Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

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.

Huntsman faces some real hurdles as to pretty much all aspects of his fraud claim.

Here are the jury instructions used in California for when they are asked to assess a fraud claim:

Quote

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] made a false representation that harmed [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

1.That [name of defendant] represented to [name of plaintiff] that a fact was true;

2.That [name of defendant]’s representation was false;

3.That [name of defendant] knew that the representation was false when [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] made it, or that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth;

4.That [name of defendant] intended that [name of plaintiff] rely on the representation;

5.That [name of plaintiff] reasonably relied on [name of defendant]’s representation;

6.That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and

7.That [name of plaintiff]’s reliance on [name of defendant]’s representation was a substantial factor in causing [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] harm.

Here are the statements which Mr. Huntsman is alleging were "false" (elements 1 and 2 above) (from his Complaint) :

Quote

For example, at the Church’s General Conference in April 2003, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced the following in regard to the City Creek Mall:

Quote

“I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property [City Creek Mall]. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.”

Shortly thereafter, at a press conference on October 8, 2003 concerning the development of the City Creek Mall, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton doubled down on the LDS Corporation’s misrepresentations, stating:

Quote

“None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members…That is not how we use tithing funds.”

Unfortunately, the LDS Corporation’s lies did not stop there. In fact, in the Church’s own official magazine dated December 2006, the LDS Corporation tripled down on its misrepresentations, writing:

Quote

“The Church first announced three years ago it was planning to redevelop the downtown area to energize the economy of the city that houses its headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment.”

Continuing its fraudulent scheme, in a 2007 statement to DeseretNews, the LDS Corporation once again lied to the public concerning the source of funding for the City Creek Mall:

Quote

“Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members’ tithing donations. 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.”

And yet again, in 2012, the LDS Corporation for the fifth time lied about its intentions concerning tithing donations. Keith B. McMullin, who for 37 years served within the Church’s leadership and headed a Church-owned holding company, Deseret Management Corp., unequivocally misrepresented to the public (via a quote in The Salt Lake Tribune) that tithing funds had not been and would not be used for commercial purposes:

Quote

“McMullin said not one penny of tithing goes to the church's for-profit endeavors. Specifically, the church has said no tithing went toward City Creek Center.”

 

Problem #1: Huntsman will be obligated to prove, to a "clear and convincing" standard of evidence, that the foregoing statements are objectively false.  So you are quite correct to rebut Analytics when he speaks about what "members of the Church generally thought" the foregoing statements meant.  This case is not about what "members" thought, nor even about what Huntsman thought.  His subjective understanding of the above statements is largely irrelevant.  The challenge here is that the statements made by the Church are objectively accurate.

Next, we must look at element #3 (often referred to as "scienter"), which is that the representatives of the Church either A) knew that the representations were false when they made them they made them, or B) made the representations recklessly and without regard for its truth.  

Problem #2: Huntsman most prove (to a "clear and convincing" standard) that, for example, Pres. Hinckley knew the foregoing statements were false, or else spoke recklessly.  Good luck with that.

Huntsman can probably prove element #4 (that the representatives of the Church made the statements with the intention of members relying on the veracity of the statements). 

Element #5 is, I think, still a tall order.  Huntsman must prove that he relied on these representations when he tithed.  

Problem #3: Huntsman was a lifelong member of the Church, and was a regular tithepayer long before and long after the above statements.  I think it will be difficult for him to claim that he conditioned in his decades of tithepaying on the veracity of the above statements.

Problem #4: Element #6 (that Huntsman was "harmed" by his reliance on the statements) and Element 7 (that his reliance was a "substantial factor" in injury) is, as I see it, up in the air.  He did donate money, but not necessarily based on the representations.  Without the foregoing elements (falsity, scienter, reliance, etc.), he cannot claim to have been "harmed."

These elements are conjunctive (he must prove all seven of them), and all require "clear and convincing" evidence.  

The point you are focusing on - intent - derives from element #3 (scienter).  That is, that Pres. Hinckley and other Church representatives intended to deceive.  I find the likelihood of Huntsman establishing that to be very low.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

This goes to element #5, namely, that Huntsman relied on these representations, and that his reliance was reasonable.

Were the foregoing statements objectively false?  Nope.

Were the foregoing statements issued with the intend to deceive, or made recklessly?  Nope.

Did Huntsman rely on these statements?  I doubt it.

If he did rely on these statements, was he reasonable in doing so?  Yes.  But was he relying on objectively false statements?  Nope. 

If he was not relying on objectively false statements, can he claim to have been "harmed," or that his reliance was a "substantial factor" in being harmed?  Nope.

I'm starting to have recollections of the McKenna Denson lawsuit.  My, what a dumpster fire that was.  Huntsman has copious amounts of antipathy against his former faith, as did Denson.  But he also has copious amounts of money (Denson didn't), and he is not mentally off balance (Denson, I think, was).  In the Denson case, I saw and predicted the end from the beginning.  That she would lose her case was, from the beginning, nearly a fait accompli.  And that was with some pretty good indications (though, in the end, not legally cognizable) that the wrongdoer - Joseph Bishop - had done some very wrong things.

Huntsman's case is a bit different, but him losing it is also pretty much a fait accompli, a matter of when, not if.  Where Denson was unhinged and poor, but with decent facts on her side, Huntsman is mentally sharp and rich, but with very poor facts on his side.  So, I think, he will lose.  And I think he knows that.  This case is not about winning.  It's about showboating, virtue signaling, and inflicting as much harm on the name and reputation of the Church and its leaders as possible.  So in that sense, he'll "win."  He'll be sort of successful in these objectives.

Meanwhile, his lawyers are raking in the moolah.  I have never had an agenda-driven zealot as a client, let a long a fabulously rich one.  I'm sort of glad of that, as I would not want to be answerable to God for bilking him out of his money, as Huntsman's lawyers are doing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

The nuances matter.  Quite a bit.  

The larger components of legal argument also matter.  I don't think you're addressing those very well, either.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What I do know is that Hinckley was less than forthright and at least a little misleading about the Church's finances.

What I know is that Pres. Hinckley was a good and honorable man, and was both candid and accurate his his statements about the Church's finances.

That he did not disclose amounts of information sufficient to satisfy our implacably unsatisfiable critics is unsurprising and of no real import to most of the faithful Latter-day Saints who - unlike the lookyloos - are the ones paying tithes as an expression of faith.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Says the guy hiding behind a pseudonym, and who has never publicly divulged his finances.

Gotta love the special pleading and double standards in this thread.  They're all over the place.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Quote

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. 

I think it's reasonable for Church members to be concerned about the finances of the Church.

However, to be concerned about malfeasance or nonfeasance now, in 2023, when the finances of the Church are in the best shape ever, is a bit weird.  The Saints of yesteryear would have been far more justified in being concerned about the financial status of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

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

How do you know separate accounts were not involved?

Moreover, I don't think this matters in this, a litigation context.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The nuances matter.  Quite a bit.  

Of course they do. You'll be glad to know there is something we agree on, 100%.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The larger components of legal argument also matter.  I don't think you're addressing those very well, either.

I didn't attempt to address the larger components of the legal argument in any manner whatsoever.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What I know is that Pres. Hinckley was a good and honorable man, and was both candid and accurate his his statements about the Church's finances.

Stop gaslighting us. Eleven years ago, Craig Paxton used common sense to correctly infer the truth of what was happening. Craig Paxton said the Church invested some of its tithing money, and used the returns on those investments to pay for the mall. Rather than saying, "yes, that is a accurate representation of what Hinckley said," thesometimesaint said, "You are calling those Church officers liars."

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That he did not disclose amounts of information sufficient to satisfy our implacably unsatisfiable critics is unsurprising and of no real import to most of the faithful Latter-day Saints who - unlike the lookyloos - are the ones paying tithes as an expression of faith.

