Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings."

Since money is fungible there really is no way to tell whether the $$ came from principle or earnings.  Not unless they stick earnings into a seperate account.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

But you are claiming that James Huntsman, the well-educated and well-experienced son of a billionaire and business man in his own right, did not appreciate the difference between principal and investment income.  Right?

No! I'm claiming that given the context, it was eminently reasonable for him to interpret the phrase "tithing money wasn't used" as meaning "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used."

Oh, brother.

You are trying to speak for James Huntsman.  You are trying to argue that James Huntsman listened to the public statements from Pres. Hinckley and other representatives of the Church, statements which plainly differentiated between tithed funds and other sources of funds (from "commercial entities owned by the Church" and "earnings of invested reserve funds") - and found it "eminently reasonable" to nevertheless conflate tithed funds with these other sources.

Again, the Church variously stated

A) tithing funds would not be used:

• "tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes"
• "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members’ tithing donations"
• "None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members")

and also that

B) other funds would be used:

• "Funds ...will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program."
• "City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve, Inc., the Church’s real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."
• "Bishop Burton also emphasized the venture is funded through the commercial entities of the Church."

If your proposed interpretation holds ("neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used") then where on earth did Huntsman think the money was coming from?  The Tooth Fairy?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If an actuary makes such an implicit assumption, he is very bad at his job because he is ignoring the context you are now emphasizing.

I totally disagree.

The full context includes Hinckely saying the following:

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.

Why would Hinckley think it was necessary to provide "assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used"? 

Perhaps because . . . the Church was not using tithing funds?  

Perhaps because some members of the Church might have questioned the wisdom and/or propriety of investing tithed funds in City Creek?

Pres. Hinckley differentiated between sources of money (tithes versus "{f}unds ... from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... {and} the earnings of invested reserve funds").  And you persist in both emphasizing the general principle of "context" and then ignoring context to bolster Huntsman's lawsuit.  I find that . . . strange.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody shares my sensibilities, then interest earned on tithing is just as sacred as tithing.

First, the lawsuit isn't about "sensibilities."  It's about an allegation of fraud.

Second, I think that the Church's finances are all "sacred" in a sense, but most particularly the Widow's Mite.  It is uniquely sacred because of its source, the faithful obedience and sacrifice of millions of Latter-day Saints, many of whom are of limited means.  By way of contrast, funds "from those commercial entities owned by the Church" and "the earnings of invested reserve funds" have been obtained by the Church through prudent investment and management of for-profit ventures, and through the hard work of a few wonks at EPA.  I am happy these folks are competent at their jobs, and the money they invest - being derived from tithes, also "sacred," but the money they earn - while still "sacred" - is plainly secondary and subordinate to the Widow's Mite.  

Third, despite the foregoing sentiment (that all of the funds used/managed/generated by the Church are, in some sense, "sacred"), I - a tithe-paying member of the Church - am totally fine with the Church's investment in City Creek.  It was, in hindsight, a very sound investment.  A big part of that soundness is that the Church was not dipping into "principal."  As the dissent noted: 

Quote

To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003.  Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project.  Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings.

Fourth, I think it is unwise, even foolish, to suggest - as you seem to be doing - that "sacred" funds of any sort are somehow desanctified if they are invested.  That makes no sense at all.  The Brethren would be poor stewards if they did not invest "sacred" funds.  The Parable of the Talents is worth consideration here.

Fifth, I suspect that the Brethren were emphatic about differentiating tithed funds from investment income because of the unique nature of City Creek.  Ours is a worldwide church, so investing in a big fancy mall could have been - and in hindsight plainly was - construed by some as an improper use of "sacred" funds.  If the Church had been required to borrow money to invest in City Creek (thus going into debt, which contravenes the general counsel of the Church to its members), I could understand the concern.  And if the investment was frivolous or wasteful or risky (as opposed to being a considered and wise investment), I could understand the concern.  And if the investment was seen as, in some roundabout way, facilitating a "jetset" profligate lifestyle for the Brethren, I could understand the concern.  Hence the assurances from Pres. Hinckley, Bishop Burton, and so on.

Sixth, I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about the propriety of how tithes are used.  Some folks, for example, object to tithes subsidizing BYU, which overwhelmingly benefits North American Latter-day Saints.  But then, North American Latter-day Saints provide the overwhelming bulk of contributions to the Church.  There are all sorts of back-and-forth arguments that could be made, but in the end the decision is a discretionary one left to the Brethren and the Lord.  As regarding the City Creek matter, I understand and respect genuine concerns from faithful Latter-day Saints about the use of sacred funds for it (I think Huntsman's protestations are insincere and after-the-fact fabrications).  Again, this is why we received assurances.  The Church's investment in City Creek was not wasteful or frivolous or profligate, and it did not involve the expenditure of tithed funds.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ensign Peak Advisors shares those sensibilities and considers the reserves “tithing money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal." This is congruous with insurance companies thinking that premiums and interest earned on premiums are all premiums.

Malarky.  Multiplying hearsay makes it less reliable, not more.

Again, the lawsuit is not about "sensibilities," but about what Pres. Hinckley and others said about the source of funds used for City Creek.  At no point were tithed funds conflated with other funds.  To the contrary, the Church went to some substantial length to clarify and differentiate tithes from the sources of funds used.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Apparently, Hinckley thought that "tithing money" was too sacred to spend on vanity building projects, but not too sacred to be invested in stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate so that those for-profit investments would result in earnings that could be spent on vanity building projects.

Mey.  You're just making this up as you go along.  Mindreading.  Imputing the worst of your assumptions onto a dead man.  I think the less of you for this.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But he never explained how or why this is the case.

