Is Investment Income earned on Tithing still Tithing Funds?

[Fair Dinkum]

President Hinckley stated emphatically that “tithing funds have not and will not be used” in the construction of the City Creek Mall.  New documentation seems to cast doubt on that statement.  It now seems that in fact, tithing funds were used in its construction.

I do not care where the church invests tithing funds that they do not spend to fund church needs.  I hope they invest it in areas where they can make the highest return possible for the church.  I'll also add that I have personally enjoyed the City Creek Mall and see it as a positive,  beneficial asset to downtown Salt Lake City. That said I regret that President Hinckley told church membership that no tithing would be used in the Malls construction when in fact it was.

It sullies his good name to have been caught being less than forthright to church members.  I wish it wasn't so.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/30/are-earnings-tithing/

Edited August 30, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

President Hinckley stated emphatically that “tithing funds have not and will not be used” in the construction of the City Creek Mall.  New documentation seems to cast doubt on that statement.  It now seems that in fact, tithing funds were used in its construction.

I do not care where the church invests tithing funds that they do not spend to fund church needs.  I hope they invest it in areas where they can make the highest return possible for the church.  I'll also add that I have personally enjoyed the City Creek Mall and see it as a positive,  beneficial asset to downtown Salt Lake City. That said I regret that President Hinckley told church membership that no tithing would be used in the Malls construction when in fact it was.

It sullies his good name to have been caught being less than forthright to church members.  I wish it wasn't so.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/30/are-earnings-tithing/

In my opinion, some see a difference; others don’t. But either way, Mormonism has always been about the spiritual and the temporal.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

President Hinckley stated emphatically that “tithing funds have not and will not be used” in the construction of the City Creek Mall.  New documentation seems to cast doubt on that statement.  It now seems that in fact, tithing funds were used in its construction.

I do not care where the church invests tithing funds that they do not spend to fund church needs.  I hope they invest it in areas where they can make the highest return possible for the church.  I'll also add that I have personally enjoyed the City Creek Mall and see it as a positive,  beneficial asset to downtown Salt Lake City. That said I regret that President Hinckley told church membership that no tithing would be used in the Malls construction when in fact it was.

It sullies his good name to have been caught being less than forthright to church members.  I wish it wasn't so.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/30/are-earnings-tithing/

If you give me $10 which I put in the bank, and at the end of the year I have $11, is the entire $11 part of your gift? 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If you give me $10 which I put in the bank, and at the end of the year I have $11, is the entire $11 part of your gift? 

Sounds like something George Castanza would want crdit for! 😀 

Edited August 30, 2021 by CV75

[Fair Dinkum]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If you give me $10 which I put in the bank, and at the end of the year I have $11, is the entire $11 part of your gift? 

You're missing the point.  The correct question to ask is was that $1.00 of earned income derived from tithing or not? If yes then it is part of tithing if it was not then it would not be.  Interest earned on your $10 savings account is not accrued in a separate account it becomes PART of the original funds placed into that account and compounds accordingly.  PS: Congratulations on earning 10% return well done

Edited August 30, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You're missing the point.  The correct question to ask is was that $1.00 of earned income derived from tithing or not? If yes then it is part of tithing if it was not then it would not be.

I think your logic is flawed. 

I would say yes it was income derived from tithing and no, it's not part of tithing.  Just like ksfisher's example with the gift.  The $1 would be earned income derived from the gift, but it is not part of the gift.  

[Tacenda]

This isn't going to be any different than the original tithe payers that established the money to invest in the first place, I'm thinking.

ETA: Several years ago my husband's brother went to his dad and borrowed several thousand dollars and bought up 1 acre lots around Bluffdale, Utah. And then later sold for tons more than he bought them for and paid his dad back the original amount he borrowed. To this day my husband and his brothers are a little miffed. It made this brother almost a millionaire. 

Too bad his dad didn't get more money. So it is sort of sad that the wads of interest made on member's tithing money doesn't at least get the members a janitor in their ward house. Or other perks like better activities or more activities, or other functions.