This has nothing to do with "implacably unsatisfiable critics." The issue is that a faithful Latter-day Saint, somebody who paid tithes as an expression of faith, interpreted Hinckley's words in exactly the same way that thesometimessaint, Scott Lloyd, Pahoran, et. al. did. When he found out the truth was the opposite of that, he felt lied to. These apologists did their best to understand and accept what Hinckley said, and now they all look like fools.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Analytics

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's reasonable for Church members to be concerned about the finances of the Church.

However, to be concerned about malfeasance or nonfeasance now, in 2023, when the finances of the Church are in the best shape ever, is a bit weird.  The Saints of yesteryear would have been far more justified in being concerned about the financial status of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Especially the ones who bought into the so-called "Kirtland Safety Society."

[Tacenda]

Here's a recent podcast on Mormonland about the church and their not so great ability to feed the starving children in Ecuador, LDS even. 

I would think that the interest from tithing shouldn't go into money making businesses like a mall! It's just not anything Jesus would approve of in my eyes. 

The church has an amazing organization of women called the "Relief" Society that could help with feeding these starving children of Ecuador. But the problem is no direction or ? from PH leaders if reading this heading right, or it's just going nowhere. This is where I'm sure if the Relief Society was able to make their own executive decisions this would be a no brainer. Haven't listened yet, just heard about it. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

Fighting hunger among Latter-day Saints in developing nations. Can the church do it? | Ep. 299

Last week, officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced a combined donation of $44 million to a number of nonprofit organizations dealing with global hunger. “No humanitarian effort is more foundational to Christ’s church than feeding the hungry,” Relief Society President Camille Johnson, head of the faith’s global women’s organization, said in a news release. “We are grateful to have the means to collaborate with wonderful organizations and provide relief to children and young mothers in dire need.” But what about starving Latter-day Saint children, specifically, in developing countries? After seeing hungry kids at church during his Latter-day Saint mission to Ecuador, Las Vegas physician Brad Walker returned decades later and launched the Liahona Children’s Foundation to provide a “caloric and vitamin supplement” to those suffering from malnutrition. It began small but now his nonprofit — which changed its name two years ago to the Bountiful Children’s Foundation — actively serves “nearly 20,000 children and many of their mothers in 16 countries,” according to its website, and is working with the church’s division over humanitarian services for members. Walker says church brass also asked Johnson, the women’s leader, to tackle the problem worldwide — without giving her a staff, budget or direction on how to do so. So those needs remain great. Walker says, with emotion, that some six children a day die of starvation somewhere in the world. On this week’s show, he explains those needs and how this new collaboration with the church is working — and sometimes not working.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Of course they do. You'll be glad to know there is something we agree on, 100%.

I didn't attempt to address the larger components of the legal argument in any manner whatsoever.

My point is that you are not addressing either the legal nuances or the "larger {legal} components" very well.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Quote

What I know is that Pres. Hinckley was a good and honorable man, and was both candid and accurate his his statements about the Church's finances.

Stop gaslighting us.

Stop torturing puppies for fun and profit.

(This is the part where we trade baseless slanders, right?)

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Eleven years ago, Craig Paxton used common sense to correctly infer the truth of what was happening.

And what Craig Paxton said aligns quite well with what Pres. Hinckley said.

So quit gaslighting us.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Craig Paxton said the Church invested some of its tithing money, and used the returns on those investments to pay for the mall. Rather than saying, "yes, that is a accurate representation of what Hinckley said," thesometimesaint said, "You are calling those Church officers liars."

First, it sure would be nice if you provided links rather than just paraphrases and snippets, particularly when you presume to speak on behalf, or summarize the statements and sentiments, of your ideological opponents.

Second, here is what Paxton said:

Quote

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 Return --> $$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall…. Classic Money Laundering...So can the Church really claim that they didn’t use tithing funds to fund the City Creek mall? Ummm I suppose so…but is it really an honest statement to claim such or is the church just being disingenuous?

He larded up his commentary with all sorts of conclusory (and unsubstantiated) accusations ("it is disingenouous," "classic money laundering"), but his "arrowed" remarks align pretty well with what Pres. Hinckley said:

Quote

We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple . . . 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. 

I don't really care about Paxton's gloss.  The substance of what he said - that the Church sets aside a portion of its tithing revenue for reserve and investment purposes - has been public knowledge for decades.  Nothing surprising about that.  Nor scandalous, nor illegal.  

Here is what thesometimesaint said in response to Paxton:

Quote

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.

TSS noted - correctly - that Paxton had leveled accusations of dishonesty against the leaders of the Church ("it is disingenouous," "classic money laundering").

Paxton declared a conclusion (that the leaders of the Church had lied), and TSS disputed that conclusion.  Nothing new or surprising here.

So it looks like you were not accurately representing what TSS - an observant Latter-day Saint and your ideological opponent - was saying (or thinking).  

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

This has nothing to do with "implacably unsatisfiable critics."\

Of course it does.  The only people who are trying to prop up Huntsman's lawsuits are those who are ideologically aligned with him.  Unfortunately, most of them - including you - lack the requisite training and experience in the law to speak competently about the principles of law here.  Instead, our "implacably unsatisfiable critics" are using this lawsuit not to opine about the law, but to use it as a pretext to rationalize and justify their denigrations against a religion they dislike.

Your antipathy against the Church of Jesus Christ is driving your assessment of both the facts and the law.  Quit gaslighting us by denying that.

Your antipathy is also tainting your assessment of both the facts and the law.  You have a preferred outcome: that the Church lose or, short of that, that its reputation be harmed as much as possible.

My assessment is more clinical.  Unlike you, I have ample experience and training in the law, and a big part of that has involved assessing the merits of legal disputes as objectively as possible.  An attorney worth his salt needs to be able to tell his client what it needs to hear, even if that assessment is not what the client wants to hear.  The Church is not my client, but I don't do myself or anyone else here any favors by viewing the facts and/or the law through a distorted lens.  So while I love the Church, I am able and willing to acknowledge when it has erred (either as a matter of fact or a matter of law).

Sadly, I think "implacably unsatisfiable critics" are, by dint of their antipathy, often unable to do this.  It's pretty much always "Heads the Church loses, tails the Church loses."  We're darned if we do, darned if we don't, darned no matter what we do.  And it is this obstinate and resolute determination - to find fault, to view and describe the Church in the worst ways possible, to assign the worst possible motives to the Church and its leaders, etc. - that often render their assessments unreasonable, unfair, inaccurate, even dishonest.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

The issue is that a faithful Latter-day Saint, somebody who paid tithes as an expression of faith, interpreted Hinckley's words in exactly the same way that thesometimessaint, Scott Lloyd, Pahoran, et. al. did. And felt lied to.

Sorry, but I don't believe you are qualified to speak on behalf of these folks.  

You can quote them chapter and verse, but snippets will not do (as noted above, you have misrepresented what TSS was saying).

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

These apologists did their best to understand and accept what Hinckley said, and now they all look like fools.

I disagree.  And to quote a guy, "I grant that I {am} right" in disagreeing with you.  

Boy, that's a handy little phrase!  I'm going to add it to my sig line.

Most conversant Latter-day Saints have long had a generalized - and substantively accurate and correct - understanding of the Church's finances.  And that understanding aligns pretty much perfectly with what Pres. Hinckley and the other representatives of the Church have said.  That some very few of our ideological opponents are now coming along and claiming otherwise, and are using Huntsman's mediocre-to-pathetic lawsuit to do it - is not surprising.

Huntsman's lawsuit is, I think, on its way out.  What Pres. Hinckley and others said was substantively accurate.  That Huntsman (I suspect retroactively) claims to have misunderstood this rather clear statements is not a viable basis for a fraud claim.  So we're left with you and yours huffing and puffing, but I note that in all these posts, none of you seems to be actually arguing that Huntsman is going to win on the merits, or that he has a good chance of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Especially the ones who bought into the so-called "Kirtland Safety Society."

That's actually a pretty interesting example.  What is your take on the role that Grandison Newell in its failure?

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-did-the-kirtland-safety-society-fail

Quote

Why Did the Kirtland Safety Society Fail?

