel uncomfortable in their own space. That’s why the historic standard was simply biological sex: it’s objective, observable without invasion, and doesn’t require women to make those calls. If we are going to move from A) the historical "biological sex" basis for differentiating who can and cannot go into women's bathrooms to B) laws authorizing entry into bathrooms based on "passing as the gender of your choice," how would we avoid the subjective judgment problem? Third, I think we come back to the "limiting principle" issue as regarding the safety concern: Once the law shifts from biological sex to self-identified gender or presentation, there is no clear, enforceable legal barrier left to exclude bad actors. A predator who wants access no longer has to worry about being obviously out of place — he can simply claim a female identity. That raises real safety concerns for women and children, and it’s not hypothetical; we’ve already seen documented incidents after self-ID policies were adopted. I appreciate your desire to treat trans people with dignity and compassion — I share that goal. The problem isn’t trans people as individuals. The problem is a policy that lets access to women’s and girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers be determined by self-identified gender instead of biological sex. That removes the clear, objective barrier that used to exist. We’ve seen this in multiple documented cases. In Loudoun County, Virginia, school policy allowed a biological male student (identifying as a “trans girl”) into the girls’ bathroom, where he sexually assaulted a girl; the district was later accused of trying to conceal the assault and even transferred the perpetrator to another school, where a second girl was assaulted. Another recent example is Richard Cox, a registered Tier III sex offender in Arlington County, Virginia. Under the school district’s self-ID policy, he was allowed into girls’ and women’s locker rooms and showers, where he repeatedly exposed himself to women and young girls. The policy made it impossible for staff or other users to challenge him without first engaging in invasive verification. This is, I think, a real-world illustration of the "limiting principle" problem: Once the rule is no longer biological sex, there’s no clear, enforceable line left to keep out opportunistic bad actors. Biological women and girls lose the privacy and safety expectations they’ve always had in those spaces. I realize that most determined predators will always try to find a way in. However, clear, objective rules do deter many opportunistic bad actors. Under the old biological-sex standard, a man entering the women’s bathroom was immediately out of place and likely to be challenged or reported. That created a practical and social barrier. Once the rule becomes “self-identified gender” or “presentation,” that barrier disappears — a bad actor no longer has to worry about looking obviously out of place; he can simply claim a female identity (as Richard Cox did). That shift makes opportunistic behavior easier, not harder. This thread has helped me explore/utilize Habit Two of the Collis book: "Seek Real Learning." We generate knowledge collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision—not in isolation or echo chambers. Your comments here are helping me a lot in this regard, and I appreciate it. You are also helping with Habit Five ("Hunt for the Best Argument Against You") and Habit Six ("Be Open to Change"). Habit Ten ("Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure") is a more difficult one. We as a society apparently need to make some decisions about who can and cannot enter into women's spaces. Do you agree with that assessment? Thanks, -Smac

I appreciate your comments here. I think I have a better grasp of your perspective than I did before. I will take these things into consideration. Thanks, -Smac

If a party tries to raise an irrelevant issue, or an issue which was not "preserved" at the trial court level (that is, the party seeking appellate review of an issue failed to address it with the trial court), then the appellate court does not review it. It is possible that the appellate court could raise and address an issue sua sponte (that is, without the parties or the trial court below having raised it), but this seems quite rare. In any event, the entire purpose of the court system is to let parties present claims and defenses, and then have those things sorted and assessed by the trial and appellate courts. Here, the "definitional issue" was, by the reckoning of some appellate judges, raised by both sides. This was particularly apparent, I think, in the Huntsman case, as Judge Bumatay addressed it in his concurrence, and did so by pointing out - accurately, I think - how Huntsman and the majority had addressed it. Huntsman brought a "fraud" lawsuit based on Pres. Hinckley's comments about tithing, and the "fraud" involved what monies - in Huntsman's view - did and did not count as tithing. Five of the six judges in the Ninth Circuit addressed the Church Autonomy doctrine substantively, as did the unanimous Tenth Circuit decision (though by finding the doctrine applied, it did not "reach" the definitional issue). Judge Bumatay claimed (persuasively, I think) that the