To make church life more bearable and not always endure to the end mentality. Or like the old days, when the church didn't even have a lot of money and had to ask members for help building churches and temples. But now they cut back on a lot of social things like pageants and road shows and sports etc. Of course that's Utah centric, the pageants, but they could produce pageants in other countries that have their history in the church or have sports geared towards their culture. 

I use to think that the church being the same everywhere was a good thing, now I think it's a terrible idea.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Tacenda

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You're missing the point.  The correct question to ask is was that $1.00 of earned income derived from tithing or not? If yes then it is part of tithing if it was not then it would not be.  Interest earned on your $10 savings account is not accrued in a separate account it becomes PART of the original funds placed into that account and compounds accordingly.  PS: Congratulations on earning 10% return well done

It's like this: If a child asked his father for a fish and gets a serpent instead, and the serpent has babies, the serpent is still the gift even though the child is bitten by the babies.

Such is the Parable of Huntsman's Gift

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

President Hinckley stated emphatically that “tithing funds have not and will not be used” in the construction of the City Creek Mall. 

Yes.

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

New documentation seems to cast doubt on that statement.  It now seems that in fact, tithing funds were used in its construction.

With respect, I disagree.

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I do not care where the church invests tithing funds that they do not spend to fund church needs. 

Okay.

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I hope they invest it in areas where they can make the highest return possible for the church. 

I hope that the investments strike an appropriate balance between return and safety.

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'll also add that I have personally enjoyed the City Creek Mall and see it as a positive,  beneficial asset to downtown Salt Lake City.

I have only been there 2-3 times, but I also find it quite attractive, and much better than the potential "blight" its predecessor had risked becoming.

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

That said I regret that President Hinckley told church membership that no tithing would be used in the Malls construction when in fact it was.

I disagree.  

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It sullies his good name to have been caught being less than forthright to church members.  I wish it wasn't so.

I don't think that is so.

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/30/are-earnings-tithing/

The article you quote is ambivalent on the issue.  Some excerpts:

Quote

“Interest on tithing money is still tithing money,” says Provo resident Marco Davis. “They shouldn’t be used for speculative business projects. And it’s a serious half-truth, if not an outright lie, to claim the City Creek mall wasn’t funded by tithing.”

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.

Quote

Of course the church tapped tithing funds, counters Boise resident Rick Jepson. “What other funds would the church have to spend outside of tithing and the accumulated interest from tithing? Is there another fund to draw from?”

"And the accumulated interest" being the key phrase there.

A tithe is a voluntary and unconditional donation to the Church from one of its members.  That's where the money came from.

If the Church thereafter invests a portion of that tithe and generates profit/revenue/interest, then the source of that profit/revenue/interest is . . . the investment.

If I donate $1,000 to the Church and the Church invests $250 of that and generates a profit of an additional $250, is my tithe $1,000, or $1,250?  Please explain your answer.

Quote

Adrian Foster of Essex, England, is “disappointed that the claim was made that it wasn’t tithing money. To differentiate between principal and interest was disenguous and unnecessary.”

I think much of this comes from news coverage.  I think there was no way the Church could not speak to the source of the money being invested in City Creek.  The "We're only investing accumulated profits and interest on tithed funds, not tithed funds themselves" explanation seemed at the time - and seems now - to be a pretty reasonable one.

Also, "disenguous" here is probably intended as "disingenuous."

Quote

Still, he has “no problem at all with the church using funds, however obtained, in an infrastructure project that improves an important area and will provide a good return,” Foster says. “The church has a responsibility to invest funds wisely. It can only do that effectively in commercial projects. It spends eye-watering amounts around the world and building a substantial reserve is prudent and necessary.”

That seems about right.

Quote

The way Latter-day Saints view the shopping center and the church’s use of member contributions all depends on how they understand the purpose of tithing, says Patrick Mason, head of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University in Logan, and how much they trust the authorities.

“The percentage of members who are really concerned about these issues is pretty small,” says Mason, author of “Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World.” “The church has the trust of its members on financial matters and for the most part has earned that trust — especially since there haven’t been any financial scandals like with some televangelists who have benefited personally.”

The “vast majority of members really believe they are giving that money to God,” Mason says. “It is a spiritual discipline, an act of gratitude and a recognition of the goodness of God.”

Yep.  

