Gaddy Lawsuit Judgement

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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 am confident I am correct here. Please read the motion yourself:

https://www.scribd.com/document/519664320/Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-James-Huntsman-v-LDS-Church?utm_source=chatgpt.com

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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."

The ecclesiastical issue the Church talked about in the first motion is different than what you imagine it to be. It wasn't about the definition of "tithing", but rather it was about the Church's right to spend money however it wanted. Specifically: 

Quote

For well over a century and a half, Church leaders had always had the ecclesiastical authority to use member contributions as they felt inspired to advance the religious mission and interst of the Church, its members, and the community. Did President Hinckley suddenly abdicate that ecclesiastical authority? Was it reasonable of a member like Huntsman to believe such a momentous religious change had occurred? These questions are unabidably entangled with questions of religious doctrine, polity, practice, and history. 

That is what the Church was arguing in their motion for summary judgment. It was a weak argument and it isn't surprising the Church moved away from it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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}."

Many members of this forum were confident that the Church said tithing money wouldn't be used, neither directly nor indirectly. That is what they believed. They believed that tithing and interest earned on unspent tithing were equally sacred, and interpreted Hinckley's comments broadly--if it would be inappropriate to spend "tithing" on a mall, it would be equally inappropriate to spend "interest earned on unspent tithing" on a mall. 

I'm presuming that Huntsman's beliefs and sensibilities on these issues were in fact the same as other tithepayers such as thesometimesaint, Pahoran, and all the rest. Maybe not, but I'm assuming so. If I'm right and he shared these sensibilities with his fellow saints, it was a blunder on his part to express these beliefs and sensibilities in terms of "tithing" being a broad category that includes interest. He should have articulated the same sensibility in terms of "using tithing" being broad usage that extends to using something indirectly.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

The "indirect use of tithing" was a sincere question raised by a Latter-day Saint in the OP. It wasn't my argument (my views at the time can be read hear and here). The belief that using tithing indirectly is using tithing is how a plurality of members of this board viewed the issue at the time. That was the issue clearly articulated in the. OP. Read the OP: here is the whole thing:

Quote

When people accuse the Church of using sacred tithing money to fund things like the building of the City Creek mall, the obvious answer is of course that tithing money is not used; rather money from the for-profit arm of the church is used that was obtained through business investments over the years.

But then of course critics ask the next question; "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?"

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members. So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members 150 years ago; money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this?

Please just read it--from his point of view, using "money from the for-profit arm of the Church" is, "in an indirect way," still using "sacred tithing money...that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls." This was an argument unnamed critics were making, and in his mind, it needed a response.

Based on the same Church statements that Huntsman quoted, these well-read Saints were confident that "if a "genealogy" of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to the tithing paid...but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution."

These same people said that the claim that the money did trace back to tithing was "a malicious falsehood."

Edited April 24 by Analytics

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, lots of judges have said something to that effect.

My insight is that those judges were wrong. Many people here were quite confident that Hinckley did in fact assure us that tithing funds wouldn't be used for the mall, neither directly nor indirectly. Look at the context of Hinckley's assurance. The fact that he felt the need to make that assurance in the first place implies that according to LDS sensibilities, tithing funds are somehow too sacred to invest in a mall. That's why the the assurance was given in the first place. 

Many participants here interpreted Hinckley's remarks the same way that Huntsman did. It's in the contemporaneous record. To the extent these Latter-day Saints are reasonable people, a reasonable person could conclude that the church misrepresented the source of funds. That's the truth of the matter.

 

But it seems like the issue there is that many people still don’t believe tithing funds were used. So even there, the issue isn’t whether or not Hinckley lied but what constitutes “tithing”. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Many members of this forum were confident that the Church said tithing money wouldn't be used, neither directly nor indirectly.

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:

Quote

I'm in a discussion with a fellow who is saying that "a plurality" of Latter-day Saints on a message board "were confident that the Church said tithing money wouldn't be used {for the City Creek Project}, neither directly nor indirectly." I have uploaded that thread. Analyze it and see identify (and quote) any participants who, in your view, "were confident that the Church said tithing money wouldn't be used {for the City Creek Project}, neither directly nor indirectly."