Classic strawman.  Classic.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody doesn't understand why Hinckley's thinks it would be problematic to invest tithing money into real estate across the street from the temple but thinks it is fine to invest tithing money on Wall Street, then I can see why they might not understand that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is talking about something other than earnings on unspent tithing.

If the Church had been transparent with its donors, this misunderstanding would have been avoided. 

I don't think there was any "misunderstanding."  I think Huntsman's lawsuit is based on after-the-fact fabrications.

People paying attention to what the Church was saying understood that tithed funds would not be used, and that the funds would come from other sources.  

Again, what source of funds do you suppose Huntsman had in mind?  What corpus of funds do you think he had in mind when he supposedly reviewed Pres. Hinckley's remarks and from them gleand that "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 23, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

"Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings."

Since money is fungible there really is no way to tell whether the $$ came from principle or earnings.  Not unless they stick earnings into a seperate account.

I think there is.

If the principal is $1,000,000.00, and if the earnings are $200,000.00, and if the amount withdrawn from these "fungible" amounts never dips below $1,000,000.00, then the principal has not been tapped.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have.  Several times.  I am quoting the dissent, which quotes Pres. Hinckley.  

You're willing to "scour" the congressional record for an obscure quote from a gerontologist in 2016, but you're not willing to read the 9th Circuit opinion?  Since when do you, a self-declared "expert," need to be spoon-fed publicly available information?

Anyhoo, you can read the excerpts I have provided, several times over.  I have even bolded the most pertinent passages.  You were waxing poetic about "context" five minutes ago, and now you are speaking of Pres. Hinckley "clearly differentiating."  As it seems you are now distancing yourself from context, I'll quote what seems to be the most explicitly "differentiating" statement from Pres. Hinckley, from the 2003 General Conference:

Pres. Hinckley was clear as to what funds would not be used ("tithing funds") and which funds would be used ("funds...from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds."

What you quoted doesn't distinguish "principal" and "interest" in the simplistic way you do.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think there is.

If the principal is $1,000,000.00, and if the earnings are $200,000.00, and if the amount withdrawn from these "fungible" amounts never dips below $1,000,000.00, then the principal has not been tapped.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry.  Does not work that way unless you separate the accounts.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.

You are trying to speak for James Huntsman.  You are trying to argue that James Huntsman listened to the public statements from Pres. Hinckley and other representatives of the Church, statements which plainly differentiated between tithed funds and other sources of funds (from "commercial entities owned by the Church" and "earnings of invested reserve funds") - and found it "eminently reasonable" to nevertheless conflate tithed funds with these other sources....

No, that isn't my point.

To avoid presentism and gaslighting, I dug up a couple of old threads, one from 2012, and one from 2015, where we debated before the Ensign Peak Advisors leak what in the heck Hinckley meant when he said "no tithing money was used to build the mall."  I'll provide links below, but here is a brief summary of the conversation.

The vast majority of the apologists and believers believed that the Church had two broad funds. One fund was the tithing fund, and by definition, everything in that fund was considered tithing, including principal and interest. The other fund was the for-profit fund, which contained its for-profit business and investment portfolio. In the words of "kimperason":

Quote

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls….[for-profit and not-for-profit]…There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities.  The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity.

That is how the vast majority of the apologists saw the issue, which is apparently how James Huntsman saw it, too. There was a sacred fund that included tithing and investment income on tithing, and a for-profit fund that only included the for-profit business and investment portfolio. When Hinckley said the mall was built without tithing, virtually all of the apologists believed this meant the money came from the for-profit business and investment portfolio, and not the tithing fund.

This raises the question of where the money in the for-profit fund originated. JAHS asked the $150 billion question when they asked:

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?

Pahoran answered:

Quote

“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.”

Mystery Mean concurred with this:

Quote

Sigh. I repeat no tithing funds were used, NOR were the funds used ever sourced in tithing. Here is the simple "how". The Church has been in Utah for a long time. When they got here, what is now Utah was Mexico. The early pioneers had a lot of land at their disposal....

The following apologists all lined up behind this viewpoint:

• Pahoran
• Jeff K
• Deborah
• JAHS
• Scott Lloyd
• Brian 2
• JLHPROF
• Mystery Meat
• Kimperason
• Robert F. Smith
• Bluebell
• Thesometimessaint

There were a couple of people who were very skeptical of this, and insisted that money is fungible and it only makes sense if the money from the mall originated from tithing. This group included Cinepro and Craig Paxton. 

As far as I could tell, only one person (Stone holm) then understood the enigma the way you do now ("I suspect the most coherent assertion is we are not considering interest on tithing as tithing.") However, that idea didn't get any traction back then.

For the record, my comments from 2015 have held up quite nicely. In response to Robert F. Smith saying, "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true," I replied:

Quote

It isn't that clear cut.

For example, say that one year the Church takes in a cool $1 Billion in tithing.  It might budget to spend $900 Million on its various "paid by tithing" operating expenses, and save the remaining $100 Million.

The Church really would save tithing money for a rainy day, wouldn't it?

So what is it going to do with the $100 Million?  Surely the Church would not bury the money in a hole--they are going to be wise and faithful servants and make a return on it, right?

How would they invest it?  A savings account?  Government bonds?  Publicly traded stock?  Those all represent loans to outside entities.  If it is okay to loan the money to a bank (i.e. put it in a savings account), is it okay to loan the money to Deseret Management Corporation (DMC)?  If it does loan it to DMC, is it okay for DMC to, say, buy a cattle farm in Florida with the money and try to make a return on it?  Or a Mall in Salt Lake City?

So when the Church says, "no tithing money was used," the meaning of that isn't clear; if the Church has any tithing money saved in a stock or bond issued by one of the Church's for-profit businesses, and if that for-profit business used any of its resources to fund the project in question, there is a direct connection between the tithing dollar and the fungible resources of the for-profit entity.