Quote

Hugh Stocks gives money to the church “because the Lord said I should.” He doesn’t worry about what it does with it or with the earnings from it, says the Gilbert, Ariz., resident. “There are some things that are just not worth worrying about in today’s world. The Lord has chosen 15 men to oversee his work in these days. If he’s not happy, he has ways to make that known.”

Note that the Tribne story starts with three negative perspectives on the Church, followed by one that is postive-and/or-indifferent.

Quote

Michael Austin, a Latter-day Saint educator in Indiana, is not as bothered as others about the mall, he says. “I don’t see any moral difference between a shopping mall and a mutual fund.”

If the church has been “spending tithing dollars on city malls, that is a big problem. If they have been investing savings — wherever the origin — in a city mall, then, it seems to me, that is no different than investing in oil companies, or tech stocks, or bitcoin,” Austin writes in a recent By Common Consent blog post. “The management of resources, I think, follows a different set of moral rules than their expenditure.”

Jesus’ Parable of the Talents is not about spending money but about managing it, Austin says. “Whether the money is ultimately spent morally or immorally is — while not an unimportant question — one that cannot be answered from the text. Morality and immorality are not at issue in our interpretation; wisdom and foolishness are very much at issue. … God expects us to be wise as well as good.”

Yep.

Quote

Latter-day Saints can talk about how much the church ought to spend on the poor and the needy, says Cris Baird, a Dallas businessman. “That topic is worthy of discussion. And I think the church could do more in those areas.”

That's a fair point.

Quote

Some members who live outside Utah, even the U.S., question the wisdom of using tithing or the interest on it to support a property in the Beehive State.

“I find it strange that my tithing is used to build commercial enterprises in that state,” says Mary Siever of Alberta, Canada. “A mall in Utah has nothing to do with me, doesn’t benefit me or my family in the least and how does it benefit the church? OK. … I guess they make some money, but still?”

First, her tithing wasn't "used to build commercial enterprises."

Second, the "{a} mall in Utah has nothing to do with me, doesn't benefit me or my family in the least" statement is weird.  The very purpose of a tithe is selflessness.  I have only been to a tiny handful of the thousands of church buildings, temples, etc. that the Church builds and maintains using tithes.  Should I dispute those expenditures by saying they have "nothing to do with me, doesn't benefit me or my family in the least"?  

Third, the "benefit{s}" to the Church it are A) the investment was a smart one, and B) it beautifies the area immediately adjacent to Temple Square.

Quote

Nathan McCluskey of Christchurch, New Zealand, is even more vehement.

“I don’t think The Church of Jesus Christ should be involved in commercial ventures. Not only is it incongruous with the mission of Christ, it is not what the general membership expect is being done with donated money upon which it is not taxed,” McCluskey says. “Funding the construction of a mall which encourages the pursuit of Babylonian materialism … is at best hypocrisy but at worst an abuse of sacred trust. Whether the money came from tithes, the interest on tithes or the profit from other business ventures originally purchased with consecrated funds is irrelevant to me. The church’s mission should be that articulated by the Savior in his last mortal discourse recorded in the Book of Matthew — to feed, clothe, house, administer to and visit [those in need] and not charge for it.”

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.

Quote

Others defend the mall — and church spending.

“City Creek was a gift to Salt Lake City,” says Cedar Hills resident Marisa Wright. “I would think many urban areas in our country and world would welcome a donation like this. It wasn’t a donation in the typical sense of the word, but it was a donation nonetheless. Downtown was becoming a disaster. Now it is a stylish destination that anyone can enjoy. As a Utahn I love seeing revitalization projects everywhere in the state. So the exact slicing of hairs as to where the money came from means little to me.”

Rick Jepson says he doesn’t much care whether his church spends his tithing “on cattle or buildings.”

The investment goals have always “been clear and obvious (protect principal, make interest),” the Boise resident says. “And the goals of this particular project were also clear. So if it gave a face-lift to downtown and had a financial return on investment, it did all it was meant to do.”

I think these are sensible perspectives.

Quote

Nathan Oman, a Latter-day Saint law professor at William & Mary in Virginia, isn’t so sure that City Creek was a good investment.

