Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, provoman said:

Concerning # 1, has anyone besides the "whistle blower" confirmed that, perhaps I misread the Panel opinion.

No idea.

9 hours ago, provoman said:

Is there anything in the realm of finance that supports that interest earned or returns on investment are the same as the principle?

From religious standpoint, tithing has a set definition.  

The definition of “tithing” is the wrong question. The real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”

In that context, what is a tithing fund? Is it a fund into which tithing is deposited? That fund contains both principal and interest.

Many apologists interpreted Hinckley that way. Others focused on the word “using” and believed that using tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall.

[provoman]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Surely what would matter was the intent of those ‘soliciting’ the funds.

That is how I see it.

Who spoke, what was said, what was the speaker attempting to induce actions from another.

I think the 9th strained to over turn the lower court. In over turning the lower court, the Panel appears to admitting they favor a jury ruling based on emotion rather than cold-hard facts.

An emotion ruling, to me is, interest paid by a disinterested 3rd party on surplus tithing funds, is tithing even though the disinterested 3rd party has no religious affiliation to the account holder.

Cold-hard factual ruling, tithing has a specific meaning (10% of ones own 'income'); interest paid by a disinterested 3rd party on surplus tithing, is interest plain and simple. It can not be considered tithing because it is distinctly separate from tithing. And it is unreasonable to require a entity to say "principle tithing" when use of the word "tithing" speaks for itself.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The definition of “tithing” is the wrong question. The real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”

In that context, what is a tithing fund? Is it a fund into which tithing is deposited? That fund contains both principal and interest.

Many apologists interpreted Hinckley that way. Others focused on the word “using” and believed that using tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall.

 

I understand what you referring about the word 'funds'.

In my employment, not a cpa or anything close to it, we refer to all deposits as 'funds' received. We also distinguish between funds by the source. Such that we refer to the combined sources dheld in an account as 'total funds', then break it down to funds from source A and funds from source B.  This is done as required by United States Code. 

As what people believed, that may be only 1 element of a fraud claim, what was said, the speakers intent, are  essential requirements to a fraud claim.

I do not think Huntsman can show that the leadership of the Church has used the word "tithing funds" to mean anything other than individual receipts from members. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by provoman

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

In my employment, not a cpa or anything close to it, we refer to all deposits as 'funds' received. We also distinguish between funds by the source. Such that we refer to the combined sources dheld in an account as 'total funds', then break it down to funds from source A and funds from source B.  This is done as required by United States Code. 

As what people believed, that may be only 1 element of a fraud claim, what was said, the speakers intent, are  essential requirements to a fraud claim.

I do not think Huntsman can show that the leadership of the Church has used the word "tithing funds" to mean anything other than individual receipts from members. 

I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to understand what needs to be proven to win a fraud claim in court. As far as I know, Huntsman wining this is the longest of long shots. But I don't really know.

What I do know is that this issue was discussed before the IRS Letter came out, and I know that back then, the assertion that the mall was funded by interest on unspent tithing revenue was a cynical, even anti-Mormon position. 

I also know that President Hinckley was an excellent communicator. If the vast majority of members interpreted his remarks a certain way, it's hard to believe that wasn't his intention.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Analytics

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”

When used with tithing, I am pretty sure my interpretation is usually “funds” equals “money” and not “account”, as in “I have enough funds to cover the purchase”.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Is there anything in the realm of finance that supports that interest earned or returns on investment are the same as the principle?

From religious standpoint, tithing has a set definition.  

The definition of “tithing” is the wrong question.

It is the exactly correct question.

Provoman is quite correct when he says that "tithing has a set definition."

You are quite wrong when you fabricate a claim that "tithing" includes things that are not tithing.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”

You have presented no evidence that "reasonable Saints" have ever interpreted "tithing funds" to mean funds that are not tithed.

From the Petition for Hearing:

Quote

"Huntsman submitted a declaration stating that 'he believed, based on the five statements, that no tithing principal or earnings on principal were or would be used to finance the City Creek Mall project.'"

I don't believe Huntsman believed any such thing.  Nor, it seems, did the trial court judge.  The trial court judge (and one of the appellate court judges) further concluded that no reasonable juror could take Huntsman's claim at face value.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

In that context, what is a tithing fund?

Well, let's start by not equivocating.