Bluebell responded to me with the party line:

Quote

I'm not sure if you read the post in this thread by the person who actually worked as an accountant for the Church.  They explain how the church really doesn't have the chance to put much tithing away in a rainy day fund.  Probably not more than would keep the church running for a few months.  I'm also guessing that they would keep such a fund pretty liquid.

Here are the links to the threads:

 

With 20-20 hindsight, I still agree with what I said then. The assertion that "no tithing money was used" was ambiguous, most likely deliberately so.

It appears James Huntsman interpreted Hinckley's remarks the way the vast majority of MDD apologists did: there was a "tithing fund" that had tithing money accumulated with interest, and there was a "for profit fund" that had for-profit assets that had business assets that grew from the Church's original holdings when from the days before the separation of Church and State in the Deseret Territory.

I grant that I was right and still maintain that what the apologists were saying then didn't make sense. But apparently, James Huntsman interpreted Hinckley's words the way that Pahoran, Mystery Meat, Robert F. Smith, etc., did, rather than the way cinepro, Craig Paxton, and I did.

Was he a fool for believing Hinckley? Was he a fool for thinking what Hinckley said even made sense? Yes and yes.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Analytics

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

No, that isn't my point.

To avoid presentism and gaslighting, I dug up a couple of old threads, one from 2012, and one from 2015, where we debated before the Ensign Peak Advisors leak what in the heck Hinckley meant when he said "no tithing money was used to build the mall."  I'll provide links below, but here is a brief summary of the conversation.

The vast majority of the apologists and believers believed that the Church had two broad funds. One fund was the tithing fund, and by definition, everything in that fund was considered tithing, including principal and interest. The other fund was the for-profit fund, which contained its for-profit business and investment portfolio.

No, I don't think that is an accurate summary of what "the apologists and believers believed."

Broadly speaking, I think most Latter-day Saints categorize the funds available to the Church as A) tithes and offerings, and B) for lack of a better word, "non-tithing" (that is, income generated from for-profit businesses and investments).

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the words of "kimperason":

Quote

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls….[for-profit and not-for-profit]…There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities.  The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity.

 

Right.  This supports my understanding and recollection, not yours.

I have precisely zero recollections of a conversant Latter-day Saint characterizing the Church's finances as consisting of "one fund" with "tithing" and "principal and interest" (let's call this "Category A") and another "fund" ("Category B") consisting of monies from "for-profit business and investment portfolio."

If, as KimPearson notes, "there is no cross mingling of funds" between these categories, then your "Category A" makes no sense because including "interest" in it would necessarily "mingle" funds from Category B into Category A.

"Category A" is money charitably donated to the Church via tithes and offerings.

"Category B" is money obtained by the Church through for-profit ventures and investments.

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is how the vast majority of the apologists saw the issue, which is apparently how James Huntsman saw it, too.

No, that is not so.  You are making this up.

It doesn't even make sense on its face.  Tithed funds cannot include "interest" (of any appreciable amount) unless they are invested via for-profit ventures and investments.  Category A (charitable donations to the Church) and Category B (funds the Church obtains in ways other than as charitable donations) are thus separate (though not wholly so, as the Church invests a portion of tithes, which has also been long understood).

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

There was a sacred fund that included tithing and investment income on tithing, and a for-profit fund that only included the for-profit business and investment portfolio.

Malarky.  You're making this up.

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

When Hinckley said the mall was built without tithing, virtually all of the apologists believed this meant the money came from the for-profit business and investment portfolio, and not the tithing fund.

And they were correct, since the "tithing fund" is tithes and offerings, whereas Pres. Hinckley specifically explained that the funds would come from another source than that ("Funds ...will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... {and from} earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program").

AFAICS, no conversant Latter-day Saint has ever characterized the Church's "tithes" as "included tithing and investment income on tithing."  This is because Pres. Hinckley specifically differentiated tithes from "earnings of invested reserve funds."

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

This raises the question of where the money in the for-profit fund originated.

No, it doesn't.  

If I donate $1,000.00 as a tithing to the Church, and if the Church thereafter invests that money (in stocks, a for-profit venture, whatever), and realizes a gain of $200.00, my tithe, my charitable donation, remains $1,000.00.  The $200.00 was not a charitable donation to a non-profit.  It was not a "tithe" in any reasonable sense of the word.

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

JAHS asked the $150 billion question when they asked:

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?

Pahoran answered:

Mystery Mean concurred with this:

The following apologists all lined up behind this viewpoint:

• Pahoran
• Jeff K
• Deborah
• JAHS
• Scott Lloyd
• Brian 2
• JLHPROF
• Mystery Meat
• Kimperason
• Robert F. Smith
• Bluebell
• Thesometimessaint

Nothing here supports your contention that Latter-day Saints have previously believed that "tithing" means "tithing and investment income on tithing."  You are just making that last part up.

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

There were a couple of people who were very skeptical of this, and insisted that money is fungible and it only makes sense if the money from the mall originated from tithing. This group included Cinepro and Craig Paxton. 

I don't know what you mean by "originated from tithing."  

The Church originally did not have much in the way of assets.  It's not a business, and so initially obtained assets via charitable donations.  Over time, the Church has used those donations to acquire a diversified set of assets (real estate, stocks and bonds, for-profit businesses, etc.).  That the "seed money" for these assets ultimately derived from charitable donations is pretty clear (money is "fungible," after all).

City Creek, however, was funded not from tithes.  It is false and misleading to assert that "money {for investment in} the mall originated from tithing."  In a strained and tendentious - and equivocating and fundamentally misleading - way, you can claim that my salary in 2023 "originated" from my great-great-grandfather's business ventures in Provo, Springville, St. George and Mesa.  He used monies from those ventures to provide for his wives and children, who in turn went out and worked jobs and created business for themselves and their kids, and so on until we reach me and my kids in 2023.  But that would not be illuminating or substantively accurate.

