Is Investment Income earned on Tithing still Tithing Funds?

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

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%.

Its not really a common sens question, its an accounting question.  (accounting doesn't make sense to most people who haven't studied it, especially funds based acccounting) 

President Hinkley could not say that tithing funds were not used unless there was an accounting system in place, if an accounting system weren't in plance, the statement would not have any meaning, at all.

An accounting system would segrate funds, if the funds were not segregrated, Hinkely's statment would have no meaning.

How funds are segregrated is an accounting question, because it refers to how money is accounted for.  If Hinkley said no tithing funds were used, it could only be true withing the context of the church's accounting system.  If the church does not restrict the investment income from its unrestricted donations (normal practice) and the church used investment income, then his statement is true.  IF the church used funds from the principle tithing funds, his statement isn't true.   Either way there has to be an accounting system in place.

IF there were no accounting systmen in place and "Common Sense" were used, then the truth of Hinkely's statment is unverifiable. 

 

[mgy401]

Long ago I happened to see a formula that read:  “Modern Art = ‘I could have painted that myself’ + ‘But, you didn’t’”.

Similarly, one could argue that “Tithing Investment Income = ‘I could have invested that money myself’ + ‘But, you didn’t’”.

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Its not really a common sense question, its an accounting question.  (accounting doesn't make sense to most people who haven't studied it, especially funds based acccounting) 

President Hinkley could not say that tithing funds were not used unless there was an accounting system in place, if an accounting system weren't in plance, the statement would not have any meaning, at all.

An accounting system would segregate funds, if the funds were not segregated, Hinkley's statement would have no meaning.

How funds are segregated is an accounting question, because it refers to how money is accounted for.  If Hinkley said no tithing funds were used, it could only be true within the context of the church's accounting system.  If the church does not restrict the investment income from its unrestricted donations (normal practice) and the church used investment income, then his statement is true.  IF the church used funds from the principle tithing funds, his statement isn't true.   Either way there has to be an accounting system in place.

IF there were no accounting system in place and "Common Sense" were used, then the truth of Hinkley's statement is unverifiable. 

 

All that is needed to know what tithing is and is not is to know what tithing is, and tithing is always only 10% of a person's income when given/dedicated to the Lord either personally or through his representatives to use for the Lord's purposes.

Anything other than that is not tithing, even if an accountant or lawyer tries to tell you it is.  It is only 10% of a person's income when given/donated to the Lord for his purposes.  That is it.

[smac97]

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. 

Nope.

If your postulation is correct, then can Latter-day Saints claim those "investement earnings" as charitable contributions?  If not, why not?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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."

Yes.  I do not see any moral distinction between investing in a shopping mall and investing in a mutual fund (which likely includes diversified investments, including real estate).

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But Hinckley implies there is a significant difference.

Nope.  Pres. Hinckley was speaking specifically of the funding of City Creek coming not from tithed donations, and instead coming "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."

Conversely, Austin was speaking broadly of investments, and in not seeing a "moral" distinction between investing money in a shopping mall versus investing money in a mutual fund.  And he's right.  There is no moral difference.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

According to Hinckley, tithing principal may be used to buy mutual funds, but it may not be used to buy malls.

Why is that?

Whenever a critic paraphrases a representative of the Church (particularly a prominent leader), I usually tend to want to check the original statement and compare it to the paraphrase.

So let's take a look at what Pres. Hinckley said.  From this March 2021 Des News article:

Quote

President Gordon B. Hinckley twice addressed use of church funds in general conference, in 2003 and 2004, after some said tithing had been used to build City Creek, a housing and shopping development south of Temple Square that he said was intended to protect the environment around the Salt Lake Temple.

As an aside, the facade of the old ZCMI building was used for part of City Creek.

Here is what President Hinckley said, in part:

Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.

In 2019, the First Presidency responded to a complaint over the church’s Ensign Peak investment fund and offered this insight:

“We take seriously the responsibility to care for the tithes and donations received from members. The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing church including more meetinghouses, temples, education, humanitarian work and missionary efforts throughout the world. Over many years, a portion is methodically safeguarded through wise financial management and the building of a prudent reserve for the future. This is a sound doctrinal and financial principle taught by the Savior in the Parable of the Talents and lived by the church and its members. All church funds exist for no other reason than to support the church’s divinely appointed mission.

“Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have.”