“Shopping malls are not necessarily the way of the future,” says Oman, who teaches business law. “Putting money into a development like that may not even bring the biggest return on their funds, but they did it to maintain downtown Salt Lake City.”

This is a fair point.  The investment started in 2003, somewhat shortly after the bursting of the dotcom bubble.  Amazon Prime was not launched until 2005.  Online shopping has certainly decimated malls throughout the U.S.

So it goes.  Not every investment will work out perfectly.  Overall, though, the Church's investments have been very good, and City Creek continues to make downtown Salt Lake attractive.  And I guess we'll wait and see what sort of ROI it brings in the long run.

I'm not bothered either way, as I'm not expecting perfection from the Church.  I think the Church made a substantial error in the Main Street Plaza transaction as well, resulting in the Church having to essentially pay the city twice for the same land.  Again, I'm not that bothered.  Overall the Church is taking seriously its responsibility to be a good steward of sacred funds.

Quote

Church leaders have a “really long time horizon in their planning,” he says. As they “move money from wealthy parts of the church to poor parts of the church, saving funds moves money from present to future, and I suspect that the present church members on average are wealthier than future church members are likely to be.”

One possible way to frame the church’s investment, says Sam Brunson, a Latter-day Saint tax attorney at Loyola University in Chicago, “is that we, the wealthy of 2021, are giving money to the less wealthy (or even the poor) of 2051.”

Yep. 

I am grateful to the current crop of comparatively wealthy members who are willing to consecrate a portion of their wealth to the Church.

I am further grateful that the Church is functioning well as a steward of those funds, and is successfully preserving and growing contributions, with the long-term objective of providing assistance to future members who are comparatively poorer.

Quote

The problem with trying assess the church’s spending, investing and giving, he says, is its lack of financial transparency,

Some of the complaints and misunderstandings, Brunson argues in a By Common Consent blog post, arise from church authorities being “completely opaque in how they’ve made their investment/spending decisions.”

If the church viewed members “as stakeholders, it could and would communicate its thinking to us,” he writes. “What considerations has it made in deciding whether to spend or invest? How did it decide how much it needed for current expenditures and for future expenditures.”

There would be a lot of power in Latter-day Saint higher-ups saying, “We believe that we need to have a cushion for the next hundred years…. We debated tapping into our endowment now to [reduce tithing/feed the hungry/something else] but we believe that these future needs will be more compelling.”

Laying out the church’s financial reasoning rather than detailed specifics to members at large, Brunson concludes, would display “a significant level of trust and respect, trust and respect that would be good for both the institutional church and its members.”

This is a fair point, and I hope the Brethren take it into consideration.

Overall, Fair Dinkum, the article does not seem to support your grievance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Is Investment Income earned on Tithing still Tithing Funds?

Obviously the church doesn’t see it that way, is that enough to satisfy any concerns?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Quote

If you give me $10 which I put in the bank, and at the end of the year I have $11, is the entire $11 part of your gift? 

You're missing the point. 

And you are not answering the question.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The correct question to ask is was that $1.00 of earned income derived from tithing or not?

Yes and no.

"Yes" in that the tithe gave the money something to invest.

"No" in that the $1 came from the investment.

"No" in that the $1 did not come from a member.  

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If yes then it is part of tithing if it was not then it would not be.  Interest earned on your $10 savings account is not accrued in a separate account it becomes PART of the original funds placed into that account and compounds accordingly. 

But "the original funds" to which the interest is added belongs . . . to the Church.  Right?

When a member of the Church reports charitable contributions to the IRS, is he legally allowed to report $11, even though he only donated $10?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2021 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

President Hinckley stated emphatically that “tithing funds have not and will not be used” in the construction of the City Creek Mall.  New documentation seems to cast doubt on that statement.  It now seems that in fact, tithing funds were used in its construction.

I agree. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. Basic logic.

Likewise, if tithing funds were used to create investment earnings and investment earnings were used for a mall, then tithing funds were used for a mall. 

From the article, Michael Austin, a Latter-day Saint educator in Indiana, is not as bothered as others about the mall, he says. “I don’t see any moral difference between a shopping mall and a mutual fund.”