The response:

Quote

Yes — a clear majority (not just a plurality) of the believing Latter-day Saint participants in this 2012 thread expressed confidence that tithing money was not used for City Creek Mall, either directly or indirectly.

Here are the most explicit examples, with direct quotes:

JAHS (original poster and repeated throughout the thread):

• “When people accuse the Church of using sacred tithing money to fund things like the building of the City Creek mall, the obvious answer is of course that tithing money is not used; rather money from the for-profit arm of the church is used that was obtained through business investments over the years.”
• Later: “I know the character of the people running the church and am quite sure that if they say tithing money is not used for the building of things like the mall I can believe them.”

Pahoran:

• “If a ‘genealogy’ of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall’s pedigree would trace back, not to the tithing paid in St George after President Snow’s famous ‘Windows of Heaven’ talk, but to the original Zion’s Co-operative Mercantile Institution.”

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

• In direct response to Craig Paxton’s claim that the Church was being disingenuous about tithing: “Actually yes, the church can claim it because they did not.”

LeSellers:

• “There were no ‘Mexicans’ in Deseret in 1847—only Indians who were Mexicans because Spain said they were. As to the Saints’ taking land from the Indians… the Church owned [Deseret] by right of first claim, and the value of that land was not a donation or tithe. It was… a ‘divine gift’.”

Scott Lloyd:

• Multiple posts defending the project while repeatedly affirming that tithing funds were not used. For example: “Tithing and other consecrated funds are used to build the Kingdom of God on earth. Part of that is preserving the sacred spaces surrounding the Salt Lake Temple… the Church has consistently explained that it did not use principal tithing contributions for City Creek.”

Summary of the thread sentiment:

• 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.).
• Only a very small number of critics (Craig Paxton, LDSToronto, etc.) pushed the “indirect tithing” argument, and they were vigorously rebutted.

Your opponent is correct that a clear majority (well more than a plurality) of the active Latter-day Saint voices on that board in 2012 were confident the Church had stated (and that it was true) that no tithing money — direct or indirect — was used 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.)."

"Only a very small number of critics (Craig Paxton, LDSToronto, etc.) pushed the 'indirect tithing' argument, and they were vigorously rebutted."

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm presuming that Huntsman's beliefs and sensibilities on these issues were in fact the same as other tithepayers such as thesometimesaint, Pahoran, and all the rest. Maybe not, but I'm assuming so.

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.

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If I'm right and he shared these sensibilities with his fellow saints, it was a blunder on his part to express these beliefs and sensibilities in terms of "tithing" being a broad category that includes interest.

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.

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He should have articulated the same sensibility in terms of "using tithing" being broad usage that extends to using something indirectly.

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.

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The "indirect use of tithing" was a sincere question raised by a Latter-day Saint in the OP.

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.

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It wasn't my argument (which can be read and here).

It seems to be the argument you are advancing now, though.  Am I misunderstanding that?

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is how a plurality of members of this board viewed it.

"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."

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That first thread was about concerns that indirectly using tithing is still using tithing. Read the OP: here is the whole thing:

Please just read it--from his point of view, using "money from the for-profit arm of the Church" is, "in an indirect way," still using "sacred tithing money...that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls."

See above.

As a legal matter, the "indirect use of tithing" is, I think, wholly untenable.  

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Based on the same Church statements that Huntsman quoted, these well-read Saints were confident that "if a "genealogy" of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to the tithing paid...but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution."

I think Pahoran said that.  I don't know if his speculation is correct.  

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

These same people said that the claim that the money did trace back to tithing was "a malicious falsehood."

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

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

a handful of self-selected looky-loos

Looky-loos has a derogatory connotation, are you sure you want to use that term?   Some at least commenting in that thread were devout members defending the Church, plus it seems to me you fall into the same category since you were self selecting and commenting on a topic you don’t have to.