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

As far as I could tell, only one person (Stone holm) then understood the enigma the way you do now ("I suspect the most coherent assertion is we are not considering interest on tithing as tithing.") However, that idea didn't get any traction back then.

You are not accurately stating things.  You quote Pahoran as follows:

Quote

"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.”

Pahoran was, I think, rejecting the infinitely regressive sourcing of funds that you and yours want to foist on us.  He was pointing to the Church's earliest business venture.  And he was broadly correct.  Per Pres. Hinckley, the "pedigree" came not "from tithing paid" ("tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property") but from "commercial entities owned by the Church" and "earnings of invested reserve funds."

You quote MysteryMan as follows:

Quote

Sigh. I repeat no tithing funds were used, NOR were the funds used ever sourced in tithing. Here is the simple "how". The Church has been in Utah for a long time. When they got here, what is now Utah was Mexico. The early pioneers had a lot of land at their disposal....

"No tithing funds were used."  That part is correct.

"NOR were the funds used ever sourced in tithing."  This is guesswork, and likely inaccurate given what Pres. Hinckley said in 1991 and 1995.  (Also, "sourced in tithing" is pretty vague.)

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

For the record, my comments from 2015 have held up quite nicely. In response to Robert F. Smith saying, "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true," I replied:

So far two federal judges - the Article III judge and the dissenting appellate judge, have affirmed that the Church's statements were substantively correct and accurate.

The two appellate judges in the majority opinion have said that it's possible that Huntsman might be able to persuade a reasonable juror that "tithing" includes income from investments.  

We'll see what the en banc Ninth Circuit has to say.

For myself, your 2015 remarks merely repeat what you have said here.  Infinite regression.  All roads lead to Rome.  All the Church's money is "tithing" because all its money ultimately came from donations.  I find that tendentious and absurd, but you are welcome to it.

Meanwhile, however, Pres. Hinckley differentiated between monies from tithes and monies from other sources.  You are studiously ignoring this,

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

With 20-20 hindsight, I still agree with what I said then.

Again, what source of funds do you suppose Huntsman had in mind?  What corpus of funds do you think he had in mind when he supposedly reviewed Pres. Hinckley's remarks and from them gleand that "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used"?

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

The assertion that "no tithing money was used" was ambiguous, most likely deliberately so.

Well, no.  Again, from the dissent:

Quote

In other words, in his 2003 statement, Hinckley said that the Church would use earnings on tithings, not tithing principal, to fund the project.  And that was true.  The financial records of Ensign Peak Advisors (“Ensign Peak”), which the Church incorporated in 1997 to serve as the “primary investment vehicle for the Church’s reserve funds in stocks, bonds, and securities,” confirm this fact.  In 2003 alone, as the district judge noted, Ensign Peak had enough earnings on invested reserves to fund the allocation of money to the fund designated for the City Creek project.  To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003.  Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project.  Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings. 

Once more, with feeling: "Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings."

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

It appears James Huntsman interpreted Hinckley's remarks the way the vast majority of MDD apologists did: there was a "tithing fund" that had tithing money accumulated with interest, and there was a "for profit fund" that had for-profit assets that had business assets that grew from the Church's original holdings when from the days before the separation of Church and State in the Deseret Territory.

It appears that Huntsman is making stuff up as he goes along.  I think you are as well.  Latter-day Saint apologists have, AFAICS, never subscribed to the categorization of funds you describe above.  That you are not actually quoting these apologists is, I think, telling.

My understanding of the Church's finances has, I think, always been something along these lines:

"Category A" = money charitably donated to the Church via tithes and offerings.

"Category B" = money obtained by the Church through for-profit ventures and investments.

It makes no sense to conflate the two by including interest in it.  "Interest" is not a tithe.  It is not a charitable donation.  It is something that arises through investment (either by the Church or by the bank holding the Church's reserves).  

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

I grant that I was right

Mighty generous of you to concede that you are right.

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

and still maintain that what the apologists were saying then didn't make sense.

There are tithes and offerings (Category A) and everything else (interest, income, investments, for-profit ventures, etc.).

I think the Latter-day Saints have long understood this.  And the Church has long differentiated what you really really want to conflate (principal and interest).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

I have previously posed this question to Analytics:

Quote

If your proposed interpretation holds ("neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used") then where on earth did Huntsman think the money was coming from?  The Tooth Fairy?
...
Again, what source of funds do you suppose Huntsman had in mind?  What corpus of funds do you think he had in mind when he supposedly reviewed Pres. Hinckley's remarks and from them gleaned that "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used"?

I would like to see an answer to this. 

Thankks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it doesn't.  

If I donate $1,000.00 as a tithing to the Church, and if the Church thereafter invests that money (in stocks, a for-profit venture, whatever), and realizes a gain of $200.00, my tithe, my charitable donation, remains $1,000.00.  The $200.00 was not a charitable donation to a non-profit.  It was not a "tithe" in any reasonable sense of the word.

Right. If it was considered part of the tithing I donated I would be able to claim it as a deduction on my income tax. I would like to see someone try that.😂

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

If your proposed interpretation holds ("neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used") then where on earth did Huntsman think the money was coming from?  The Tooth Fairy?

Again, what source of funds do you suppose Huntsman had in mind?  What corpus of funds do you think he had in mind when he supposedly reviewed Pres. Hinckley's remarks and from them gleand that "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used"?

In 2012, the debate was this:

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?"

Pahoran answered the question then, which is essentially the same as your question now, thusly:

The first response is that their criticism is not based upon evidence, but is merely an assumption.

They seem to assume that the Saints settled in Utah, started earning money, paid tithing on their earnings, and so 170 years later, the Church has money to invest in a commercial enterprise. They don't stop to actually ask where the money came from that, so they suppose, those first settlers were earning.