To this, Smac97 replied, "Yep."

But Hinckley implies there is a significant difference. According to Hinckley, tithing principal may be used to buy mutual funds, but it may not be used to buy malls.

Why is that?

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You're missing the point.  The correct question to ask is was that $1.00 of earned income derived from tithing or not? If yes then it is part of tithing if it was not then it would not be.  Interest earned on your $10 savings account is not accrued in a separate account it becomes PART of the original funds placed into that account and compounds accordingly.  PS: Congratulations on earning 10% return well done

Your logic is specious.

If my employer pays me for my labor, I might put a certain amount of it into my savings account. The amount I earned from my labor and put into the account is my labor-derived income, but if the bank uses it to earn investment income (which is the reason they offer the account) and then shares some of it with me, that investment share is not my labor-derived income. I didn't earn it, its source is not my labor. By the same token, the money earned by investment of tithing is not sourced from a tithe-payer, and cannot be called tithing.

If it could be called tithing, then an analogous scenario would be the case of my rich uncle investing a million dollars in my business. If I went on to earn a second million from my business operations, he could claim that that second million was part of the original avuncular investment, and therefore it belongs to him, too.  This is absurd. My uncle cannot claim that now I owe him $2 million, even if his initial million made it possible for me earn that second million. There might be a profit sharing agreement between us, in which I have to pay him back his original investment along with a portion of my profit, but otherwise he has no claim on the second million. The investment and the return on investment are not the same thing.

In saying that the money earned from investing tithing is itself tithing, you are claiming that the return on investment is the investment. That is absurd. 

Was the money earned from investing tithes paid by a tithe-payer? No it wasn't. It is, therefore, not tithing.

You are tying yourself into knots trying to fault the Church (and President Hinckley). 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

agree. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. Basic logic.

Causes is not identity. 

“The virus may cause covid, Covid may cause loss of smell, therefore the virus may cause loss of smell” does not mean “the virus is a loss a smell”. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

If my employer does not pay payroll taxes on the payroll dollars I stick in the bank, then they must be LEGALLY something different and distinct from the payroll dollars I initially received. 

SMAC often goes back to the question: when the church earns interest on your tithed donation, do you then claim that interest on your tax forms as a donation?  No.  Because that interest is in a different legal category from that which you donated.  It is LEGALLY different and distinct from the initial contribution.

 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Was the money earned from investing tithes paid by a tithe-payer? No it wasn't. It is, therefore, not tithing.

 

Tithing must be tithed.  That seems rather tautological.  If no one tithed the dollar, then it ain't tithing.  

[rongo]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's like this: If a child asked his father for a fish and gets a serpent instead, and the serpent has babies, the serpent is still the gift even though the child is bitten by the babies.

Such is the Parable of Huntsman's Gift

Did you have an intentional pun in there? "Gift" in German is "poison." That also works quite well with the parable . . .  

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But Hinckley implies there is a significant difference. According to Hinckley, tithing principal may be used to buy mutual funds, but it may not be used to buy malls.

Why is that?

I don't know, but in light of your interpretation of Hinckley's words I am now thinking that there's probably no reason for the Church to NOT buy a mall. A mall is a business investment, after all. It's not just some frippery. So why shouldn't the Church buy a mall with tithing money? Go for it, I say. If it's well-designed, well-located, and managed properly, it will make money and provide a general benefit to the entire population merely by its presence. As this mall seems to have done.

Here's what I think: President Hinckley was trying to avoid ignorant public outrage. He probably knew it was going to be a lost cause, because some people are entitled Karens, who, because they can't run their own lives successfully, compensate by trying to run others' lives. 

The Church pays plenty of money for social activities to benefit members. The City Creek benefits all, not just members. There's really nothing to complain about here.

Which doesn't stop anyone from doing so, of course.

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Tithing must be tithed.  That seems rather tautological.  If no one tithed the dollar, then it ain't tithing.  

Very good! More succinctly said than what I said. 

[MustardSeed]

Seems to me a lot of nitpicking over what needs to be a generous offering of the heart. 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I agree. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. Basic logic.

Likewise, if tithing funds were used to create investment earnings and investment earnings were used for a mall, then tithing funds were used for a mall. 