Here is the 2003 statement from Pres. Hinckley:

Quote

Faith in the payment of tithes and offerings increases despite the straitened economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. We are able to go forward with the building of meetinghouses and temples, with our vast education program, with the very many activities which are conditioned upon the tithing income of the Church. I promise you that we will not put the Church in debt. We will strictly tailor the program to the tithing income and use these sacred funds for the purposes designated by the Lord.

I call attention to that which has received much notice in the local press. This is our decision to purchase the shopping mall property immediately to the south of Temple Square.

We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.

Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.

Here is the 2004 statement from Pres. Hinckley:

Quote

We are now working on a major undertaking in Salt Lake City. It is imperative that we preserve the environment around Temple Square. This makes necessary a very large construction project. Tithing funds will not be used for this construction. The income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources make this possible.

From these two statements Analytics somehow gleans this: "According to Hinckley, tithing principal may be used to buy mutual funds, but it may not be used to buy malls."

Except that Pres. Hinckley did not say that.  Or anything close to it.  Instead, Pres. Hinckley said:

Quote

Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.

And

Quote

Tithing funds will not be used for this construction. The income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources make this possible.

As a general principal, Austin was quite correct.  There is no "moral difference between a shopping mall and a mutual fund."

As for the particular investments relative to City Creek, Pres. Hinckley was correct in his statements that "tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property" and that "tithing funds will not be used for this construction."

Austin was speaking broadly, and Pres. Hinckley was speaking specifically.

FWIW, if tithes had been directly invested in City Creek, I would not object because I do not see a discernible moral difference between investing in a sound real estate investment directly and investing in a more abstract and attenuated opportunity like a mutual fund.  I think the "morality" comes into play in terms of considerations such as risk (high risk investments are potentially problematic) and the products/services of the company being invested in (I don't think the Church should invest in, say, tobacco companies, or companies producing pornography).  But even then the "morality" becomes a judgment call.  Can/ought the Church invest in, say, a company that farms barley, some of which is sold to Coors and Budweiser to make beer?  Can/ought the Church's Deseret Ranch in Florida grow citrus crops, including oranges that produce juice then used in screwdrivers and other alcoholic drinks?

Anyway, as far as Analytics characterization to Pres. Hinckley's statement, I find it not quite accurate or fair.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2021 by smac97

[mgy401]

2 hours 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?

Hinckley may imply a difference, but doesn’t go so far as to weigh in on what should or shouldn’t be objectively permissible—he merely makes a concession to the potential feelings of some of the donors.  Three potential differences warranting this kind of concession may include:

1)  Because of the diversified nature of the investment, a mutual fund is inherently less risky than a single development project;

2)  Because this particular investment, in addition to (hopefully) a tangible return for the Church’s bottom line, also had intangible benefits that were largely limited towards a certain geographical subset of the Church; which may cause grousing from members/tithepayers outside of that particular region (as well as grievance-peddling nontithepayers and nonmembers who just get their rocks off by making Mormons think they ought to be offended)

3)  Because there is a certain class of people who just can’t abide the thought of the Church having nice things; no matter how many other people may have benefited from the Church’s production and continued operation of those nice things.  

Edited August 30, 2021 by mgy401

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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.

I keep going back to that question because nobody seems to be willing to address it in a meaningful way.  IIRC Analytics acknowledged the concept, the idea that a charitable donor cannot claim interest from investments using his charitable donations.  But then he continues to conflate the two things ((1) charitable donations and (2) revenue generated by subsequent investment of charitable donations)  as being indistinguishable from each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I keep going back to that question because nobody seems to be willing to address it in a meaningful way.  IIRC Analytics acknowledged the concept, the idea that a charitable donor cannot claim interest from investments using his charitable donations.  But then he continues to conflate the two things ((1) charitable donations and (2) revenue generated by subsequent investment of charitable donations)  as being indistinguishable from each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I edited an earlier post but don't think you'll see it. What if the church could give back by supplying more for ward budgets or money for activities or ward functions. Seriously, how come the church members often have to pay for these extras because the budgets aren't that great. Or hire janitors to do the bathrooms or the deep cleans, this will get me flack I'm sure. The members give of their time, talents, money all the time, maybe do more for all of their sacrifice. 