Post contributed by Scripture Central

May 18, 2021

KnoWhy #604

 

 

The Know

In a revelation given to the elders of the Church through the Prophet Joseph Smith on September 11, 1831, the Lord promised to preserve Kirtland as “a strong hold … for the space of five years” (D&C 64:21).1 In those years, the Church in Kirtland grew and flourished, culminating with the dedication of the Kirtland temple in March 1836, an event that was accompanied with many divine manifestations and profound spiritual experiences.2

By this time, the Church had accrued significant debts both from the construction of the Kirtland temple as well as various business endeavors. After the dedication of the temple in the spring, Joseph and other Church leaders turned their attention to both alleviating these debts and also building up Kirtland’s economy. Compounding these challenges, many Saints who migrated to Kirtland were poor and in desperate need of economic opportunities. Church leaders were looking to provide for these Saints and pay-off debts at the same time.3

Over the summer, Joseph and other Church leaders engaged in various efforts designed to grease the wheels of Kirtland’s economy and also resolve the Church’s debts. However, these efforts were often complicated by other prominent members and leaders who established competing businesses and bought up land, driving up real estate prices and then seeking to turn a profit.

On September 12 or 13, 1836, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery returned from a trip to Salam, Massachusetts “with a clear sense of direction” to “establish a bank and acquire land” as a solution to the Church’s economic problems.4 In the 1830s, banks could acquire capital in the form of hard currency (gold and silver coin), land deeds, and other assets; they then issued short-term loans in the form of “bank notes,” which were essentially debts that could be exchanged at the bank for hard money. If the institution issuing the banknotes was trusted and respected in the community, their notes could be exchanged between individuals as actual currency. Thus, banks enabled frontier economies like Kirtland’s to transform non-liquid assets (such as land) into liquid assets (bank notes).5

By September 14, 1836 the firm of Smith, Rigdon, & Cowdery was already acquiring property and other assets intended to be used in their banking endeavor.6 About a month later, people were purchasing stock in the yet-to-be-formed bank.7 Then on November 2, 1836, some of the “brethren of Kirtland” came together to officially organize a banking institution, which they called the Kirtland Safety Society.8 They named six people as a “committee of directors”: Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith Jr., Frederick G. Williams, Reynolds Cahoon, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery.9

The next two months were spent addressing logistical issues, such as procuring plates for printing bank notes, constructing a building from which they would operate, and trying to obtain a banking charter from the Ohio legislator.10 State issued bank charters provided assurance that an institution was legitimate and provided some backing should it fail; but it was not uncommon at the time for many financial institutions to operate without a charter.11 Laws relating to unchartered banks were relatively new, and were not yet tested in court.12

As first constituted, the Kirtland Safety Society intended to operate as an officially state-chartered bank. Due to a variety of circumstances, including the political maneuvering of the Saints’ enemies, they were unable to obtain a charter from the Ohio legislature before they opened in January 1837. So instead of being a chartered corporation, they reorganized as a “joint stock company”—what one would called today a “general partnership”—and began issuing bank notes January 9, 1837.13

It was not uncommon for new banking institutions to operate for a brief period before obtaining a charter, in order to demonstrate the institution’s viability to the state legislators. This seems to have been the intent of the Kirtland Safety Society, as they continued to pursue two different avenues to procuring a charter after opening. First, they made a second attempt with the state legislature, which got voted down on February 10, 1837.14 This is unsurprising, since only one bank’s application was accepted by the state of Ohio that year.15

That same day, Joseph Smith and others were meeting with officials of the Bank of Monroe, in Michigan, to initiate their second strategy for gaining a charter. Ohio recognized the legitimacy of banking charters from other states, which allowed out of state banks to establish branches in Ohio. Joseph and officers of the Kirtland Safety Society were essentially seeking a merger—their business association would purchase a controlling interest in the stock of Bank of Monroe, and the Kirtland operation would thus become a branch of the Michigan-chartered bank.16 To accomplish this legally, independent lawyers drafted a new partnership agreement, which was signed and published. As part of the deal, Oliver Cowdery was made director and vice president of the Bank of Monroe, and was authorized to sign bank notes that were used as currency on the credit of that bank.17

Thus, with its charter issues—and the accompanying rumors of its illegitimacy—legally and effectively resolved, the Kirtland Safety Society seemed poised to bring the much-needed economic relief to members of the Church in Kirtland. Unfortunately, outside factors instead led to its demise, and the Kirtland bank officially closed its doors in September 1837, leaving its thirty-two18 partners and directors each individually and jointly liable for all of that branch’s financial obligations.  

The Why

Several factors contributed to this eventual closure. “Within a week of opening,” according to the recent analysis of legal historian Jeffrey Walker, “initial efforts generated the exact result hoped for—increased economic activity.”19 Shortly after this initial success, however, “concerted attacks on the venture” began, led by an unscrupulous competitor named Grandison Newell.20

Newell lived in nearby Painesville, a neighboring town with aggressively competing economic interests and a hotbed for anti-Mormon activity and publications. Newell was directly involved in various business interests that would have been negatively impacted by any success of the Kirtland Safety Society. So, he took it upon himself to ensure its failure. Newell bragged that he personally bought up as many of the Kirtland bank notes as he could (probably paying less than face value), and then sought to redeem them for hard currency, thus depleting the Kirtland Safety Society’s liquid capital reserves.21

In connection with this “organized mobbing and run on the bank” by Newell, rumors were started that Kirtland Safety Society vaults were empty, and that its officers were refusing to exchange banknotes for gold and silver coin, which was scarce.22 Although the rumors were likely unfounded, since “the validity of paper money of any kind has always been an act of faith,” the mere accusation was enough to undermine people’s trust in the Kirtland banknotes, not allowing the principals behind the Society even a week or two to liquidate their assets in order to cover the issued notes that were now being surrendered.23

Then, in February 1837, Newell used Samuel Rounds as a front for a lawsuit against Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and others as leading officers of the Kirtland Safety Society. The charges were brought on the basis of an 1816 Ohio law which originally imposed a $1000 penalty against any officers of an unincorporated bank. Half of that penalty could be collected by any “informer” who brought cases of such to the attention of the state.24

This 1816 law, however, had actually been superseded by an 1824 statute which did not stipulate penalties for unincorporated bankers, but instead simply made the banknotes from such banks unenforceable in a court of the law. This clear effect of the 1824 statute was confirmed by an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in 1840.25 Joseph and Sidney’s 1837 trial, however, preceded that ruling, and thus in 1837, there appears to have been some uncertainty about how the 1824 statue related to the earlier 1816 law.

Joseph and Sidney’s defense attorney brought up the suspension of the 1816 act, as well as other important legal distinctions—such as the reorganization of the Kirtland Safety Society as a “joint stock company”—but a jury ultimately ruled in Rounds’ (and Newell’s) favor. A $1000 penalty was assessed to both Joseph and Sidney, half of which was rewarded to Newell, and the other half was to go to the state. The legal proceedings of this action unfolded over the course of most of that year, but by November 1837, Newell had collected more than what was owed, and he never forwarded half of the recovered amount to the state, thereby defrauding the state of Ohio.26

In the meantime, other events transpired to seal the fate of the Kirtland Safety Society. The country’s 1837 banking crisis hit Ohio and Michigan in February and March, and many banks were forced to close their doors—including the Bank of Monroe.27 This unforeseeable national crisis could not have been more unfortunate for the fragile Kirtland economy. The merger between the Kirtland and Monroe financial institutions had briefly buoyed up the Safety Society, but when the Bank of Monroe closed, that financial relationship was severed, and Oliver returned to Kirtland.28

Understandably, disagreement and disaffection took its toll in many parts of the country, and some of the principal investors in the Kirtland Safety Society left the Church and illegally withdrew their assets from that Society. In June 1837, Joseph and Sidney resigned as officers of the financial institution, and its assets and business affairs were left in the hands of Warren Parrish and Frederick G. Williams, who had both disaffected for a time from the Church. Accusations of forgery and embezzlement were directed at Parrish and others.29 In a letter published in the August issue of the Messenger and Advocate, Joseph Smith gave notice to the Saints and the public in general about the risks of doing business with the Kirtland Safety Society going forward.30