Of course, planting and raising crops, building houses and cities, digging irrigation ditches and various other activities does create wealth; just not of the monetary kind. Monetary wealth comes from business, the buying and selling of goods and services. From the very earliest period of settlement, the Church was investing in business ventures. They were primarily driven by "community good" considerations, but of course they had to make a profit in order to be viable. 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.

----------------

The way I interpret Pahoran's point is that he believed there were two literal funds--two collections of accounts--both of which grew with interest. One fund was the tithing fund, and all money in that fund, including investment income, was considered "tithing" in a general sense. In contrast, the "for-profit" fund consisted of the Church's business enterprise. Pahoran believed that when Hinckley said no tithing money would be used, he meant to imply that the money came out of the for-profit funds, not the tithing funds.

Of course this raises the question of where the money in the for-profit funds originated. According to Pahoran and other apologists in that thread, it originated from ZCMI and the Church's other for-profit businesses from the early days of the Church, and not from tithing. Read what he said.

In contrast, Craig Paxton had another theory. Craig Paxton replied:

It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall. Member Pays Tithing-->Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested-->Investments Earn Returns-->$$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall.

Is there any light between what Craig Paxton said and what you think now? 

Other than the accusation of being disingenuous, I think you agree with what Craig Paxton said: Members pay tithing. The Church doesn't spend it all. They invest the excess. These investments generate income. That reinvested income was used to fund the mall. Do you agree with Craig Paxton on that?

Yet, Scott Lloyd said Craig's comment was "bluster with no substance" and issued a CFR.

Mola Ram Suda Ram Seconded the CFR and referring to Craig said,  "I think he is fluff and stuff."

Pahoran said only somebody with "with no awareness of history might assume some process similar to" what Craig said.

So to answer your question, I believe that before the Ensign Peaks revelation, Huntsman believed what Pahoran, Scott Lloyd, and Mola Ram Susa Ram used to believe: that the money used for the mall came from the Church's legacy business endeavors and not from investment income on tithing revenue.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Analytics

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

before the Ensign Peaks revelation

I think this is the crux of the matter. Church leaders had the opportunity to say in plain English that "interest from tithing donations" was used. They choose not to use plain language. They could have let members know that they amassed a huge reserve fund that dwarfed the operating expenses of the church. Instead they went to great lengths to hide that fact from members and regulators. Will Huntsman win his lawsuit? No. Does the church deserve bad press for its habit of obfuscation? Absolutely.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

My recollection of the 2012 debate is that critics argued that ALL the church's money was tithing money, and therefore it was disingenuous of the Chruch to claim that its business revenues didn't count as tithing.

Pahoran's (and others') response was a counter to the silly notion that there was no such thing as non-tithing Church funds. Back then, critics said it was a single undifferentiated pot of money (all of it tithing), and apologists argued and gave examples of how and why the church's revenue is more nuanced than that.

The positions have changed little since then. Critics are still trying to argue that the pot of tithing funds cannot be differentiated from other types of revenues, and apologists are still making the argument that funding pots are more nuanced than that.

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If your proposed interpretation holds ("neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used") then where on earth did Huntsman think the money was coming from?  The Tooth Fairy?

Again, what source of funds do you suppose Huntsman had in mind?  What corpus of funds do you think he had in mind when he supposedly reviewed Pres. Hinckley's remarks and from them gleand that "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used"?

In 2012, the debate was this:

None of this has much to do with what you are attributing to Huntsman.

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So to answer your question, I believe that before the Ensign Peaks revelation, Huntsman believed what Pahoran, Scott Lloyd, and Mola Ram Susa Ram used to believe: that the money used for the mall came from the Church's legacy business endeavors and not from investment income on tithing revenue.

So your theory is that, in Huntsman's mind, money "from the Church's legacy business endeavors" is not "tithing," but money "from investment income on tithing revenue" is "tithing" is what you are imputing to Huntsman.

Got it.

Next question: What is the basis for your supposition here?  Huntsman's lawsuit does not seem to make any reference to what you are saying.  It's larded up with all sorts of conclusory and emotional rhetoric about not using tithes for "purely non-commercial purposes" (whatever that means), but nothing that I can see that is responsive to the questions above.

Paragraph 2:

Quote

{T}he LDS Corporation repeatedly and publicly lied about the intended use of those funds, promising that they would be used for purely non-commercial purposes consistent with the Church’s stated priorities – namely, to fund missionary work, member indoctrination, temple work, and other educational and charitable activities. Behind the scenes, however, rather than using tithing funds for the promised purposes, the LDS Corporation secretly lined its own pockets by using the funds to develop a multi-billion dollar commercial real estate and insurance empire that had nothing to do with charity.

Nothing here about what he thought the source of funds for City Creek was.

Paragraph 3:

Quote

The LDS Corporation’s misrepresentations to Mr. Huntsman and the Church’s other members concerning the intended use of tithing funds were numerous and well-documented. Indeed, the LDS Corporation repeatedly and specifically misrepresented that tithing funds would not be used for the commercial development of the City Creek Mall, a for-profit shopping center in downtown Salt Lake City Utah, or for the bailout of a failing private insurance company, Beneficial Life Insurance.

Nothing here about what he thought the source of funds for City Creek was, just what the source was not (hence my questions above).

Paragraph 4 gets interesting:

Quote

As Mr. Huntsman only recently discovered, the LDS Corporation actually spent an estimated $1.5 Billion of money donated by the Church’s members to develop the City Creek Mall alone (while simultaneously reassuring the Church’s congregation that no tithing funds whatsoever were used in development of that project).

Here Huntsman draws a one-to-one correlation between A) "money donated by the Church's members" (that is, tithes and offerings) and B) the money used to fund City Creek.