[Vanguard]

Rather than accepting that reasonable minds can disagree (how long have we been bantering over this?!), many who accuse the church of deceit (or worse!) appear to have a vested interest in holding the line that indeed the church was deceptive. The argument that tithing funds were not used seems entirely reasonable to me. Even if through the courts it is decided that the church was in the wrong, I would still not fault them for this. Of course, I suspect in the eyes of many accusers, a guilty verdict would affirm what they've always believed (openly or secretively) that the church fraudulently manages tithing funds at their own will and pleasure. Good grief. : (

Edited August 30, 2021 by Vanguard

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't think interest earned is the same thing as a donation, whether tithing, fast offering, whatever. However, I think the point the OP is trying to make is it is very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the funds if they are all held in common in the same account(s). I don't know if the church separates actual donated funds from any investment income. If it all happens to sit in an account together and then the church writes a check for $30 million for a mall or some other real estate investment I'm not sure how anyone would know whether or not tithing funds were used.

[Analytics]

Smac,

I had said, with emphasis added, "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." You responded;

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.

If your postulation is correct, then can Latter-day Saints claim those "investement earnings" as charitable contributions?  If not, why not?

Deductions for charitable contributions are based on how much money is donated, not how the money was used. I said the donated income was used to fund the mall because it was used to create the investment income. No tithing, no mall.   

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I do not see any moral distinction between investing in a shopping mall and investing in a mutual fund (which likely includes diversified investments, including real estate).

Nope.  Pres. Hinckley was speaking specifically of the funding of City Creek coming not from tithed donations, and instead coming "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."

Why would he bother saying that if there is no moral or ethical reason not to use tithing funds for these projects? 

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

FWIW, if tithes had been directly invested in City Creek, I would not object because I do not see a discernible moral difference between investing in a sound real estate investment directly and investing in a more abstract and attenuated opportunity like a mutual fund. 

I appreciate you being consistent on the point. But the question remains, why did Hinckley feel the need to distance tithing funds from this particular project? 

[Fether]

I’d like to point out that Pres Hinkley made the statement so it’s him who gets to qualify what he meant be that, not us.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

I keep going back to that question because nobody seems to be willing to address it in a meaningful way.  IIRC Analytics acknowledged the concept, the idea that a charitable donor cannot claim interest from investments using his charitable donations.  But then he continues to conflate the two things ((1) charitable donations and (2) revenue generated by subsequent investment of charitable donations)  as being indistinguishable from each other.

I edited an earlier post but don't think you'll see it. What if the church could give back by supplying more for ward budgets or money for activities or ward functions.

Yes, the Church could do this.  I'm not sure how that relates to the distinction between tithes and revenues generated by the investment of tithes.

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Seriously, how come the church members often have to pay for these extras because the budgets aren't that great.

"These extras" being what?  I don't understand your question.

The members of the Church in America already enjoy facilities and amenities that far outstrip those in other countries.  

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Or hire janitors to do the bathrooms or the deep cleans, this will get me flack I'm sure.

I've never understood this gripe.  I thought it was an awesome change when the Church gave members the opportunity to volunteer to clean their own buildings.  I clean my own house, after all, so it is a privilege for me to help to clean the Lord's house.

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The members give of their time, talents, money all the time, maybe do more for all of their sacrifice. 

Rather than spend money on things we can do ourselves (such as clean the buildings and have a bit more money to spend on food for activities and such), I would like to see the Church's money spent on missionary work, family history work, helping the Saints in poorer areas, in humanitarian and educational endeavors, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours 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.

You wish it wasn't so but you spend time and effort publicizing it repeatedly?

[Analytics]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I keep going back to that question because nobody seems to be willing to address it in a meaningful way.  IIRC Analytics acknowledged the concept, the idea that a charitable donor cannot claim interest from investments using his charitable donations.  But then he continues to conflate the two things ((1) charitable donations and (2) revenue generated by subsequent investment of charitable donations)  as being indistinguishable from each other.

Here is the problem. "Tithing" and "investment income" are items on an income statement. In contrast, "EPA's asset portfolio," and "the Church's treasury account" are items on a balance sheet. Strictly speaking, Hinckley was correct when he said "tithing money" wasn't used, because none of the Church's money is "tithing money." Likewise, none of the money is investment income. The Church can say, "Let's sell $50 million of stock in Apple, transfer that to Property Reserve, and use it to buy a ranch." But it can't say, "Let's spend $50 million of "tithing money on the ranch." That is because there isn't an asset called "tithing money."

I think a primary reason your thinking on this is so muddled is because you don't understand the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Smac,

I had said, with emphasis added, "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." You responded;

Quote

If your postulation is correct, then can Latter-day Saints claim those "investement earnings" as charitable contributions?  If not, why not?

Deductions for charitable contributions are based on how much money is donated, not how the money was used.

Exactly my point!  Charitable donations are materially distingushable from funds generated from subsequent use (investment) of those contributions.

The source of the funds is different (investment, not charitable donation).