Given all this surrounding economic, personal, and legal turmoil, it is no wonder that this banking endeavor ultimately closed its doors.31 Despite these challenges, however, virtually all of the deposits documented in 27 collection cases were ultimately returned to Kirtland Safety Society investors.32

For some living in Kirtland at the time, however, this development was seen as evidence of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s moral failings and a lack of prophetic foresight. They misunderstood the conditional nature of prophetic promises, and thought the success of the venture had been assured. In reality, Joseph had only ever promised that “if we would give heed to the Commandments” of the Lord, “all would be well.”33 As Mark Staker noted, “Clearly, Joseph had not told his fellow believers that their efforts were failure-proof.”34

Amidst all the chaos, the dissenters had apparently overlooked the impressive fulfillment of a prophetic utterance. When plans for starting a bank had been set in motion in mid-September 1836, it was nearly five years to the day after the Lord had promised, through Joseph Smith, that Kirtland would remain “a strong hold … for the space of five years” (D&C 64:21).35 This five-year prophecy was not only a promise, but came with an express warning. The Lord admonished “that ye ought to forgive one another” and not seek “occasion against [Joseph] without cause” (D&C 64:9, 6). With the five-year stronghold period expired, the events involving the Kirtland Safety Society ultimately led to the temporary relocation of the leadership of the Church to Far West, Missouri and the end of the Kirtland era of Church history.

Further Reading

Jeffrey N. Walker, “Looking Legally at the Kirtland Safety Society,” in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, ed. Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014), 179–226. Revised and expanded as “The Kirtland Safety Society and the Fraud of Grandison Newell: A Legal Examination,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 33–148.

Gordon A. Madsen, “Tabulating the Impact of Litigation on the Kirtland Economy,” in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, ed. Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014), 227–246.

Mark L. Staker, “Raising Money in Righteousness: Oliver Cowdery as Banker,” in Days Never to be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery, ed. Alexander L. Baugh (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2009), 143–253.

Mark Lyman Staker, Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting for Joseph Smith’s Ohio Revelations (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2009), 391–558.

A big part of why KSS failed was because of the specific and concerted efforts of an antagonist of the Church.

Notably, Newell was heavily - though not exclusively - motivated by his animus against the Church, not unlike how Huntsman is behaving now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How do you know separate accounts were not involved?

I don't.  Do you?  My point is you can't say nothing came from principle unless separate accounts are set up.  The judge i incorrect here.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, I don't think this matters in this, a litigation context.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Might not.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

How do you know separate accounts were not involved?

I don't.  Do you? 

No.  But I'm willing to give the Church the benefit of the doubt (the same one I would extend to you or Analytics or anyone else).  

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My point is you can't say nothing came from principle unless separate accounts are set up.  The judge i incorrect here.

Could you elaborate?  How is the judge, on this point of law, "incorrect?"  Is there a statute somewhere that says what you are saying here?  Or is this a "General Accounting Practices" sort of thing?

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Moreover, I don't think this matters in this, a litigation context.  

Might not.

Then the judge is likely not "incorrect."  

Judges make findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Are you saying the judge is wrong factually or legally?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My point is that you are not addressing either the legal nuances or the "larger {legal} components" very well.

I'm not trying to. I'm merely demonstrating that your interpretation of the Hinckley quote is different than how most Latter-day Saints interpreted it at the time. Whether that has any legal implications is irrelevant to my point.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He larded up his commentary with all sorts of conclusory (and unsubstantiated) accusations ("it is disingenouous," "classic money laundering"), but his "arrowed" remarks align pretty well with what Pres. Hinckley said.

That's my point. His arrowed remarks line up with how you interpret Hinckley's remarks now. But at the time, the apologists didn't say his arrowed remarks lined up with Hinckley's remarks. They didn't say "of course you are right, that's exactly what President Hinckley told us in conference." Instead 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).

If the arrowed remarks align with what Hinckley said, why did they respond this way? Why did Scott Lloyd say they were "bluster with no substance" and request a CFR? Why did Mola Ram Soda Ram call it "fluff and stuff" and ask for a CFR? Why did JAHS say it was "an assumption without any basis in fact? And why did Pahoran call it a "classic unsupported false accusation" that would only be made by "someone with no awareness of history?"

Craig Paxton asked the following. I want your answer to his question:

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?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't really care about Paxton's gloss.  The substance of what he said - that the Church sets aside a portion of its tithing revenue for reserve and investment purposes - has been public knowledge for decades.  Nothing surprising about that.  Nor scandalous, nor illegal.  

Then answer his question. 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?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Of course it does.  The only people who are trying to prop up Huntsman's lawsuits are those who are ideologically aligned with him.  Unfortunately, most of them - including you...

I'm not trying to "prop up" his lawsuit. I'm just trying to make you stop gaslighting. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Your antipathy against the Church of Jesus Christ is driving your assessment of both the facts and the law.  Quit gaslighting us by denying that.

I've said nothing about the law. You thinking I have shows your assessments are much more emotional and far less clinical than you think.

Regarding the facts, you are interpreting Hinckley's remarks now differently now than most Latter-day Saints did then. That is a fact I've demonstrated. Those two threads prove that your assertion that Hinckley was being honest and clear is false.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Your antipathy is also tainting your assessment of both the facts and the law.  You have a preferred outcome: that the Church lose or, short of that, that its reputation be harmed as much as possible.

You have quite the imagination.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My assessment is more clinical.  Unlike you, I have ample experience and training in the law, and a big part of that has involved assessing the merits of legal disputes as objectively as possible.  An attorney worth his salt needs to be able to tell his client what it needs to hear, even if that assessment is not what the client wants to hear.  The Church is not my client, but I don't do myself or anyone else here any favors by viewing the facts and/or the law through a distorted lens.  So while I love the Church, I am able and willing to acknowledge when it has erred (either as a matter of fact or a matter of law).

If you are really so clinical, why aren't you willing to acknowledge that your interpretation of Hinckley's remarks weren't widely held among Latter-day Saints in 2015. Why can't you go back and make a clinical, honest assessment of what the contemporaneous record says?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sadly, I think "implacably unsatisfiable critics" are, by dint of their antipathy, often unable to do this.  It's pretty much always "Heads the Church loses, tails the Church loses."  We're darned if we do, darned if we don't, darned no matter what we do.  And it is this obstinate and resolute determination - to find fault, to view and describe the Church in the worst ways possible, to assign the worst possible motives to the Church and its leaders, etc. - that often render their assessments unreasonable, unfair, inaccurate, even dishonest.

Sorry, but I don't believe you are qualified to speak on behalf of these folks.  

I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone. I quoted them and provided links to their contemporaneous accounts so they can be read in full context.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Most conversant Latter-day Saints have long had a generalized - and substantively accurate and correct - understanding of the Church's finances.  And that understanding aligns pretty much perfectly with what Pres. Hinckley and the other representatives of the Church have said.  That some very few of our ideological opponents are now coming along and claiming otherwise, and are using Huntsman's mediocre-to-pathetic lawsuit to do it - is not surprising.

If what Hinckley said was clearly consistent with reality, then JAHS's "Was My Mormon Ancestor'S Tithing Used To Build City Creek Mall?" conversation would never have taken place, and it wouldn't be critics asking the question ""Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?" and it wouldn't have been the critics who "conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members," and dealing with that conundrum wouldn't have required a 17-page thread.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What Pres. Hinckley and others said was substantively accurate.

That depends upon how you interpret it. As this link demonstrates, the way you interpret it now is the diametric opposite of how apologists interpreted in 2012.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That Huntsman (I suspect retroactively) claims to have misunderstood this rather clear statements is not a viable basis for a fraud claim.

Huntsman's interpretation of the "rather clear statements" is entirely consistent with how many, many, apologists interpreted it here and here.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So we're left with you and yours huffing and puffing, but I note that in all these posts, none of you seems to be actually arguing that Huntsman is going to win on the merits, or that he has a good chance of that.