Nothing here about "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors."

Paragraphs 5 and 6:

Quote

As the overwhelming evidence will show, the LDS Corporation defrauded Mr. Huntsman out of millions of dollars by falsely misleading him into believing his tithings would be used solely for charitable pursuits around the world – when in fact, his money (alongside the donations of other similarly-defrauded Church members) was brazenly and offensively used to build a commercial shopping mall and bail out a failing private insurance company.

In reliance on the LDS Corporation’s repeated misrepresentations concerning the use of his tithing funds, Mr. Huntsman donated millions of dollars to the corporation over the course of more than two decades. All the while, Mr. Huntsman was expressly and repeatedly promised and taught by the leaders of the LDS Corporation (at every level within the organization) that his funds would not be used for commercial endeavors, yet the corporation did just the opposite.

Again, there's a one-to-one correlation alleged between tithes and money spent on City Creek. 

• "his tithings would be used solely for charitable pursuits"
• "his money ... was ... used to build a commercial shopping mall"
• "the use of his tithing funds"
• "his funds wuold not be used for commercial endeavors"

Nothing about "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors."

Paragraph 17:

Quote

Falsely promising that it would use tithing funds solely for charitable pursuits around the world and in order to help those most in need of financial assistance, the LDS Corporation fraudulently induced Huntsman to continue paying his yearly tithings. However, instead of using the funds for charitable purposes as promised, the LDS Corporation brazenly misappropriated Mr. Huntsman’s funds to – of all things – build a commercial shopping mall and bail out a private insurance company.

Nothing about "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors."

Paragraph 27:

Quote

All the while, the LDS Corporation had repeatedly and publicly represented to its members and the general public that tithing funds would not be used to do just that.

Nothing about "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors."

So . . . yeah.  Your surmise is not holding up well.

Huntsman also submitted a 23-page memorandum opposing the Church's Motion for Summary Judgment.  It has a few interesting bits (from pages 7-8) :

Quote

At best, to the extent Mr. Rytting’s declaration can be deciphered, he apparently contends that the City Creek Mall was funded by the earnings on invested tithing funds, as opposed to the underlying funds themselves. However, even assuming this was the case ... it is a distinction without a difference – as any use of earnings necessarily stems from a use of the underlying principal itself.

Nothing about "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors."

He goes on to repeat his claim that "tithing funds would only be used for maintainingmeeting houses and temples, sustaining missionary work, educating members, and other charitable endeavors."   Again, he emphasizes only what he thought the source of the City Creek money was not, not what it was ("money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors").

Pages 14-15 get a little interesting:

Quote

Specifically, tothe extent the Church’s position can be deciphered, it appears to defend itself on the basis that it only used the “earnings” from invested tithing funds to pay for the City Creek Mall(as opposed to the underlying tithing funds themselves). This is most apparent from Mr. Rytting’s declaration, wherein he describes how (1) the Church set aside a portion of tithing donations to “build a reserve fund,” (2) EPA then invested the reserve funds, and(3) the City Creek Mall was then funded from the earnings on the invested reserve funds.  See, e.g., Rytting Decl., ¶¶6, 8, 12. Stated otherwise, the Church apparently believes it was appropriate to use the “earnings” on its members’ invested tithing funds for non-charitable purposes, so long as the “principal” –i.e., the initial tithing monies in the reserve – was not actually used.

Here he speaks of what the Church said was the source of the money used to fund City Creek. 

Nothing here about what he was thinking about the source of the funds (such as, in your guess, "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors").

The next bit:

Quote

However, even looking past the fact that EPA commingled tithing funds with the interest thereon [PUF 7], whether principal tithing funds or earnings were used for a commercial purpose is a distinction without a difference – as these are two sides of the same financial coin.

He is here rejecting the "principal" v. "earnings" distinction advanced by the Church (calling this a "distinction without a difference), but he does not explain what alternative source of funds he had in mind (such as, in your guess, "money ... from the Church's legacy business endeavors").

So to sum up:

1. I have previously asked: 

Quote

If your proposed interpretation holds ("neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used") then where on earth did Huntsman think the money was coming from?  The Tooth Fairy?

Again, what source of funds do you suppose Huntsman had in mind?  What corpus of funds do you think he had in mind when he supposedly reviewed Pres. Hinckley's remarks and from them gleand that "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used"?

2. In response, you speculate that Huntsman thought that "money used for the mall came from the Church's legacy business endeavors and not from investment income on tithing revenue."

3. I have not seen any statement in Huntsman's legal briefs indicating support for your speculation above.  So my follow-up question is: Where are you getting this information?  Are you just speculating?  Making things up as you go along?  Or have you seen something from Huntsman that I have overlooked?  Where has he issued a statement along the lines of "I think the money used for the mall came from the Church's legacy business endeavors and not from investment income on tithing revenue"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

My recollection of the 2012 debate is that critics argued that ALL the church's money was tithing money, and therefore it was disingenuous of the Chruch to claim that its business revenues didn't count as tithing.

In a tendentious and infinitely regressive sense, this is sort of correct.

But perhaps not.  Did the Church, as "Mystery Man" or someone, acquire land free of charge (that is, without it being "donated" as a charitable contribution)?  And did the Church use this land to create seed money for its business endeavors that germinated in 1847 or so and continued unabated through to the funding of City Creek?  Dunno.  But that's likely neither here nor there as far as Huntsman is concerned.

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Pahoran's (and others') response was a counter to the silly notion that there was no such thing as non-tithing Church funds. Back then, critics said it was a single undifferentiated pot of money (all of it tithing), and apologists argued and gave examples of how and why the church's revenue is more nuanced than that.

The positions have changed little since then. Critics are still trying to argue that the pot of tithing funds cannot be differentiated from other types of revenues, and apologists are still making the argument that funding pots are more nuanced than that.