The accounting and taxation of the funds is different.

The ownership of the funds is different.  I am not an investor.  I am not expecting an ROI.  I have a say in whether or not I pay a tithe (it's voluntary, after all), but thereafter I have no legal or equitable say in how my charitable contributions are spent.

And so on.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I said the donated income was used to fund the mall because it was used to create the investment income. No tithing, no mall.

Facile.  Big time.

Let's see, how far back can we go:

1. The mall was paid for "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."

2. The Church's "commercial entities" and "invested reserve funds" and "businesses" and "rents" originated, ultimately, in tithed donations from members throughout the Church's nearly 200 years of existence.

3. My tithes came from money from my employer, a law firm.

4. My employer's money comes from its clients.

5. My employer's clients got their money from investments, sales, loans, and so on.

If your "A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C," then what is "A?"  Why are you arriving at "tithing" and then stopping there?  Why not attribute the money spent on the mall to my employer, my employer's clients, my employers' clients' sources of income, and so on?  

If I as a tithepayer have a "say" in how the mall was funded, then my employer also has a say, right?  Right?  And my employers' clients have a "say."  And my employers' clients' employers have a "say," and on and on and on.

"Basic logic,' this is not.  It's a contrivance.  Your theory has no limiting principle.  If it holds, then it goes back ad infinitum.  That doesn't work for those who want to find fault with the Church, so you create an arbitrary and specious standard of causation, then summarily and without explanation stop the causality at the tithe-payer.  Why?  Because attributing causation/financing beyond that (to my employer, to my employer's clients', to my employers' clients' empoyers, etc.) works against your effort to disparage the Church.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Why would he bother saying that if there is no moral or ethical reason not to use tithing funds for these projects?

The fact remains that your paraphrase was a mischaracterization.  

And as I said before: Austin was speaking broadly, and Pres. Hinckley was speaking specifically.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I appreciate you being consistent on the point. But the question remains, why did Hinckley feel the need to distance tithing funds from this particular project? 

Well, he's dead.  And you're not a mindreader.  So your imputed motive seems . . . speculative.

If I were to speculate, I would probably start with mgy401's post above.

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think interest earned is the same thing as a donation, whether tithing, fast offering, whatever. However, I think the point the OP is trying to make is it is very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the funds if they are all held in common in the same account(s). I don't know if the church separates actual donated funds from any investment income. If it all happens to sit in an account together and then the church writes a check for $30 million for a mall or some other real estate investment I'm not sure how anyone would know whether or not tithing funds were used.

Easy. Ask your accountant.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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

Ha-ha no, but very clever!

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Never mind. I changed my mind on what I said.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Teancum

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I keep going back to that question because nobody seems to be willing to address it in a meaningful way.  IIRC Analytics acknowledged the concept, the idea that a charitable donor cannot claim interest from investments using his charitable donations.  But then he continues to conflate the two things ((1) charitable donations and (2) revenue generated by subsequent investment of charitable donations)  as being indistinguishable from each other.

Here is the problem. "Tithing" and "investment income" are items on an income statement.

That's not all they are, though.  The source is different.  I am the source of "tithing," but not the source of "investment income."

If I donate $1,000 to the Church, and if the Church then turns around and invests $250 of that and generates profits of an additional $250, then the Church now has $1,000 from me and my charitable contribution and $250 from an investment in a farm, a mutual fund, or whatever.

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, "EPA's asset portfolio," and "the Church's treasury account" are items on a balance sheet.  Strictly speaking, Hinckley was correct when he said "tithing money" wasn't used, because none of the Church's money is "tithing money."

Oh, brother.  

Yes, there is such a thing as "tithing money."

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Likewise, none of the money is investment income.

Piffle.

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Church can say, "Let's sell $50 million of stock in Apple, transfer that to Property Reserve, and use it to buy a ranch." But it can't say, "Let's spend $50 million of "tithing money on the ranch." That is because there isn't an asset called "tithing money."

I think a primary reason your thinking on this is so muddled is because you don't understand the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet. 

I think your approach to this is so strained and tendentious because you have previously insisted on conflating tithed funds (charitable donations from members of the Church) and profits/interest (generated by the Church investing a portion of its charitable donations), and because conflating these things is conducive to attacking the character and integrity of Pres. Hinckley and the Church.

And now you're saying there is no such thing as "tithing" or "investment income."

Right.

I'm sure the IRS would agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The main point for me is every $$ the church has originally came from member contributions.

Help me understand your reasoning.  Let me lay out how I see it:

Source A = Funds for the mall came "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."  Source A funds then came from...