Pres. Hinckley did not say "a tithing fund."  He said "I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used."

In the phrase "tithing funds," "tithing" is being used as an adjective to modify the noun "funds." The phrase refers to funds which have been tithed.

In contrast, funds obtained from sources other than tithed donations from members of the Church cannot, by any reasonable measure, be characterized as "tithing funds."

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Is it a fund into which tithing is deposited? That fund contains both principal and interest.

You're just making stuff up.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Many apologists interpreted Hinckley that way.  Others focused on the word “using” and believed that using tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall.

Funny how you aren't actually quoting any of these "apologists."

Whenever you make a claim about what Latter-day Saints have said, but don't actually quote them, I tend to get a bit, shall we say, cautious about accepting your unexamined say-so on the matter.

So let's examine your say-so.  You have cited to two threads.  This one from 2012 (17 pages, oi) and this one from 2012 (5 pages).  I skimmed through these threads looking for how (apparent) Latter-day Saints (all of whom, it seems, you deem to be "apologists") were using the word "tithing."  Here is what I found:

From the 2012 thread:

Sky: "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."

Scott Lloyd: "Tithing and other consecrated funds are used to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

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.

Pahoran:

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.

Freedom: "I see two responses. One is that the funds for the mall did not come from tithing..."

JAHS: "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."

BCSpace: "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."

Mark Beesley: "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?"

Deborah:

Quote

Quote

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...

Because the First Presidency has said they weren't and you are calling them liars. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Wade Englund:

Quote

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".

When was the last time you looked at a tithing slip? For as long as I can remember, those slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings.

However, I suppose there is only so much the Church can do to accomadate the nuance-challenged. LOL

selek1:

Quote

Quote

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...

Perhaps because it is a malicious falsehood being repeated by those whose goal is to undermine the Church?

Critics on this matter are no better (and in many instances, a fair sight worse) than those who insist the moon landings were faked.

Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used.

The Church's financial records have been audited (at least) yearly- and no discrepancies have been found.

But the tin-foil hat crowd just can't let go of its obsession.

Quote

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).

This rationale is all well and good except for one pesky little fact- our leaders (and by extension, the auditors) have assured us that NO TITHING FUNDS WERE USED.

Why is it so hard for you to come to grips with that reality?

JAHS:

Quote

Quote

well if tithing wasn't used for this mall then why not say where the money came from?

They did say where it was coming from:

"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."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660205772/Downtown-renovation-project.html?pg=2

Scott Lloyd:

Quote

For my part, I will continue to give whatever excess funds I can, apart from tithing, for the fast offering, for the Church Humanitarian fund, for the Perpetual Education Fund, where I know 100 percent, not 90 percent, of the money I give will be used to relieve suffering and/or improve the health and well being of the needy.

JAHS:

Quote

Quote

That was in 2007, before the real estate market collapsed, and the stated estimated cost in the article was $1Billion. Anything more recent?

Here's a more recent article:

"The residential towers were built by City Creek Reserve Inc., a for-profit firm owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church is a multibillion-dollar organization with tentacles in business and real estate.

The church paid for City Creek Center with cash and says no member tithing was used."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765561778/Mormon-church-hopes-mall-helps-Salt-Lake-downtown.html

LeSellers:

Quote

Quote

Can you give me an example of the "carping" that you have seen on this thread. A specific quote would be helpful.
I have notice that you often seem to taken offense where none is expressed or intended.

The repeated asking of the question is "carping" (or "harping", the two overlap considerably).

It is no one's business. The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate.

It is not "offensive" (to me, at least), but it is "tiresome" and "wearying". Both goals some people might have in carping on the matter.

JAHS:

Quote

Quote

 

Quick question. Sorry if this has already been said somewhere.

Has the church ever officially declared that only profits from the business arm were used to fund the mall?

 

Yes they did:

"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."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660205772/Downtown-renovation-project.html?pg=2

The closest thing I could find to your characterization of "Many apologists interpreted Hinckley that way" was this comment from 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.

"I see no need for a distinction as to tithing and non tithing.  Since it is not my money..."

From the 2015 thread:

The Nehor:

Quote

Quote

Another thread got locked before I could ask a question, so will ask it now. One frequently hears the statement that tithing funds were not used for such and such an investment. And while I like to think that is true, I have to pause and think...if not tithing then what funds were used? Surely not Fast Offerings, too many those are even more sacred as to their dedicated use, and surely not missionary funds. So, what are these mysterious "not tithing" funds?