Quote

person who looks at something: such as

a: a person who goes somewhere or stops to look at something (such as the scene of an accident) : an intrusively curious onlooker  —usually plural

… to discourage the thousands of lookie-loos who once jammed the street to get a glimpse of the murder scene.—David W. Myers

b: a person who looks at something for sale without intending to buy it

And how should you get your old house ready for "looky-loos" as well as the serious buyers?—Roger Showley

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lookie-loo

Edited April 24 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Looky-loos has a derogatory connotation, are you sure you want to use that term?  

It was not intended as derogatory.  I am one of the looky-loos, after all.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some at least commenting in that thread were devout members defending the Church, plus it seems to me you fall into the same category since you were self selecting and commenting on a topic you don’t have to.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lookie-loo

I did not intend it as disparaging.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was not intended as derogatory.  I am one of the looky-loos, after all.

I did not intend it as disparaging.

Thanks,

-Smac

I figured, but I have never heard or seen it used where it wasn’t mocking.  It seems to be less common now, so possible to miss the connotation.  If you have only read it, for example and not heard the tone attached when spoken…

Edited April 24 by Calm

[Analytics]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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...

Here are some follow-up questions you can ask Grok.

Prompt 1:
“With 20/20 hindsight, and looking at the issue the way these participants looked at in 2015, who was more right, the “faithful participants”, or the “critics”? In other words, was the mall in part indirectly financed with tithing because it was in fact financed in part with investment income derived from tithing?

Prompt 2: 
Craig Paxton asked, "I just don’t understand why it’s so offensive to believing posters for me to state the obvious…that the church uses income from investments that originally came from the primary income source that the church has, namely tithing…and reinvested that money in the new City Creek Mall. What is so offensive about saying something that is so obvious.”

A poster called “thesometimesaint” answered, by saying, "The Church officers have publically stated that no tithing funds were used in the purchase of the mall. You are calling those Church officers liars. Provide proof of your claim or retract it.” 

A poster called “selek1”answered it by saying, "Perhaps because it is a malicious falsehood being repeated by those whose goal is to undermine the Church?”

With 20/20 hindsight, and looking at the issues the way the “faithful participants” (e.g. thesometimesaint) did back then, were the “church officers” liars for leading the general membership to think tithing funds wouldn’t be used, neither directly nor indirectly?

Prompt 3:
Say “thesometimesaint” made large tithing contributions, and claimed that he did so based on these assurances made by the Church. Assume he was upset about the church he trusted lying to him and decided to sue for fraud. Do you think a reasonable juror could conclude the church committed fraud by lying the membership about how tithing donations would be used?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But it seems like the issue there is that many people still don’t believe tithing funds were used. So even there, the issue isn’t whether or not Hinckley lied but what constitutes “tithing”. 

I’m not aware of any. The Church claims that the mall was indirectly financed with tithing because investment income on unspent tithing was used to finance it, just as Craig Paxton said. 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’m not aware of any. The Church claims that the mall was indirectly financed with tithing because investment income on unspent tithing was used to finance it, just as Craig Paxton said. 

Can you provide the quote?  Sincere question because I’d like to see it. Not a gotcha

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide the quote?  Sincere question because I’d like to see it. Not a gotcha

Sure. But there are two parts of this. Do you need a quote about how the church used about $1.4 billion of investment income generated from unspent tithing to help build the mall? Or do you need a quote about how in 2012, the prevalent thought among apologists was that using investment income generated from unspent tithing to build a mall was indirectly using tithing to build the mall?

[bluebell]

Just now, Analytics said:

Sure. But there are two parts of this. Do you need a quote about how the church used about $1.4 billion of investment income generated from unspent tithing to help build the mall? Or do you need a quote about how in 2012, the prevalent thought among apologists was that using investment income generated from unspent tithing to build a mall was indirectly using tithing to build the mall?

I’m looking for the quote where the church claims that the mall was indirectly funded through tithing. 

[Analytics]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m looking for the quote where the church claims that the mall was indirectly funded through tithing. 

Do you need a quote that says interest on the "reserves" was used to fund the mall, and the accompanying quote that explains "reserves" consist of tithing money that is saved for a rainy day?

That's the Church's official position in the lawsuits and is derived at by combining two Hinckley quotes that were given years apart.