Source B = Charitable donations came from members (as you put it: "every $$ the church {Source A} has originally came from member contributions").  Source B funds then came from...

Source C = Members' employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source B).  Source C funds then came from... 

Source D = Other employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source C).  Source D funds then came from...

Source E = Still other employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source D).  And so on.  Ad infinitum.

Now, you and others seem to start with Source A, then go to Source B, and then you stop.  May I ask why?  Why stop there?  Why not continue to apply your reasoning to Source C, Source D and so on?

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Tithing and other. Not contributions then no $$. Money is fungible.  So it does not matter if it is from earnings from tithing or not.  It comes from donations period.

Except . . . it doesn't.  Money comes from donations, which come from "employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on," which come from other "employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on," and so on.  Ad infinitum.  There is no "period" except the arbitrary one imposed by you, Analytics, and others.

So you reject the distinction between Source A and Source B.  Am I therefore at liberty to reject your distinction between Source B and Source C?  Between Source C and Source D?

I'm genuinely curious to understand your reasoning here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2021 by smac97

[mgy401]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think interest earned is the same thing as a donation, whether tithing, fast offering, whatever. However, I think the point the OP is trying to make is it is very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the funds if they are all held in common in the same account(s). I don't know if the church separates actual donated funds from any investment income. If it all happens to sit in an account together and then the church writes a check for $30 million for a mall or some other real estate investment I'm not sure how anyone would know whether or not tithing funds were used.

It’s not that complicated, as long as the balance of the fund never dips below the amount of tithing that was initially channeled to the fund—the tithing is still in the account, so, easy peasy.

It’s only if the total fund balance dips below the total amount of tithing seed money, that we have to start combing over the outlays to figure out which dollars went to which projects/investments and when.

Do you have any evidence that the total value of the EPA fund has ever dipped below the amount of the tithes actually contributed to the fund? 

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Help me understand your reasoning.  Let me lay out how I see it:

Source A = Funds for the mall came "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."  Source A funds then came from...

Source B = Charitable donations came from members (as you put it: "every $$ the church {Source A} has originally came from member contributions").  Source B funds then came from...

Source C = Members' employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source B).  Source C funds then came from... 

Source D = Other employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source C).  Source D funds then came from...

Source E = Still other employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source D).  And so on.  Ad infinitum.

Now, you and others seem to start with Source A, then go to Source B, and then you stop.  May I ask why?  Why stop there?  Why not continue to apply your reasoning to Source C, Source D and so on?

Except . . . it doesn't.  Money comes from donations, which come from "employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on," which come from other "employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on," and so on.  Ad infinitum.  There is no "period" except the arbitrary one imposed by you, Analytics, and others.

So you reject the distinction between Source A and Source B.  Am I therefore at liberty to reject your distinction between Source B and Source C?  Between Source C and Source D?

I'm genuinely curious to understand your reasoning here.

Thanks,

-Smac

After thinking through my post I changed my mind, before I saw this post.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

It’s not that complicated, as long as the balance of the fund never dips below the amount of tithing that was initially channeled to the fund—the tithing is still in the account, so, easy peasy.

It’s only if the total fund balance dips below the total amount of tithing seed money, that we have to start combing over the outlays to figure out which dollars went to which projects/investments and when.

Do you have any evidence that the total value of the EPA fund has ever dipped below the amount of the tithes actually contributed to the fund? 

This thread is starting to remind me of Aristotle's "umoved mover" concept:

Quote

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. 'that which moves without being moved')^[1] or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause) or "mover" of all the motion in the universe. As is implicit in the name, the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action.

Relative to the Church's money, I wonder if the unmoved mover, the first uncaused cause, was . . . N. Eldon Tanner?

This 2017 article by Peggy Fletcher Stack is about Quinn's most recent book: Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances, shows how church went from losing money to making money — lots of it

Some excerpts:

Quote

Some Mormons — and plenty of others — were appalled to witness their church build a $1.5 billion mall in downtown Salt Lake City and hear their prophet proclaim, “Let’s go shopping.”

Isn’t religion, they argued, supposed to be about feeding the hungry and clothing the poor? How is selling Tiffany jewelry, Nordstrom cocktail dresses and luxury condos any part of a Christian faith?

Such critics, though, fail to understand Mormonism, says historian D. Michael Quinn. The American-born movement has always seen its mission as serving both the spiritual and physical needs of its people. It doesn’t distinguish between the two.