I'm merely pointing out that the way Huntsman interpreted these "rather clear statements" is exactly how many, many apologists interpreted them in 2012 and 2015. Your denial of that is gaslighting. 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Analytics

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Judges make findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Are you saying the judge is wrong factually or legally?

Unless the judge knows there are that principle and earnings are separated the judge cannot conclude that nothing came from principle just because there was income in excess of the amount transferred to the mall.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Judges make findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Are you saying the judge is wrong factually or legally?

Unless the judge knows there are that principle and earnings are separated the judge cannot conclude that nothing came from principle just because there was income in excess of the amount transferred to the mall.

Are you saying this as a statement/conclusion of law, or a statement/finding of fact?  It seems like the former, but I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.

If the former, if what you are saying here is a statement/conclusion of law, what "law" are you referencing here?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you saying this as a statement/conclusion of law, or a statement/finding of fact?  It seems like the former, but I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.

If the former, if what you are saying here is a statement/conclusion of law, what "law" are you referencing here?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Of fact.  As noted over and over money is fungible and unless somehow accounted for in separate accounts you cannot say nothing came from principle.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

I'm sorry for the pedantic post, and feel free to downvote me.  But it's driving me crazy every time I see it in this thread. 

It's princiPAL that earns interest, not princiPLE.  

[Teancum]

41 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'm sorry for the pedantic post, and feel free to downvote me.  But it's driving me crazy every time I see it in this thread. 

It's princiPAL that earns interest, not princiPLE.  

You are correct good sir!  Thank you!

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

However, to be concerned about malfeasance or nonfeasance now, in 2023, when the finances of the Church are in the best shape ever, is a bit weird. 

With more wealth, there is more opportunity for misuse.  I don’t understand why being in great shape should relieve any concerns besides the Church not having enough for its needs or the needs of those it is committed to help.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Craig Paxton asked the following. I want your answer to his question:

I just don’t understand why it’s so offensive to believing posters for me to state the obvious…

Situating his opinion as "the obvious" doesn't really work.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

that the church uses income from investments that originally came from the primary income source that the church has, namely tithing…

"Income from investments" ≠ "tithing."

I've said this a number of times.  "Tithing" is a charitable contribution by members to the Church.  If the Church thereafter invests that money and realizes a profit or income, that profit/income is not "tithing."  Not under the law, nor under the teachings of the Church, nor under the general understanding of conversant Latter-day Saints.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and reinvested that money in the new City Creek Mall.

"That money"  ≠ "tithing."

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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?

Because tithing funds weren't "used in the mall."

Because Pres. Hinckley said as much, and told the truth in saying as much.

Because gainsayers and faultfinders, such as yourself, are trying to re-characterize the Church's investments as "tithing" so you can accuse Pres. Hinckley of dishonesty.

Because your efforts to impugn Pres. Hinckley's honesty are contemptible and false, and ought to be rebutted.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not trying to "prop up" his lawsuit. I'm just trying to make you stop gaslighting. 

Whatever.  I'm not the one trying to pound a square peg (interest/income from invested funds, including from tithes) into a round hole (the definition of "tithing").

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I've said nothing about the law.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

So all that pablum about you being an expert witness was...?

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You thinking I have shows your assessments are much more emotional and far less clinical than you think.

The topic under discussion is a legal one.  I honestly thought you were addressing the law in your arguments.  I still think that (and that you are denying addressing the law because your arguments are not holding up very well.)

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Regarding the facts, you are interpreting Hinckley's remarks now differently now than most Latter-day Saints did then.

No, I don't think I am.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is a fact I've demonstrated.

Um, no, you haven't.  You distorted and misrepresented TSS's comment.  And Pahoran's.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you are really so clinical, why aren't you willing to acknowledge that your interpretation of Hinckley's remarks weren't widely held among Latter-day Saints in 2015.

Because I think I'm far more conversant with generalized sentiments held by Latter-day Saints than you are.

Because you haven't produced any substantive information or evidence regarding this claim.

Because what Pres. Hinckley said was common knowledge.

Because what Pres. Hinckley said was substantively accurate and clear.

Because the only people impugning the honesty of this man, now dead, are those who dislike his religion.

Because as between you, an ardent antagonist and opponent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are simply neither competent nor trustworthy to accurately speak for conversant Latter-day Saints.  You certainly don't speak for me, and I think most other Latter-day Saints would say the same.  So you trying to cram this sentiment down our throats just isn't working.

Because we are having a discussion about Huntsman's lawsuit, which means the points at issue are derived from the law.  And you are now backing away from your neophyte efforts to play a lawyer on TV (your various declarations about your expert witness-ness notwithstanding).

Because unlike you, I have a track record of calling a spade a spade in relation to legal issues affecting the Church.  I have acknowledged when the Church has erred, but also when it has done right.  

Because unlike you, I have the training and expertise to evaluate the legal principles at issue here.

I'm not saying I'm impartial.  I'm saying I can put my partiality aside and view legal disputes with a pretty clear lens.  I don't think you can do this.  For you, the Church is always wrong, always bad, always dishonest.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If what Hinckley said was clearly consistent with reality, then JAHS's "Was My Mormon Ancestor'S Tithing Used To Build City Creek Mall?" conversation would never have taken place, and it wouldn't be critics asking the question ""Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?" and it wouldn't have been the critics who "conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members," and dealing with that conundrum wouldn't have required a 17-page thread.

Baloney.  All this hue and cry has arisen because a small cadre of cranks and critics have accused Pres. Hinckley of lying when he said tithing wasn't used.  And since tithing wasn't used, these attached on his honesty and character can and should be rebutted.

Truth matters, after all.

Take a look at JAHS' initial 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.

"{T}he 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."

Boy, that sure sounds a lot like what Pres. Hinckley said.

Quote

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?

"How does one respond to this?"  JAHS was asking a question, not staking out a position.

Pahoran responded:

Quote

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.

Pahoran was speculating here.  And he was perhaps substantively correct.

But he wasn't speaking about the issue at hand, namely, the "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes" thing that you and yours are pushing.

Sky responded:

Quote

I guess you could make an argument that tithing money was used in an indirect way to help fund this project. But trying to make a connection to our ancestor’s is dubious at best, IMHO. The tithing money donated by our ancestor’s has long ago been used.

I’m sick and tired of people who hate the Church in the first place trying to dictate how the Church should use its money!! If they hate the mall so much, I trust that they won’t be shopping there.

I, for one, am excited to see City Creek up and running. The fact of the matter is that the Church has done more to make Salt Lake City a vibrant and beautiful city than anybody else could ever hope to.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Scott Lloyd:

Quote

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 and the headquarters of the Church from urban blight. You will recall that President Gordon B. Hinckley gave that as a reason for undertaking the City Creek project way back in the early stages of planning and construction.

The Church of Jesus Christ settled the downtown Salt Lake City area and founded the city in 1847. That put the Church in a position of strength so that 170 years later, being a major property owner, it could preserve the heart and never center of the Church from encroachment.

I doubt that will quiet the critics. But their carping has never giving me one nanosecond of concern in any case.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Mola Ram:

Quote

Quote

It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall. 

Acutally yes, the church can claim it because they did not. Funny.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Pahoran again:

Quote

Quote

It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall.

No, it's just truthful.

Quote

Member Pays Tithing à Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested à Investments Earn Return à $$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall….

Yes, I can see how someone with no awareness of history might assume some process similar to the above. I won't ask if you have a reference for your assumption, because of course we both know that you don't.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Cobalt-70:

Quote

Quote

Any references that support the statement that "Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested"?

Many years ago, Gordon B. Hinckley said the following:

"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.”" https://www.lds.org/...ch.p23?lang=eng

Apparently, the church has a rule to invest some "fixed percentage" of the funds it takes in. It would be a lot less directly lucrative to put these "reserves" in the bank and let bankers invest it for them, than for the church to directly manage its own investments, through its commercial real estate and business arms. But nobody outside the church knows the full answer, given that these companies are not publicly traded, and therefore do not have to disclose their finances except to the IRS.