I think the apologists have the better argument.  By a long shot.  Tithes are charitable donations from members to the Church.  If the Church thereafter invests some portion of those donations and realizes income/interest/revenue, then that income/interest/revenue is, while "sacred" in a sense, not a charitable donation from members of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

before the Ensign Peaks revelation

I think this is the crux of the matter.

I don't.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Church leaders had the opportunity to say in plain English that "interest from tithing donations" was used.

The Church did this.  In both 1991 and 1995. And also in 2003:

Quote

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.

That's pretty plain-english-ish.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

They choose not to use plain language.

They most certainly did.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

They could have let members know that they amassed a huge reserve fund that dwarfed the operating expenses of the church.

Yes, they could have.  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Or with Huntsman's allegations of fraud?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

It was nice to see a list of some old names from long ago!
 

I’m wondering if this is a (relatively) new small church issue. The Catholic Church blew past this 1000 years ago 😉

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It was nice to see a list of some old names from long ago!
 

I’m wondering if this is a (relatively) new small church issue. The Catholic Church blew past this 1000 years ago 😉

The Church was viewed as financially stable when I was young and paying attention (late 60s), but it’s really developed wealth in the last 30 years imo, so the debate over what it should do with its money has ramped up.  Prior to the the middle of last century it had gone through cycles of being okay and being in debt.  The last debt issue was a result of overbuilding and only taken in hand by Eldon Tanner in 1963 (I was five at the time, so clueless, apparently it was seen as the Church’s worst debt crisis, but maybe that was in terms of amount because previous debt threatened the existence of the Church imo***).  They changed to no building without having the funds available and last I heard (over a decade ago, maybe two) they made sure they had three years coverage of maintenance and expansion before adding any new projects.  I would not be surprised if that has expanded to 5 or even 10 years given we have a massive reserve now and a lot more international congregations, many that need central church funds to operate.  If we reverted back to budgets being locally funded as in the past, many congregations wouldn’t have the same quality of materials provided as others or be able to afford a building to meet in.

The Church has also removed itself from being visibly involved in commercial enterprise as much as it used to be, so perhaps younger members have a harder time with seeing the Church operating a business side.  It was well known in my youth and young adulthood that the Church had run banks, department stores, etc.  I remember (and probably should double check because I wasn’t that interested back then and may misremember details) there was a big deal for a bit when it stated its intent to give up its outright ownership of several businesses back then**** and said it was only going to stay directly involved in ones that furthered its mission.  I wonder if some took that to mean it wouldn’t invest as well, though it never even hinted that as far as I remember.

I would be very interested to see the financial report from 2020 and 2021 and any areas still affected by Covid after that to see how the Church revenue is affected in a crisis.  I believe the value of the Ensign reserve was estimated to be down by 30% as would be expected, though it has likely rebounded and increased by now.  Not only did the Church send out a lot of funds for humanitarian efforts during those years (and probably still helps in areas not recovered yet), but there was likely a drop in many counties’ tithing revenue and unseen costs in maintaining buildings in such when members weren’t allowed to help due to lockdowns.  If I remember, I will have to ask my brother who lives in Singapore which had a total lockdown  (when they got to visit the US, they all finally got Covid) if he has any details on what happened with local church properties and needs during that time, if they went up or down because not being used as much.

***https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/102-17-29.pdf

****my memory says the conversation was around ZCMI and Zion’s Bank, but as far as I can tell it happened earlier with the bank and later with ZCMI than I remember, so I am likely conflating several events.  One thing I can conclude is church finances have been a frequent point of conversation among church members since my college years (late 70s) and likely before that, I just didn’t care.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Calm

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

None of this has much to do with what you are attributing to Huntsman.

It has everything to do with Huntsman. Huntsman was a faithful member of the Church. The links I provided are a contemporaneous record of how faithful members of the Church interpreted Hinckley's assurance that "tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property."

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

So your theory is that, in Huntsman's mind, money "from the Church's legacy business endeavors" is not "tithing," but money "from investment income on tithing revenue" is "tithing" is what you are imputing to Huntsman.

Got it.

Yes.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Next question: What is the basis for your supposition here? 

My basis for that is that many Latter-day Saints saw the issue that way. To review, Gordon B. Hinckley solemnly told the Church in General Conference the following:

"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."

Hinckley also said, "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." However, before the IRS report nobody knew what he meant by "invested reserve funds." Thanks to David Nielsen we now know. But back then, we didn't know. It was the critics who believed that the "invested reserve funds" came from tithing, and it was the apologists who didn't believe that, because in their mind, tithing money was not used to fund this project, neither directly nor indirectly. In the words of Pahoran, thinking "invested reserve funds" referred to invested tithing money was a baseless assumption only made by people "with no awareness of history."

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

So my follow-up question is: Where are you getting this information?  Are you just speculating?  Making things up as you go along?  Or have you seen something from Huntsman that I have overlooked?  Where has he issued a statement along the lines of "I think the money used for the mall came from the Church's legacy business endeavors and not from investment income on tithing revenue"?

My position here is based on the following assumptions:

1. When James Huntsman paid tithing, he was a faithful member of the Church
2. The thoughts made by apologists on this forum are a contemporaneous record of how faithful members thought about the issue back then

At a minimum, the contemporaneous records show that your thoughts about "tithing" being principal and "invested reserve funds" being interest on principal is not how the vast majority of believers interpreted Hinckley's remarks. It's clear from the contemporaneous record that most members interpreted Hinckley's assurance that "tithing funds have not and will not be used" broadly and that tithing funds would not be used directly nor indirectly. They believed the Church had wealth that did not derive from tithing, and that it was these other sources of wealth that were used. That is what the contemporaneous record indicates members of the Church generally thought.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Analytics

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

At a minimum, the contemporaneous records show that your thoughts about "tithing" being principal and "invested reserve funds" being interest on principal is not how the vast majority of believers interpreted Hinckley's remarks. It's clear from the contemporaneous record that most members interpreted Hinckley's assurance that "tithing funds have not and will not be used" broadly and that tithing funds would not be used directly nor indirectly. They believed the Church had wealth that did not derive from tithing, and that it was these other sources of wealth that were used. That is what the contemporaneous record indicates members of the Church generally thought.