From the article, Michael Austin, a Latter-day Saint educator in Indiana, is not as bothered as others about the mall, he says. “I don’t see any moral difference between a shopping mall and a mutual fund.”

To this, Smac97 replied, "Yep."

But Hinckley implies there is a significant difference. According to Hinckley, tithing principal may be used to buy mutual funds, but it may not be used to buy malls.

Why is that?

But this fails to account for the actual definition of tithing, which is 10% of someone's income, donated to the church.  B is not 10% of anyone's income, therefore, B by definition isn't tithing.  It's something different.  

[Danzo]

This is basically an accounting question.

How do accountants see it? I think that is the real question.

In non profits accounting, the investment income is usually not restricted to the underlying fund restriction. This is because the fund itself is almost never kept in a seperate bank or investment account, rather the money is usually  pooled with other moneys to get the best return on the investment. herei is an exerpt from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/h2r2/ch_5_3.asp describing how local governments are expected to behave.  Notice that type (investment income is generally not restricted and considered general (unrestricted) revenue.  I would sssume the church accounting follows this model (most large non profits do).  The tithing would be funds that are restricted to specific purposes, but the investment income would not have the same restriction.

 

 

Programs are financed from essentially four sources (see table 4😞

• Type A. Those who purchase, use, or directly benefit from the goods or services of the program
• Type B. Parties outside the reporting government's citizenry
• Type C. Taxpayers (regardless of whether they benefit from a particular program)
• Type D. The governmental institution itself (primarily investment income)

Table 4. Classification of Revenues
Source Type	Program Revenue	General Revenue
Type A	Yes	No
Type B	Yes, if restricted	Yes, if unrestricted
Type C	No	Yes
Type D	No	Yes (usually)

 

Here is a link that desrcibes restricted funds accounting. 

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/fundbased-accounting-44924.html

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I agree. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. Basic logic.

Likewise, if tithing funds were used to create investment earnings and investment earnings were used for a mall, then tithing funds were used for a mall. 

From the article, Michael Austin, a Latter-day Saint educator in Indiana, is not as bothered as others about the mall, he says. “I don’t see any moral difference between a shopping mall and a mutual fund.”

To this, Smac97 replied, "Yep."

But Hinckley implies there is a significant difference. According to Hinckley, tithing principal may be used to buy mutual funds, but it may not be used to buy malls.

Why is that?

After all of this time posting on this subject, you still havent seemed to spend much time learing about how accountants see this.

Where funds come from is an accounting question.  If there were no account system in place President Hinkley's statement would have no meaning at all.  When he made the statement, he probably made it from the reference of the church's accounting system.

Designating investment income as seperate from the initial funds is comon in a funds based accounting system, especially when the donation itself is not restricted. 

If non profit accounting (which includes schools, local governemts, etc) bothers you that much, I would suggest you Join the Financial Accounting Standards Board and suggest changes.

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This is basically an accounting question.

It is basically a common sense question.  And maybe a legal question, too.

Tithing is 10% of a person's income when given/dedicated to the Lord for his purposes.  That money could then be used immediately or invested in some way, and if invested any additional income is over and above what was given as tithing.

Hence, tithing is not the same thing as income derived from tithing funds.  Tithing is only 10% of a person's income and never any additional money above that 10%.  The word tithing itself simply refers to a tenth, or 10% of 100%.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

President Hinckley stated emphatically that “tithing funds have not and will not be used” in the construction of the City Creek Mall.  New documentation seems to cast doubt on that statement.  It now seems that in fact, tithing funds were used in its construction.

I do not care where the church invests tithing funds that they do not spend to fund church needs.  I hope they invest it in areas where they can make the highest return possible for the church.  I'll also add that I have personally enjoyed the City Creek Mall and see it as a positive,  beneficial asset to downtown Salt Lake City. That said I regret that President Hinckley told church membership that no tithing would be used in the Malls construction when in fact it was.

It sullies his good name to have been caught being less than forthright to church members.  I wish it wasn't so.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/30/are-earnings-tithing/

Don't you ever get tired of picking on the Church finances? By all measurements the Church has done very well.

Try some tenderness