Income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose.

Robert F. Smith:

Quote

Quote

Are these church owned businesses started via tithing? Is interest earned from tithing dollars considered "not tithing"?

There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds...

The Nehor:

Quote

Quote

Are these church owned businesses started via tithing? Is interest earned from tithing dollars considered "not tithing"?

Most likely not from tithing. 

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

Bluebell:

Quote

Quote

It's important to remember though that the church has one BIG general fund into which all donations go. 

Can i get a reference on that.  I had not heard before that tithing and fast offers, for example, were all put into the same general fund.

Storm Rider:

Quote

The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds.  Investment funds may go into Church funds, but I am not aware of it going the other way around,

A dollar is fungible - it is freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.  However, because a dollar is fungible does not indicate that dollars are commingled between a tithing fund and an investment fund or group of funds.  Don't confuse the two or make it appear that it is easy to do.  They are accounted for on separate books and managed separately by separate people/individuals.  

Robert F. Smith:

Quote

Quote

 

Bishop Burton explained to a group of bishops in our stake a few years ago that there is only one account in the Church. All money (tithing, fast offerings, business profit, PEF, humanitarian, etc.) all goes into one account in reality. For accounting purposes, there are different categories on paper, but as he put it, "there is only one checking account, with about 100,000 signatories worldwide."

This was a specific answer to *my* hypothetical question of what money would  be used to cover a fast offering disbursement on January 2, when Sunday isn't until January 6. Would tithing temporarily "cover" this until fast offerings were collected on Sunday? He said that this is a misunderstanding of how it works, and answered as above. 

 

You are overlooking the fact that fast offering accounts are independently controlled by the local bishop.  He spends them as he wishes, and must ask the congregation for more if the amount gets too low.  Church HQ does not contribute to it.  No tithing funds used.  On the other hand, a bishop can give a food order to someone, and that is paid for by central Church welfare operations (ranches, packing plants.storehouses, etc.).
...
When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true.

Mystery Meat: "I repeat no tithing funds were used, NOR were the funds used ever sourced in tithing."

Robert F. Smith: "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available, which are subject to taxation, by the way.  The IRS knows how to distinguish types of funds from each other."

Stargazer:

Quote

Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds.

I am happy enough with City Creek, and if someone gets a burr under his saddle over it, well then I can tell him that if the Church didn't have funds separate from those raised via tithing, then City Creek would still be an urban eyesore today.

Robert F. Smith:

Quote

You and the Newby apparently don't understand fungibility: "The state of being interchangeable. For example, money has fungibility because there is no difference between one dollar and another dollar."  In other words, all the money can be pooled, but it is spent according to budget from particular accounts.  The budgeted accounts are in turn specifically tied to donations of particular types.  Thus, tithing, humanitarian, and fast-offering donations may not be used in for-profit operations, and each must be separately accounted for -- and later audited.  Just because all greenbacks look alike, and can be spent alike, doesn't mean that the donation accounts cannot be distinguished.  For an accountant, that is child's play, and for the IRS feloniously serious stuff.

Thus, even if Martin Harris had taken that mortgage money he obtained on his farm in order to print the 1830 Book of Mormon and placed it a pool of money including tithing, it would not therefore become tithing money.  Only accounting for the spending of that amount of money (which was donated for a specific purpose) later tells us the source and use of the funds, which did not include tithing.  The same applies to United Firm/ United Order contributions via deed.  The idea that everything is tithing is absurd.

readstoomuch: "I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek. I think the big argument was about where the money came from to start the businesses that provided the capital."

mikegriffith1: "{H}ow the Lord chooses to use any donations--tithing, fast offering, or whatever--is ultimately up to him. If the prophet felt that some tithing money should be used for an investment, I would be fine with that."

Bluebell:

Quote

Quote

Whoever came up with the idea of "non-tithing funds" should get a statue erected to their honor in Temple square, and the BYU Accounting school named after them. 

I'm not exactly sure i'm understanding you.

When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used.  Given that, what 'conditions of tithing' that you are talking about? Tithing is not paid on tithing and i can't think of any other conditions you might be referring to.