At the same time, this is largely irrelevant right? The real question (and the question in a trial) will be centered around the discussion of intent. Whether or not someone misunderstood that intent (even if that misunderstanding was quite broad within the audience) does not get to the question of what Hinckley was intending in his comments.

[Stormin' Mormon]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

At a minimum, the contemporaneous records show that your thoughts about "tithing" being principal and "invested reserve funds" being interest on principal is not how the vast majority of believers interpreted Hinckley's remarks.

At a minimum, your are cherry-picking from the contemporaneous records. 

From Nehor: 

Quote

 

I would not be surprised if no tithing money ever went to church businesses but I suppose it is possible it happened in the past. If that offends you be offended.

I have no idea about interest. If you want to strain at that gnat have fun.

 

From JLHPROF:

Quote

I think tithing funds may have been dipped into at one time, possibly decades ago, for investment. The returns (interest, dividends, stock return, business profits, rent on properties owned etc) are probably now used for projects where they claim no tithing money was used. They may not have needed to use new tithe money for decades.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At the same time, this is largely irrelevant right? The real question (and the question in a trial) will be centered around the discussion of intent. Whether or not someone misunderstood that intent (even if that misunderstanding was quite broad within the audience) does not get to the question of what Hinckley was intending in his comments.

The church has a long history of being adept at “carefully worded denials”. I suspect this phraseology was chosen specifically for its ambiguity while avoiding outright lying. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At the same time, this is largely irrelevant right? The real question (and the question in a trial) will be centered around the discussion of intent. Whether or not someone misunderstood that intent (even if that misunderstanding was quite broad within the audience) does not get to the question of what Hinckley was intending in his comments.

Perhaps. I don't really know the nuances of the legal argument. What I do know is that Hinckley was less than forthright and at least a little misleading about the Church's finances. I also know that the Church went to great lengths to hide the details of its finances from both the members of the Church and the SEC.

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

At a minimum, your are cherry-picking from the contemporaneous records. 

From Nehor: 

From JLHPROF:

 

Let's review the context of this again:

On March 22, 2012 JAHS started a new thread with this post:

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?

JLHPROF's response was that he thinks it's possible that there may be a kernel of truth in the critics' arguments here. Nehor says it is possible that the critics may be wrong or right on this point.

My point is that the debate happened. At the time, Craig Paxton said the answer to the question was this:

Members pay tithing, unspent tithing is invested to produce investment income, and some of that investment income was used to build the mall.

Rather than saying "of course you are right, that's exactly what President Hinckley told us in conference," they lined up against him, asked for CFRs (Scott Lloyd), confidently claimed that is not what the Church did (Mola Ram Suda Ram), called it "fluff and stuff" and seconded the CFR (Mola Ram Suda Ram again), called it "an assumption without basis in fact" (JAHS), called it "bluster with no substance" (Scott Lloyd), and a "classic unsupported false accusation" that would only be made by "someone with no awareness of history" (Pahoran).

Craig Paxton then said:

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. Why is it so important for you to believe that no tithing funds were used in the mall? Particularly since the church has NO other souse of income, other than.

1. Tithing
2. Income from investments on tithing
3. Other non-tithing donations ie…little old ladies who donate their houses to the church rather than her children when they die.

LeSellers called this "an ignorant attack".

Craig Paxton replied:

While I'll agree with you that the church did gain great wealth from land taken from Mexico and Native Americans....and I'll also grant you that that wealth could be part of the seed money that funded the City Creek Mall...I think, despite President Hinckley’s admonition to the contrary...that investment funds from tithing were also used....and since the church doesn’t make its financial records available I guess we’ll really never know. 

To this, LeSellers responded, "you should be able to give more than your opinion as to why anyone else should take you seriously."

Jeff K said, "And yet, you have no standing to complain. Whether the investment comes from one source, many sources, investments or donations is irrelevant to all but those who participate in those investments."

(By Jeff K's standard, James Huntsman does have standing to complain. Presuming he sincerely interpreted Hinckley's remarks the way many faithful Saints back then did, I can understand why he feels betrayed.)

Craig Paxton replied:

I hate that believers get so defensive at the very suggestion that tithing funds were used...or even that the investment income from tithing funds were used...good greif....chill out

In direct response to that, thesometimesaint said: 

Quote

Craig Paxton:

Your status as a former member, or even a current member is irrelevent. 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.

Now, Smac97 is claiming that Gordon B. Hinckley clearly articulated precisely what Craig Paxton believed was obvious: that the mall was built using "investment income from tithing funds."

That is gaslighting. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Analytics

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Perhaps. I don't really know the nuances of the legal argument. What I do know is that Hinckley was less than forthright and at least a little misleading about the Church's finances. I also know that the Church went to great lengths to hide the details of its finances from both the members of the Church and the SEC.

Personally I don't worry so much about this or care about the details, since the money I donate as tithing was never mine in the first place; it always belonged to God. I have to trust that the Church will handle it correctly. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church has a long history of being adept at “carefully worded denials”.

The Church's critics and opponents have a long history of making the Church an "offender for a word" (see Isaiah 29:21).

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I suspect this phraseology was chosen specifically for its ambiguity while avoiding outright lying. 

I suspect this phraseology was chosen to distill complex issues down into understandable - and also substantively accurate - summary statements.

Thanks,

-Smac