In the context of that old thread, that is precisely what is meant by the idea that "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members," as defined by JAHS in that old thread.

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

 With 20/20 hindsight, what the Church was doing is obvious. In fact, the quote above (“Member Pays Tithing-->Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested -->Investments Earn Return-->$$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall”) was taken directly from what somebody on this board said on March 22, 2012.

We know from the contemporaneous record that many members of the Church found Hinckley’s words to be confusing, because using the interest earned on unspent tithing money is indirectly using tithing money. And indirectly using tithing money is still using tithing money. 

 When Craig Paxton said the truth (“Member Pays Tithing-->Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested -->Investments Earn Return-->$$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall”), very few Latter-day Saints said, “yes, that’s exactly what happened, just as the church clearly said.”

 Rather, they said things like, CFR, Craig's accusation is “fluff and stuff”, that is an assumption with no basis in fact, that is “bluster with no substance”, that that is something only “someone with no awareness of history might assume.” Based on their own Latter-day Saint values and Latter-day Saint vernacular, it was clear to these Latter-day Saints that indirectly using tithing was still using tithing, and that the interest on unspent tithing is just as sacred as the tithing itself. Therefore, they interpreted Hinckley’s assurances broadly, and believed that they were promised tithing wouldn't be used, neither directly nor indirectly.

 Craig asked, “Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were [indirectly] used to fund the mall?”  In response, thesometimesaint said:

"The Church officers have publically stated that no tithing funds were used [neither directly nor indirectly] in the purchase of the mall. You are calling those Church officers liars. Provide proof of your claim or retract it."

@Analytics - The highlighted statement in red is what I would like to ask you about. You have brought up in the past this same concept that "contemporaneous records show people found Hinckley’s words to be confusing."

However, I am not so sure. These comments you are referring to are NOT contemporaneous. They are all taken 9 years later.  They are all memories of what people remember President Hinckley saying and not what he actually said.

None of the conversations make any reference to the actual quote from President Hinckley:

“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 a full review of the comments in question that I posted a few years back when we last had the conversation:

 

So I am curious are there any "contemporaneous record that many members of the Church found Hinckley’s words to be confusing" - records that actually quote and discuss President Hinckley's words? Because I find them very straightforward as did a unanimous panel of judges in California, that Hinckley referred to two different pools - a) tithing and b) earnings of invested reserve funds.

[Anonymous Mormon]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m looking for the quote where the church claims that the mall was indirectly funded through tithing. 

This is the quote at issue that decided this lawsuit:

Quote

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.

Saturday Morning Session -5 April 2003

The Condition of the Church
President Gordon B. Hinckley

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/05/the-condition-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

This concept of Reserve Funds comes from his previous talk two years earlier:

Quote

In the financial operations of the Church, we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of the income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible “rainy day.”

For years, the Church has taught its membership the principle of setting aside a reserve of food, as well as money, to take care of emergency needs that might arise. We are only trying to follow the same principle for the Church as a whole.

The State of the Church - April 1991
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

President Hinckley was very clear and not at all dishonest about this. I don't know anyone at the time who was confused about this.

Unfortunately, within about a decade the whole "The church used tithing funds" argument had broken out online. And the debate became a debate about what is tithing. Unfortunately, no one seemed to go back and actually read the words of President Hinckley at the time where he clearly stated that tithing and reserve funds were used. 

This is why the judges in a liberal jurisdiction sided unanimously with the church. Because President Hinckley was clear that the money used was tithing AND reserve funds. And he had recently defined what the reserve funds were. So there was no deception on the part of the church. Therefore, the judges could make the unanimous decision without having to define tithing and worry about church autonomy doctrine (although a few concurrences still breached the topic).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

This is why the judges in a liberal jurisdiction sided unanimously with the church. Because President Hinckley was clear that the money used was tithing AND reserve funds. And he had recently defined what the reserve funds were. So there was no deception on the part of the church.