JAHS:

Quote

Quote

When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used.  Given that, what 'conditions of tithing' that you are talking about? Tithing is not paid on tithing and i can't think of any other conditions you might be referring to.

Not sure what he is saying either, but I think he means that any money the church aquires, be it tithing, FO, humanitarian aid, returns on investments, etc. it all falls under the general category of funds that are to only be used for a holy purpose to advance the kingdom of God. In this sense it all should be considered the same as tithing. Am I wrong?

JAHS: "As an active believing church member I can only see your senario work for perhaps humanitarian aid. Our Prophets and the scriptures tell us to give our tithing and fast offerings to the Church first (D&C 119), not to other organizations, unless you want to give to them in addition to what we give to the Church."

Bluebell: "The church has more avenues of revenue than tithing, fast offerings, and humanitarian aid though.  Given that, i'm not sure why we have to assume that the overhead is paid by tithing, especially when they have specifically told us what tithing is used for and overhead is not listed."

kimpearson:

Quote

One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church.  All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund.  Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates.  All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity.
...
Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws.  If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case.  Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties.

Oi.  That was a slog.  But perhaps it was useful.  To sum up what the Latter-day Saints were saying back in 2012 and 2015:

• "Tithing and other consecrated funds"
• "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing"
• "if they say tithing money is not used for the building of things like the mall I can believe them"
• "{tithing} slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings"
• "Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used"
• "I will continue to give whatever excess funds I can, apart from tithing, for the fast offering, for the Church Humanitarian fund, for the Perpetual Education Fund..."
• "The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate."
• "{'not tithing' funds are} income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose."
• "There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds..."
• "The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds."
• "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true."
• "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available..."
• "Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds."
• "I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek."
• "When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used."
• "All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund."
• "If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case."

That sure sounds like what Latter-day Saints are saying now, in 2023, in this thread.  If the Latter-day Saints believe that A) the Church stated that the funds for City Creek did not come from tithing, and also B) the Church actually used from for City Creek, then those funds, ipso facto, are not "tithing funds," and the Latter-day Saints are not treating "tithing" as being synonymous with all other sources of Church income.  So it won't do for you to cram into our mouths and minds the notion that "tithing" includes monies that are not tithes.  You are just making that up.

Observant and conversant Latter-day Saints understand what "tithing" is, and what it means, and what it is not and what it does not mean.  (For that matter, I think the overwhelming majority of all people familiar with a dictionary would not subscribe to your tortured re-definition of "tithing.")

Latter-day Saints understand that the Church receives "tithes" from members (a tenth of their income), but also has other sources of income.  Fast offerings.  Charitable donations (such as to LDS Philanthropies), earnings on investments, for-profit ventures, and so on.

Latter-day Saints do not, per your suggestion, conflate these various sources of income as all falling under the rubric of "tithing."  Tithing has an actual and fairly specific definition and meaning.

A tithe is a donation by a member of the Church amounting to a tenth of his income.

A fast offering is a numerically distinct and separate and additional donation by a member of the Church, generally equivalent to the money that would have been spent on two meals (some members give more, some give less).  A fast offering is money that belongs to the Church, but it is not a "tithe," and tithing is not a fast offering.  The two are not synonymous.

A profit generated by EPA investing money in stocks, bonds, etc. is money that belongs to the Church, but such earnings on EPA's investments is not a "tithe" and tithing is not money generated by the EPA's investment efforts.  The two are not synonymous.

And so on.

Though derived from different sources, all of the monies held by the Church are held in trust.  All of these monies belong to the Lord.  All of these monies are, therefore, "sacred funds."  But not all "sacred funds" are "tithing."  Latter-day Saints, as shown above, do not believe that.  Nor does the Church teach that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 23, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to understand what needs to be proven to win a fraud claim in court. As far as I know, Huntsman wining this is the longest of long shots. But I don't really know.

I am an attorney, and I have litigated many dozens of fraud claims.  Almost all on the "defense" side.  Of the few times I have been on the plaintiff's side, I have only won on a fraud claim once.  And that one was really obvious, and it was a fraudulent nondisclosure (in a real estate transaction), so the burden of proof was, though high, easier to meet.

Your comment about Huntsman's changes being the "longest of long shots" is apt.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What I do know is that this issue was discussed before the IRS Letter came out, and I know that back then, the assertion that the mall was funded by interest on unspent tithing revenue was a cynical, even anti-Mormon position. 