It's possible that the church buys shares in the stock of companies like Property Reserve, Inc. That way, tithing funds are not directly used to finance investments like City Creek. Or perhaps Property Reserve, Inc. has accumulated cash on hand for such projects from its other investments.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Jeff K:

Quote

The question of tithing money tied to a mall is a red herring that still has not been proven, but there are also other points to consider

I look at it from a different perspective. There are two or three important points.

1- When many saints first came to the valley, after arrival, they had very little left in the way of food and material for survival or to make their homes. The church provided many with shelter and food until they could care for themselves. In many cases, were it not for the church, there wouldn't be ancestors one could complain about. So how much is your present existence worth relative to their well being? Would you be willing to allow a mall to be constructed a century or so later so that you and your ancestors could continue to exist?

2-Agency..... Ancestors had their choice to pay what they wanted to, to whom they wished to pay, for whatever reason they wished, after all they earned it (not us). You might as well complain they wasted their money on a fare to the US, or that they over spent on the land they might have purchased, or that some other charity they gave to didn't live up to your present reason for complaint. In other words, you have no standing in the case. It is not for you to decide whether their spending was accurate, good, or wrong, or that the church failed to live up to some pre arranged agreement long ago.

3-There is however a more important aspect that tithe payers understand, and complainers (ie those without faith) do not understand. From the perspective of the faithful, tithing is not the payment of income, it is the setting aside of income for a repayment. In other words, all that we have was given to us by the Lord and as such He is only asking for 10% of what He has blessed us with. How the Lord's authorized agents deal with that repayment is not of our concern, indeed if we, any of us, felt that the agents were corrupted or corrupt, we could simpy cease payment until a less corrupt agent manifests itself. Once I write the check, I don't care what is done with it. It is no longer my money. As an additional point..... I have trust/faith in the Lord's agents to do what is best. Building temples and churches, helping missionaries, or mission work, helping the poor, or building a mall (if such did occur), would to me be irrelevant since my tithing is a repayment. My responsibility lies in paying the tithe, others will answer to the Lord regarding how that tithing is managed.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Freedom:

Quote

Quote

 

what about the criticism that the Church has only spent 1 billion, as per the welfare fact sheet, on humanitarian aid yet 5 billion on this mall thing?

http://www.providentliving.org/ under welfare fact sheet

 

I see two responses. One is that the funds for the mall did not come from tithing, and second, the investment is just that, an investment. It is a business venture to make a return on the capital expended.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

LDSToronto:

Quote

I doubt any tithing money from today's members have made it into the mall. I am more concerned that I can pull up at least half a dozen scriptures from The Book of Mormon that seem to condemn the mall. Scriptures like Mormon 8:37.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Selek1:

Quote

Quote

Then show me how much the mall cost versus how much the Church has spent on humanitarian aid over the past 25 years. Let me fill in the latter number - 1.3 billion over 25 years. That is 52 million per year. Some estimates peg the mall cost to be near 5 billion.

This is, of course, a cynical bit of false dichotomy- and a tired, trite attack that has been vomited up many, many times in the past.

It is predicated on the idea that the Church must either spend the money on the poor or on the City Creek Center.

This is false (but you already knew that).

As already stated, the investment in the City Creek Center will enhance- not detract from- the Church's humanitarian efforts.

But since we're engaged in the politics of envy anyway, what percentage of YOUR income has gone to the poor and needy?

Do you spend more per annum on your mortgage than you give to the poor?

If so, then you, too, are "condemned" by verse 37.

As such, until you deal with the beam in your eye, you are singularly unqualified to comment on the alleged speck in ours.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

JAHS again:

Quote

Quote

That's how it would be used in a "rainy day," but until the rainy day, the money has to be put somewhere, and the church probably doesn't want to just deposit it with bankers. They'd rather make more lucrative investments in real estate, etc.

That's something that you can only speculate about since we are not privy to the details on how the church handles the money. However, 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. Even if they did invest extra tithing dollars in something I am sure that the returns on the investments are only used for religious purposes.

(Emphasis added.)

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

BCSpace:

Quote

I would say that even if the Church didn't have a business side to it's finances, sprucing up the Church's front porch and conducting business operations, say with an eye to increasing value, with tithing money would still be a legitimate expenditure. cf parable of the talents, parable of the unjust steward.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Wow.  I finally found someone in that thread who conflated tithes with incomed earned on invested tithes!  Take a look:

Quote

In one form or another, the capital to build the mall must have come from the time, energy, talents, and money that members have consecrated to the church over the years, and the church's diligent management and reinvestment of those assets. Those consecrated assets are a class much bigger than "tithing" receipts. So while it's simplistic to claim that "tithing money" provided the capital that grew into the funds that were used for the commercial City Creek project, it seems a little disingenous to claim that there is a clear line between the Chruch's sacred tithing-generated assets and the other billions of non-sacred assets it generates from its commercial endeavors.

(Emphasis added.)

Who is this fellow, you may ask?  Is he a faithful and observant and reasonably informed Latter-day Saint?

Nope.  It's some guy posting under the pseudonym "Analytics."

None of the Latter-day Saints seem to be conflating  tithes with earnings on invested tithes (or, at least, none that I've seen in the first three pages of posts in that 2012 thread).

Hmm.  It looks like I found another guy conflating tithes with earnings.  Take a look:

Quote

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.

While I guess it is possible that the accumulated and set aside assets from little old ladies donated houses has accumulated to $5 Billion…I think it’s more likely that the smart investment arm of the Church has invested excess tithing funds in prime Salt lake City real estate.

I guess all of this speculation could be easliy cleared up if the church would merely release an annual finacial statement like other credible charities. Begs the question...what are they hiding (probably nothing) or what are they afraid of....why not allow the donators know what the donation recipiants are up to with their donations.

(Emphases added.)

This was posted by . . . Craig Paxton.

Oh.

From LeSellers:

Quote

The Church was rich in real estate, poor in cash for a very long time. For example, converts in England were traded land in Deseret for their money in England so Europeans could migrate to the Valley. Temple Square was never "bought", nor were the lots for the Bishop's Storehouse or Tithing office.

Much of that real estate was also sold, and much kept, so the Church had a great deal of wealth tied up in that real estate, none of which was from tithing or other donations from the Saints.

The income from those grants from God has financed far more than City Creek Mall.

Further, Saints often give contributions that are not tithing or "charity" donations to the Church. The Church can use these funds for any purpose without infraction of any limit on how tithing is supposed to be used.

And, if we explore this question, how tithing is supposed to be used, there is no restriction any way. Doctrine and Covenants section 120 tells us that the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the (Presiding) Bishopric form the Council on the Disposition of the Tithe, and that they are charged with that obligation. If they wanted to spend the money on IBM stock, that would be both their right and their responsibility. No one else, especially not either of the two groups (those who pay tithing and those who don't), have any stewardship over those sacred funds.

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Mark Beesly:

Quote

If the Church receives 10 dollars in tithing, puts that money in a bank and receives interest, is the interest also considered to be tithing, or could the Church use the interest for "non-tithing" purposes? And would that quiet the critics? If an angel from heaven appeared and told them to quit complaining, would they? 

Here he asks a question.  And it's a good one.  But he doesn't declare what you have been imputing to the Latter-day Saints in that thread.

Craig Paxton again:

Quote

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. But I can't imagine that the church would go to the lengths to keep separate books within its general funds ledger…on original source income from land acquired 150 years ago and its subsequent distributions there from…at least they didn’t keep those records separated the last time they disclosed their financial records

Huh.  Even Paxton was aware of Pres. Hinckley's comments.  

thesometimessaint:

Quote

Quote

 

Just a couple of points...prior to my exit from Mormonims...I was a full tithe paying, temple recommend holding, active member of the church. I would like to think that some of those funds tht are being used to fund the Mall actually came from me.

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...Why does it matter if tithing funds were used...I'm certainly glad that the church wants to improve the core city by investing 5 billion dollars of their money into the downtown area...certainly no private funds were willing to do so...I say good for them for making SLC an even better place to live (although I do wish it were open on Sundays).