“It’s as spiritual [for Latter-day Saints] to give alms to the poor,” Quinn told Bloomberg Businessweek in 2012, “... as it is to make a million dollars.”
...

On that last score, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been wildly successful, says Quinn, author of the newly published “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power.”

The church, launched in 1830 in upstate New York with six members, counts nearly 16 million members worldwide — and untold billions in assets.

...

Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments. (The Bloomberg Businessweek piece from five years ago cited an investigation pegging the LDS Church’s worth at $40 billion.)

No matter the precise bottom line, these figures represent an astonishing accomplishment, Quinn says.

“It is an American success story without parallel,” the longtime historian says in an interview. “No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.”
...

{The early} church and its leaders faced repeated fiscal hardships — losing everything each time they had to abandon their homes and communities.

That would have been tough for any group, but Latter-day Saints were especially hard hit.

...

Like Smith, the “vast majority of Mormonism’s 19th-century leaders,” Quinn writes, “had previously been subsistence farmers or working-class townspeople with limited finances.”

Congregations were led by lay clergy, who received no remuneration. But even those leaders who worked full time in ecclesiastical roles received little payment.

...

Most believers had paid tithing, but they did so in an uneven and unpredictable fashion until about 1900, when then-church President Lorenzo Snow asked members to pay on a “regular and consistent basis,” Quinn says. Tithing became a requirement for admittance to LDS temples, where Mormons take part in their faith’s highest ordinances.

That mandate had a clear and immediate impact.

At that time, the church was $2.5 million in debt, he says, but because of the tithing push, Snow’s successor Joseph F. Smith could announce in 1907 that the institution was debt-free.

Within a couple of decades, though, the red ink again began to flow.

From 1933 to 1950, the church saved about 72 percent of its annual income, creating a large reserve. But a building program from 1958 to 1963 blotted out all the reserve funds, and the church didn’t have enough liquid assets to meet all its obligations.

Starting in 1959, the faith began deficit spending, Quinn says, and thus stopped reporting its expenditures in General Conferences, hoping to keep that fact from the members.

By December 1962, the deficit had ballooned to nearly $33 million (or about $236 million in 2010 dollars) and, in 1963, the historian says, LDS headquarters “didn’t think it could meet its payroll.”

Such anxiety led leaders to take steps to ensure that would never happen again.

They brought Canadian N. Eldon Tanner on board as an apostle. Tapping his enormous financial know-how, the church began to rebuild its nest egg, cutting back on building projects and overseeing investments until it could get back in the black.

Tanner was “methodically rescuing the church from the brink,” Quinn writes. “By 1964, commercial income accounted for about 40 to 45 percent of its total income.”

Step by step, the historian writes, Tanner introduced the church to “corporate financing.”

It never looked back.

The Church owes its organziation and foundational scriptures to . . . Joseph Smith.

The Church owes its continued cohesion through the terrible ordeals in the decades following the martyrdom to . . . Brigham Young.

And the Church owes its current fiscal health and outlook to, it seems, . . . N. Eldon Tanner.

Not solely, of course.  We are a community, and we are all contributing to it in ways large and small.  I am grateful that, when the chips were down, the Church has leaders equipped to see us through.  Not just the above three, but the hundreds and thousands of those who have, without recognition or worldly reward, also contributed to the building of the Kingdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Help me understand your reasoning.  Let me lay out how I see it:

Source A = Funds for the mall came "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."  Source A funds then came from...

Source B = Charitable donations came from members (as you put it: "every $$ the church {Source A} has originally came from member contributions").  Source B funds then came from...

Source C = Members' employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source B).  Source C funds then came from... 

Source D = Other employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source C).  Source D funds then came from...

Source E = Still other employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on (which generated money transferred to Source D).  And so on.  Ad infinitum.

Now, you and others seem to start with Source A, then go to Source B, and then you stop.  May I ask why?  Why stop there?  Why not continue to apply your reasoning to Source C, Source D and so on?

Except . . . it doesn't.  Money comes from donations, which come from "employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on," which come from other "employers, clients, inheritances, business profits, transactions, investments, savings, and so on," and so on.  Ad infinitum.  There is no "period" except the arbitrary one imposed by you, Analytics, and others.

So you reject the distinction between Source A and Source B.  Am I therefore at liberty to reject your distinction between Source B and Source C?  Between Source C and Source D?

I'm genuinely curious to understand your reasoning here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just to clarify I decided my argument did not have merit.  Earnings on tithing is not tithing.

[CV75]

Is tithing on earnings from tithing diminishing returns?