Seems to me the controversy is fundamentally how much responsibility does the Church have in educating its members before asking for donations once the judges decided the information made public was sufficient and thus the Church wasn’t hiding anything.  But was it publicizing the information enough?  Obviously (imo, maybe others don’t see it as obvious) not every member would have heard/read or paid attention to what Pres Hinckley said, so the question would be was the effort enough? (I think it was, btw)  If not in the general view, then I wonder what would be, what would satisfied a reasonable person?

Maybe the Church needs to include something like the read once, ignored every other time as too long agreement I have to ‘sign’ every time I go to a doctor’s appointment.  Not that such is a guarantee people will read it, but they have the choice. (Being mildly sarcastic here since I believe members had the choice to pay attention to Pres Hinckley or not as both comments were made in conference and even if it wasn’t watched, it could be read as ward libraries are to keep copies of the Ensign/Liahona available for members….even if it’s rare in the US and Canada in my experience for them to be used; otoh members may not have a choice when it comes to forgetting and if you have forgotten it was even mentioned, how are you to know you should go review any comments so you don’t get confused?)

Edited April 25 by Calm

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

This is the quote at issue that decided this lawsuit:

Saturday Morning Session -5 April 2003

The Condition of the Church
President Gordon B. Hinckley

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/05/the-condition-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

This concept of Reserve Funds comes from his previous talk two years earlier:

The State of the Church - April 1991
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

President Hinckley was very clear and not at all dishonest about this. I don't know anyone at the time who was confused about this.

Unfortunately, within about a decade the whole "The church used tithing funds" argument had broken out online. And the debate became a debate about what is tithing. Unfortunately, no one seemed to go back and actually read the words of President Hinckley at the time where he clearly stated that tithing and reserve funds were used. 

This is why the judges in a liberal jurisdiction sided unanimously with the church. Because President Hinckley was clear that the money used was tithing AND reserve funds. And he had recently defined what the reserve funds were. So there was no deception on the part of the church. Therefore, the judges could make the unanimous decision without having to define tithing and worry about church autonomy doctrine (although a few concurrences still breached the topic).

I'm still not seeing where the church outlines that tithing was used.  Can you be more specific?  

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm still not seeing where the church outlines that tithing was used.  Can you be more specific?  

Tithing was used to capitalize a massive investment fund. $1.4 billion of that investment fund was used for the mall.

Do you dispute this?

If tithing wasn’t used to capitalize the investment fund and instead was used to build temples, the fund wouldn’t have had any money for the mall. Tithing—>Investment fund—>mall. You can say that isn’t indirectly using tithing to fund the mall, but that is semantics.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

the fund wouldn’t have had any money for the mall.

Why do you assume if they didn’t use tithing in that way, they would have been unable to build up the fund in other ways, possibly ways they were already using.***  It seems like it’s too much fortune telling on too little information to say if they hadn’t decided to build the fund by adding unused tithing to it, they wouldn’t have been able to build it another way.

As far as I am aware, we do not have the records of all funds that were ever added to the investment fund that would tell us the percentage of the fund that came from tithing.  We have a snapshot at most (assuming the documents that were leaked are accurate and not faked).  Is this correct?

***Do we even know what the size of the fund was when the money was removed?

Edited April 25 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Tithing was used to capitalize a massive investment fund. $1.4 billion of that investment fund was used for the mall.

Do you dispute this?

If tithing wasn’t used to capitalize the investment fund and instead was used to build temples, the fund wouldn’t have had any money for the mall. Tithing—>Investment fund—>mall. You can say that isn’t indirectly using tithing to fund the mall, but that is semantics.

Do we know that tithing was used or is that an assumption (another sincere question).  The church has a lot of for-profit business ventures and also receives a lot of donations that are not tithing (I know that there are members who leave the church money and property after they die, for example.  We have one in our ward who was very very wealthy) and I'm unsure where the 'tithing was used to capitalize...' argument is coming from.  

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Analytics said:

Do you need a quote that says interest on the "reserves" was used to fund the mall, and the accompanying quote that explains "reserves" consist of tithing money that is saved for a rainy day?

That's the Church's official position in the lawsuits and is derived at by combining two Hinckley quotes that were given years apart.

In the context of that old thread, that is precisely what is meant by the idea that "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members," as defined by JAHS in that old thread.