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

 

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.

(Emphases added.)

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

cinepro:

Quote

The distinction between the Church having "tithing" funds and "non-tithing" funds is fascinating. I can only hope that one day the Church will explain to individual members how we can distinguish between which of our funds are "tithing" and "non-tithing".

According to the arguments in this thread, if I invest money, then the original investment can count as "tithing" and is under the Lord's stewardship, but the interest on that investment is "non-tithing", and I can use it to make more money, or start a business. If my grandfather dies and leaves me his shoe repair business, then that business is "non-tithing", and its value and all the proceeds from it are "non-tithing", and I don't need to feel an obligation to tithe on that money or use that money to help the poor.

And when I die, I will be sure to note that everything I leave to my heirs is specifically "non-tithing", meaning they don't need to pay tithing on it because obviously that inheritance is from me, and so God doesn't care what they do with it (or want 10% of it). They can use that money to start business, maintain their homes or invest it, and their original investment and the return on that investment is all "non-tithing." They just need to keep it in a different account, separate from their "tithing" funds, and everything will be fine.

cinepro (whose position re: the Church eludes me at the moment) is speaking snidely here.  But it's really not that difficult.  

"Tithing" is a charitable contribution by members to the Church.  If the Church thereafter invests some of that and realizes income/interest, that income/interest is not tithing because . . . it's not a charitable contribution by members of the Church.

Jeff K:

Quote

I see no need for a distrinction as to tithing and non tithing. Since it is not my money, I care little about how the Church uses it since they will do so in the most correct way possible. Upon the day that I feel the Lord no longer leads the church, upon that day I will cease to pay my tithing. But I have received and continue to receive revelation that the Lord does want me to continue tithing to His church.

Jeff is basically washing his hands here.  He's indifferent to the distinction.  And that's fine.  I think most Latter-day Saints are.

For those who are less sanguine, they can look to Pres. Hinckley's remarks and be assuaged.

I think that's far enough for me.

So far in that 2012 thread, the bulk of commentary from observant Latter-day Saints was A) congruent with what Pres. Hinckley said, and B) had little or nothing to say regarding the idea you are trying to foist on us, namely, conflating tithes with earnings on invested income.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

What Pres. Hinckley and others said was substantively accurate.

That depends upon how you interpret it.

Well, no.  That depends on how the factfinder interprets it.  I am speaking here in a legal context, and I get that you are now backing away from the legalities.  I am not.

What Pres. Hinckley and others said was substantively accurate.  Two federal judges have definitively concluded that, and the other two have only said "Well, it's possible that a 'reasonable juror' might interpret the Church's remarks in a particular way."  That's mighty weak tea.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As this link demonstrates, the way you interpret it now is the diametric opposite of how apologists interpreted in 2012.

Malarky.  The posts from Latter-day Saints in that thread almost entirely rebut your arguments.

I'm fine with letting readers review that thread and make their own conclusions.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Huntsman's interpretation of the "rather clear statements" is entirely consistent with how many, many, apologists interpreted it here and here.

Poppycock.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

So we're left with you and yours huffing and puffing, but I note that in all these posts, none of you seems to be actually arguing that Huntsman is going to win on the merits, or that he has a good chance of that.

I'm merely pointing out that the way Huntsman interpreted these "rather clear statements" is exactly how many, many apologists interpreted them in 2012 and 2015. Your denial of that is gaslighting. 

Malarky.

I have no recollection of ever encountering a conversant Latter-day Saint who conflates "tithing" with realized profit/income/revenue from the Church's investments and for-profit businesses.  Literally none.

You are, nevertheless, working mightily to cram this idea into our mouths.  Not because it makes a lick of sense, but because you are advocating Huntsman's position, and because Huntsman's position requires him to be mouth falsehoods in his legal pleadings about representations by the Church, about how "tithes" somehow means income/profit from investments, and so on.

It's not working.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Are you saying this as a statement/conclusion of law, or a statement/finding of fact?  It seems like the former, but I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.

If the former, if what you are saying here is a statement/conclusion of law, what "law" are you referencing here?  

Of fact.  As noted over and over money is fungible and unless somehow accounted for in separate accounts you cannot say nothing came from principle.  

Okay.  I don't think this is a question of fact.  It might be a mixed question of law and fact.

Could you elaborate still further.  You keep saying that "unless somehow accounted for in separate accounts you cannot say nothing came from principle."  If this is a point of fact, not law, my response would be: says who?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

However, to be concerned about malfeasance or nonfeasance now, in 2023, when the finances of the Church are in the best shape ever, is a bit weird. 

With more wealth, there is more opportunity for misuse.  

And yet there is no evidence of misuse.

The big gripe now is, I think, what could be described as nonfeasance by a fiduciary.  That is, the Church is not "misusing" the money (profligate or wasteful spending), but rather that it is not doing with the funds what it ought to be doing (helping the poor and needy, etc.), or else not doing enough of this.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t understand why being in great shape should relieve any concerns besides the Church not having enough for its needs or the needs of those it is committed to help.

It's a reasonable point to make.  My sense, though, is that the Church - particularly the Presiding Bishopric - is very careful in partnering with other groups.  Purported charitable groups, NGOs and such are well known for all sorts of corruption, mismanagement, and so on.  By way of example, take a look at the dumpster fire that is California's homeless crisis.  They're spending billions, and the problem is just getting worse, largely because the groups that are receiving those billions have a vested interest in keeping that cash cow alive as long as possible, and so - ironically - are incentivized to make homelessness issues last as long as possible.  The Brethren are aware of this, and so vet potential partners carefully.  I think that the Church has plenty of money to spend, but not a sufficient number of trustworthy/competent partners to spend it on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, his lawyers are raking in the moolah.  I have never had an agenda-driven zealot as a client, let a long a fabulously rich one.  I'm sort of glad of that, as I would not want to be answerable to God for bilking him out of his money, as Huntsman's lawyers are doing.  

I know what you mean, I have a meeting tomorrow with a client where I am going to try and talk them into accepting a pretty good settlement. Currently they don't want to settle and want to keep paying me. I have to remind them that in paying me tot take them to trial on a weak case, I would be the only one to win by getting their fees.

 

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's actually a pretty interesting example.  What is your take on the role that Grandison Newell in its failure?

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-did-the-kirtland-safety-society-fail

A big part of why KSS failed was because of the specific and concerted efforts of an antagonist of the Church.

Notably, Newell was heavily - though not exclusively - motivated by his animus against the Church, not unlike how Huntsman is behaving now.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Oh, I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as your source makes it sound. No doubt Newell played a significant role, but his impact was one among many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Safety_Society

Quote

Hyde returned to the Ohio legislature in February with a petition, joined by several non-Mormons, for a bank based on far less capital stock. This time Hyde secured legislative sponsors, and the request was added as an amendment to another bill. However, the bill was defeated by the Ohio legislature. Grandison Newell, a professed antagonist to the Latter Day Saints in general and its president in particular, instigated several lawsuits against the Mormons in Ohio. Newell was close to three legislators who had taken the charter requests under consideration and used his influence to dissuade them.^[4]

Although this rejection has been attributed to both political and religious differences, this Ohio legislature was much more restrictive in issuing bank charters than the previous legislative body. The legislature was now dominated by the hard money wing of the Democratic party, the "Jacksonian Democrats". Due to their influence, the legislature refused all applications for bank charters but one during 1836 and 1837, in part because of endemic nationwide problems with land speculation, wildcat banking and counterfeiting.^[3]

Under the advice of non-Mormon legal counsel, the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company (KSSABC) was formed under revised articles on January 2, 1837 as a joint stock company to serve as a quasi-banking institution.^[5] Quasi-banks operated as banks (sometimes in conjunction with other business activities) although they had no formal bank charter. These corporate institutions were not uncommon in Ohio at the time as banking regulations were limited. Whigs went so far as to encourage businesses to operate as quasi-banks. Even after the national bank failure in 1837, there was no widespread opposition to quasi-banks in Ohio until 1873.^[6]

"Anti" and "ing" were engraved before and after "Bank"—in smaller typeface—on the printing plates Cowdery had previously purchased in Philadelphia. Subscribers and organizers of the KSSABC were members of the Kirtland community (merchants, farmers, etc.), many of whom became shareholders of the company. Sidney Rigdon served as the KSSABC's chairman and president, Warren Parrish as signatory, secretary and teller; Joseph Smith was cashier. Supporters hoped that they would eventually be able to secure a formal banking charter. In the interim, the KSSABC began issuing notes as a quasi-bank in early January 1837.