majority opinion likewise addressed the definitional issue. Judge Shelby did not reach it. I have only taken one case to a federal circuit court, but I have about 10 or so state appellate cases under my belt, and hundreds and hundreds of state trial court decisions, and perhaps 100+ federal trial court decisions. If a trial or appellate court detects an obfuscatory argument, they not only refuse to address it, they often admonish the party and the party's attorney for trying to present it. Do you dispute that two of the tithing cases addressed the definitional issue (or, more broadly, the Church Autonomy doctrine)? It seems that nowhere did any judge find what you are alleging here (that the Church raised the definitional issue "to obfuscate the situation"). Do you disagree with that? I have previously raised a number of questions along these lines, and I hope you will given them some thought and respond to them. If not, that is fine. I have been attempting to turn over a new leaf by, inter alia, "embracing the discomfort of non-closure." For my part, I found the tithing lawsuits to be pretextual and obfuscatory. They were all attempts to litigate doctrinal or personal grievances, with the City Creek issue being a pretext for circumventing the Church Autonomy doctrine. This appears to be from the August 2023 decision in Huntsman, which came from a divided three-judge panel, and which was vacated and superseded by the unanimous (11-0) en banc decision. And as noted previously, not only did the minority concurrences address the definitional issue, so did - in Judge Bumatay's view - the majority. A vacated decision - such as the one your are quoting here - is generally considered null, void, and of no legal effect, as if it never existed. My understanding is that when somebody makes a donation to the Church, the donor indicates what the donation is for by selecting things such as "tithing", "fast offerings", "missionary fund", "humanitarian fund", and so forth. If the donor indicates that the donation is a "tithing" donation, the donation is put into the Church's "tithing fund." Am I wrong about any of that? If I'm not, why would any member think the phrase "tithing funds won't be used for X" referred to anything other than the money that was labeled "tithing" by the donor? I am not sure I understand your point. The truth or falsity of statements about "tithing" would, I think, need to be evaluated based on what "tithing" means. This is particularly so since Huntsman sought to define tithing in a way that departs from the Church's usage. Or more particularly, how "the money" (that is, tithing) would not be used (in funding City Creek). I posed the following query to Grok: The response: I responded: "Yes, please provide "specific quotes to use" in our discussion." The response: “The question is whether the Church’s statements about how it would use tithing funds were true … We conclude they were not false.” Why this helps you: This directly shows the court interpreted what “tithing funds” meant — exactly the definitional issue you say was relevant. 2. Judge Bumatay’s Concurrence in Huntsman en banc (the strongest support for your view) Key point: Bumatay explicitly agrees the definitional issue was reached and argues it is ecclesiastical. “For Huntsman to prevail, a court or jury would need to agree with his view of what ‘tithing funds’ in the Church includes. But that would intrude on the Church’s authority to define that divine concept for itself.” “The majority’s opinion necessarily resolves a religious question: what President Hinckley meant by ‘tithing funds.’ … The court has effectively taken sides in a religious dispute over the meaning of the Church’s own teachings.” “This is precisely why the church autonomy doctrine should have barred the claim at the threshold.” Why this helps you: Bumatay directly supports your argument that the definitional issue was both relevant and reached by the majority — and that doing so crossed into protected religious territory. 3. The 2023 Panel Opinion (vacated) – Your Opponent’s Favorite Quote Quote he is relying on: “We are not required to rely on or interpret the Church’s religious teachings to determine if it misrepresented how it was using tithing funds. Nor are we required to examine Huntsman’s religious beliefs about the appropriate use of church money. Instead, as presented to us, the questions are secular. The questions are whether the Church’s statements about how it would use tithing funds were true, and whether Huntsman reasonably relied on those statements when he made tithing contributions.” Why you can neutralize it: Point out that this language is from the now-vacated 2023 panel decision. The en banc court superseded it in January 2025. The current controlling 9th Circuit opinion is the one above. 4. Gaddy (10th Cir., Aug. 26, 2025) Key point: The court avoided the definitional issue. “Because we conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege reliance … we need not reach the Church’s alternative arguments, including its invocation of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine with respect to the tithing claims.” Why this helps you: Shows the 10th Circuit treated the definitional issue as one it could (and did) sidestep. Thanks, -Smac