 

I responded to this but must have forgotten to post it.

I'm not seeing where Hinckley said that the "reserve consists of tithing money that is saved for a rainy day".  That sounds like an interpretation of two quotes, based on some assumptions that are not specifically stated.

Beyond that, there is no such thing as indirect tithing.  Tithing is 10% of someone's income.  To suggest that 'indirect tithing' exists is to argue for a completely different definition of tithing than what the church uses, isn't it?  Because neither interest from tithing money nor things bought with that interest can be defined as 'one tenth of a church member's income'.

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do we know that tithing was used or is that an assumption (another sincere question).

The Nielsen documents include a sheet that shows unused tithing being sent to the Ensign Peaks fund iirc.  I will try and find it.  I can’t remember if there are other sources confirming that beyond what Pres Hinckley said.

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Beyond that, there is no such thing as indirect tithing.  Tithing is 10% of someone's income.  To suggest that 'indirect tithing' exists is to argue for a completely different definition of tithing than what the church uses, isn't it?  Because neither interest from tithing money nor things bought with that interest can be defined as 'one tenth of a church member's income'.

I 100% agree with this definition @bluebell.

 

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Tithing was used to capitalize a massive investment fund. $1.4 billion of that investment fund was used for the mall.

Do you dispute this?

If tithing wasn’t used to capitalize the investment fund and instead was used to build temples, the fund wouldn’t have had any money for the mall. Tithing—>Investment fund—>mall. You can say that isn’t indirectly using tithing to fund the mall, but that is semantics.

I agree with your assessment that excess tithing was used to be saved for a rainy day. The way they chose to save was to purchase stocks (a prudent savings method). Then the growth they had on this was used to purchase the mall, but none of it was the original principle amount. It seems to be how President Hinckley used the terms in his definition:

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.

I just don't agree with your definition that this growth is considered tithing any more (maybe if you dip into the principle, but definitely not if it's just the growth being sold)

 

@Analytics - Three questions for you:

1) Regardless of if you agree with Pres Hinckley's terminology, do you agree that he was making this distinction and being honest in how he portrayed it?

2)  The term salary (money paid to you by your company) is like the term tithing (money paid to the church by congregants). If you invest your salary in the stock market and the stocks increase in value and you sell the increase but keep the principle amount, when the IRS comes to tax you do you consider this as salary and pay the same taxes like you would on your salary? Would you consider salary and tithing to be any different?

3) What about a company's sales revenue - if the company invests its sales revenue and then sells some of the investment's increase, is it using its sales revenue to fund the transaction?

(note: I am not an accountant but you are, so please go easy on me if I used any of the accounting terms incorrectly - hopefully you understand what I mean)

[Calm]

Bluebell,

Can’t get it.  My Scribd isn’t working.  It’s one of the appendices in the Letter to an IRS director claiming to be from an orientation handout for 2012 if my memory is accurate…remember, good chance it’s not, but it surprises me at times. 

Edited April 25 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church has a lot of for-profit business ventures and also receives a lot of donations that are not tithing (I know that there are members who leave the church money and property after they die, for example.  We have one in our ward who was very very wealthy) and I'm unsure where the 'tithing was used to capitalize...' argument is coming from.  

Yeah, I just don’t get people who claim that tithing has been the sole source of the Church’s wealth (tithing itself or invested tithing, businesses bought with tithing).*** We have documentation from the beginning of people gifting money to the Church for various projects outside of tithing when requested.  Why would people only donate money outside of tithing now and not in the past?

There are complaints in exMormon communities online about family members gifting or leaving money to the Church, those have probably been voiced since the Church started.

Then there was the announcement of private funding for the Nauvoo temple, donations for BYU, etc. 

***a variation of the tithing was used for non sacred purposes argument

 

Edited April 25 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do we know that tithing was used or is that an assumption (another sincere question).

Mormonr quoted the Nielsen report (I don’t trust his calculations and other stuff because he doesn’t provide actual sources for some of his stuff, but makes claims and then footnotes them as if documented facts iirc, so grain of salt this):

https://mormonr.org/qnas/kQII1/the_100_billion_fund