The proposed capitalization of the "anti-bank" greatly exceeded the resources that were available from its backers, as noted by historian, Robert Kent Fielding:

As it was projected, there was never the slightest chance that the Kirtland Safety Society anti-Bank-ing Company could succeed. Even though their economy was in jeopardy, it could scarcely have suffered such a devastating blow as that which they were themselves preparing to administer to it. ... The Safety Society proposed no modest project befitting its relative worth and ability to pay. Its organizers launched, instead, a gigantic company capitalized at four million dollars, when the entire capitalization of all the banks in the state of Ohio was only nine and one third million. Such presumption could not have escaped the notice of bankers who would have been led to examine its capital structure more closely. ... according to the articles of incorporation capital stock was to be paid in by subscription but that the amount of payments were left to the discretion of the company managers. Furthermore, total issuance of notes was not prescribed, nor was the relation of notes to capital and assets. The members, to be sure, pledged themselves to redeem the notes and bound themselves individually by their agreement under the penal sum of one hundred thousand dollars. But there was no transfer of property deeds, no power of attorney, no legal pains and penalties. To a banker, the articles fairly shouted: 'this is a wildcat, beware!'^[7]

National bank crisis

The KSS failure, although unique in some ways, was part of a national bank crisis known as the Panic of 1837 that began in May of that year. Underlying causes of the nationwide financial panic included speculative and inflationary selling of public lands in western states like Michigan, Ohio and Missouri. The economic policies of the previous President Andrew Jackson, including the Specie Circular and the withdrawal of government funds from the Second Bank of the United States, also contributed to the crisis.

On May 10, 1837 in New York, every chartered bank stopped payment in specie (gold and silver coinage), leaving banks and local institutions like the KSS holding notes without adequate liquid assets. Within two months the failures in New York alone aggregated nearly $100,000,000 in value. "Out of eight hundred and fifty banks in the United States, three hundred and forty-three closed entirely, sixty-two failed partially, and the system of State banks received a shock from which it never fully recovered."^[8] Smaller, privately held financial institutions, like the KSS, also failed in droves. The Panic was followed by a five-year depression, characterized by ongoing failures of banks and financial institutions and record unemployment levels.

Opposition and failure

In February 1837, at the behest of Newell^{[citation needed]}, Samuel D. Rounds swore a writ against Smith and Rigdon for illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper. At a hearing in March, this trial was postponed until autumn. Eventually Rounds voluntarily dropped all of the cases in his suit except those against Smith and Rigdon. Although Smith's only official capacity for KSSABC was cashier, other officers and parties with equal or greater responsibility were absolved from the suit. KSSABC continued issuing notes through June, but eventually failed due to insolvency, as most of the KSSABC reserves were tied up in land rather than silver as some erroneously believed.

Smith transferred all of his holdings to Oliver Granger and J. Carter in June and resigned from the KSSABC in July. Parrish and Frederick G. Williams assumed management of the KSSABC until the institution closed its doors in November with about $100,000 in unresolved debt. Smith appointed Granger as his agent to clear up his Kirtland affairs, as Smith was named in seventeen lawsuits with claims totalling $30,206.44 over debts incurred in the failure of the KSSABC. According to LDS Church scholars, "Four of these suits were settled; three were voluntarily discontinued by the plaintiffs; and ten resulted in judgments against Joseph Smith and others. Of these ten judgments, three were satisfied in full, three were satisfied in part, and only four were wholly unsatisfied." The church also raised and put up $38,000 in bail money for Smith at the Geauga County Court which was to be held to satisfy any judgment that might be rendered against Smith.^[9]

On July 28, Smith, Rigdon and Thomas B. Marsh headed to Upper Canada on church business and returned in late August. On September 27, Smith and Rigdon departed Kirtland for Missouri. They arrived about one month later, spent about two weeks in Missouri on Church business and returned to Kirtland on December 10. In their absence, in October, they were fined $1,000 for operating an illegal bank. According to Dale W. Adams, professor of agricultural economics at Ohio State University, other, larger quasi-banks had been operating in Ohio longer than KSSABC and were not being prosecuted.^[1]

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Whatever.  I'm not the one trying to pound a square peg (interest/income from invested funds, including from tithes) into a round hole (the definition of "tithing").

I'm not redefining the word "tithing." I'm trying to understand what the contemporaneous record indicates about how Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley's comments.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Um, no, you haven't.  You distorted and misrepresented TSS's comment.  And Pahoran's.

No I didn't.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Take a look at JAHS' initial post:

"{T}he 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."

Boy, that sure sounds a lot like what Pres. Hinckley said.

Yes, it sounds like how you interpret what Hinckley said now. But at the time, JAHS was paraphrasing what the critics were then saying and asking how apologists should respond to such a strong argument.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"How does one respond to this?"  JAHS was asking a question, not staking out a position.

The question he was asking is how should apologists respond.

Look at the whole OP in context--not just the one sentence you like. It goes on to say:

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 [the critics] 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?

Answer his question. How does one respond to that?

And why do you think that was a question that needed to be asked?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Pahoran responded:

Pahoran was speculating here.  And he was perhaps substantively correct.

Why was he speculating rather than just saying, "On this point the critics are right; the investment income originates from principal that was originally tithing." 

If he really believed that, why didn't he just say that? Why speculate? Why say that people believe what you believe didn't understand history?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But he wasn't speaking about the issue at hand, namely, the "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes" thing that you and yours are pushing.

That is a straw man and is not an idea I am pushing.

Pahoran was speculating about where the investment income came from, because he felt Hinckley had stated they didn't come from tithing. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nothing here about "'tithing' means tithes + earnings on invested tithes."

Yawn. You are fighting a straw man.

What I'm claiming is that many Saints interpreted Hinckley's claim in a broad manner when he said "I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property." They thought not using tithing funds to build the mall meant not using tithing funds to generate investment income to build a mall, because using tithing funds to generate investment income to build a mall is using tithing funds to build a mall. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think that's far enough for me.

So far in that 2012 thread, the bulk of commentary from observant Latter-day Saints was A) congruent with what Pres. Hinckley said, and B) had little or nothing to say regarding the idea you are trying to foist on us, namely, conflating tithes with earnings on invested income.

And yet, you haven't addressed the actual point. 

And you still haven't answered Craig Paxton's question:

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?

What's the answer to that?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have no recollection of ever encountering a conversant Latter-day Saint who conflates "tithing" with realized profit/income/revenue from the Church's investments and for-profit businesses.  Literally none.

Have you ever met a single Latter-day Saint who might think that using tithing to generate investment income to build a mall is using tithing to build a mall? Are you claiming Mormons are so universally bad at logic that they would never think that?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are, nevertheless, working mightily to cram this idea into our mouths.

No I'm not. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that in 2012, a prevailing view among faithful, tithe-paying Latter-day Saints, including James Huntsman, was that  investment income on unspent tithing is just as sacred as the tithing itself. If a Latter-day Saint happened to think that, would they think that an assurance that tithing wouldn't be used to build a mall also mean that tithing wouldn't be used to generate investment income to build a mall?

My claim is that that was the prevailing view among Saints in those threads, and that the content and very existence of those threads proves that is what they were thinking.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that the Church has plenty of money to spend, but not a sufficient number of trustworthy/competent partners to spend it on.

For the record, I agree with your point here. 100%. And that is the basis for my argument that it really does have too much money. 

And since it uses most of its annual income to grow the size of the nest egg, the problem is getting worse at an exponential rate.