Really?  Could you cite to this?

And is "interest on unspent tithing revenue" the explanation given by the Church?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I also know that President Hinckley was an excellent communicator.

He was.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If the vast majority of members interpreted his remarks a certain way, it's hard to believe that wasn't his intention.

You are begging the question.  First establish that "the majority of members interpreted his remarks a certain way," and that this "way" was similar to Huntsman's allegation, then we can talk.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”

When used with tithing, I am pretty sure my interpretation is usually “funds” equals “money” and not “account”, as in “I have enough funds to cover the purchase”.

Yep.  "Tithing funds" (the phrase used by the Church) is, I think, distinguishable from "a tithing fund" (the phrase Roger is putting into the mouths of the leaders of the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You have cited to two threads.  This one from 2012 (17 pages, oi) and this one from 2012 (5 pages).  I skimmed through these threads...

That's your problem right there. If you want to understand what the apologists were saying, you need to read what they said in context; not merely skim.

The context of the 2012 thread was this OP:

Quote

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

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

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

Why would a critic ask, "Where do you think the Church got the money to by the business in the first place?" 

Why is it an issue that "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money"?

The answer is obvious--using tithing money to indirectly fund the mall is still using tithing money to fund the mall. That is what they were concerned about.

In the context of those questions, Craig Paxton said that it is patently obvious what happened:

Quote

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

Most of the apologists you quoted took issue with Craig Paxton on this. They didn't believe it. They thought Hinckley had assured them that this didn't happen--when he said tithing funds weren't used, he meant that broadly. Tithing wasn't used directly or indirectly. Mola Ram considered Craig Paxton's accusation to be "fluff and stuff." When Mola Ram, for example, said "the church can claim [that they didn't use tithing money] because they did not," he meant that in a broad way--he thought the Church didn't use tithing money, neither directly nor indirectly.

If you aren't willing to read my references carefully, I'm not going to discuss it with you. Look at the context. Look at why the original question was asked. Focus on the word "indirectly". Think about why Pahoran said:

"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."

Edited September 23, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  "Tithing funds" (the phrase used by the Church) is, I think, distinguishable from "a tithing fund" (the phrase Roger is putting into the mouths of the leaders of the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

I wasn’t putting words into anybody’s mouth. The question I was addressing was how members interpreted Hinckley’s claim.

In a post that was upvoted 19 times, Kim Pearson interpreted Hinckley’s remark as referring to whether the the money came from tithing funds (ie the non-profit sacred funds with the interest they generated) or the separate for-profit funds that are not commingled.

He said:

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls.

One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church.  All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund.  Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates.  All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity.  Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross.  This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time.  The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members.  Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings.

The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity.  This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio.  The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank.  This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold.  Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses.  Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church.  As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash.  These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek.  No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek.  That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status.  The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either.  Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans.  I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited.  Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash.  Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church.  Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good.

The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity.  All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States.  The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country.

There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities.  The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity.

Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies.  Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws.  If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case.  Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties.

Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  That was a slog.  But perhaps it was useful. 

I really appreciate you doing this as I was going to try, but just couldn’t focus.  This thread seemed incomplete without it given the claims made.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Most of the apologists you quoted took issue with Craig Paxton on this. They didn't believe it.

Please show this rather than just claim it.

Quote

When Mola Ram, for example, said "the church can claim [that they didn't use tithing money] because they did not," he meant that in a broad way--he thought the Church didn't use tithing money, neither directly nor indirectly.

And you know this how?  Does he specify the directly or indirectly?

Edited September 23, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Nvm…got interrupted and then came back thinking .I had read the whole thing.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities.  

Does this mean money from the nonprofits are not put into the profit business accounts and the reverse no secular profits are put into the donations fund?

I can see it not being allowed to go the one way, nontaxed funds not being allowed to be used for for profit enterprises if only because that would give a charity an advantage over a regular business, able to undercut prices due to paying less salaries and taxes. By why would the reverse not be allowed?  It would just be a business donating to a charity?  Happens all the time, doesn’t it?

I realize this is from Kim Pearson who no longer posts here, so clarification may not be coming.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Calm

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Please show this rather than just claim it.

And you know this how?  Does he specify the directly or indirectly?

Now, the question the apologists are focusing on is whether investment income on tithing “is” tithing. I think that is the wrong question. Back then, the question was a better one. Then, they were asking, “is indirectly using tithing money for building a mall still using tithing money for building a mall?”

That is the context of the entire conversation, and in that context, when somebody said “tithing money wasn’t used” they meant “tithing money wasn’t used, neither directly nor indirectly.” That is why they took issue with Craig Paxton who was claiming tithing money was used indirectly. 

if you read the conversation from that perspective, it makes more sense.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Does this mean money from the nonprofits are not put into the profit business accounts and the reverse no secular profits are put into the donations fund?

I can see it not being allowed to go the one way, nontaxed funds not being allowed to be used for for profit enterprises if only because that would give a charity an advantage over a regular business, able to undercut prices due to paying less salaries and taxes. By why would the reverse not be allowed?  It would just be a business donating to a charity?  Happens all the time, doesn’t it?

I realize this is from Kim Pearson who no longer posts here, so clarification may not be coming.

I’ve always thought Kim was wrong about this. Back then I asked the following (but never got an answer):

What is your basis for believing that the assets of the non-profit entity would only be sufficient for a few months?  There isn't a law that says non-profits can't have massive savings.  As an example, Harvard University is a nonprofit tax-exempt institution, and over the last 10 years its endowment has grown from about $25 Billion to $36 Billion.  The fact that Harvard continues to hoard obscene amounts of money has no bearing on its nonprofit, tax-exempt status.

There is no law that says churches can't do the same thing, is there?  Just as Harvard invests its endowment in for-profit enterprises, the LDS Church is totally free to invest its savings in for-profit enterprises.  Included in the for-profit enterprises in which it can invest are DMC and the other for-profit businesses it owns.  There is nothing illegal about this.

I have no doubt that the Church conducts its financial affairs according to the law.  That doesn't mean that its accumulated savings over the years isn't invested in its for-profit businesses, much less that those accumulated savings aren't significant.

[smac97]

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

You have cited to two threads.  This one from 2012 (17 pages, oi) and this one from 2012 (5 pages).  I skimmed through these threads...

That's your problem right there. If you want to understand what the apologists were saying, you need to read what they said in context; not merely skim.

The problem arises when you presume to tell us what "apologists" are saying, but never actually get around to quoting them.  Your readers are therefore forced to take your highly-biased-against-the-Church-and-its-members say-so characterization of what the "apologists" are saying and thinking, or else slog through old posts and try to decipher whom you are quoting, and when, and about what, and so on.

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

The context of the 2012 thread was this OP:

Quote

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

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

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

I think a pretty important part of the context is the first three words of the OP: "When people accuse..."  And also the next paragraph: "But then of course critics ask..."  And the next paragraph: "And they conclude..."

JAHS was not stating the position of the Latter-day Saints.  He was stating the position of its detractors and opponents.  People like you.

JAHS then concludes his statement of the position of the Church's opponents this way: "...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?"

JAHS's comments sought input on how to respond to critics' characterization of the Church's use of its funds.

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

Why would a critic ask, "Where do you think the Church got the money to by the business in the first place?" 

Why is it an issue that "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money"?

The answer is obvious--using tithing money to indirectly fund the mall is still using tithing money to fund the mall. That is what they were concerned about.

What "a critic" thinks is neither here nor there.

The lawsuit is not about how critics choose to characterize tithing.  Nor is it about how the general membership construes the meaning of "tithing" (which, I think is very different from Huntsman's - and your - absurdly broad and ad hoc and contrived interpretation of the term).

The lawsuit is, instead, about 

• A) What did Pres. Hinckley mean in April 2003 by this statement: "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."
• B) What did Bishop Burton mean in October 2003 by this statement: "None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members. That is not how we use tithing funds.”
• C) What did the Church mean in December 2006 by this statement published in the Ensign: "No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment."
• D) What did the Church mean in May 2007 by this statement published in the Deseret News: "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members’ tithing donations."
• E) What did the Church mean in October 2012 by this statement by Keith McMullin (then head of the Church-affiliated Deseret Management Corporation) published in the Salt Lake Tribune: "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."
• F) What did James Huntsman understand from these statements, ("Huntsman alleged that the Church committed fraud through the five statements detailed above, which Huntsman alleges falsely 'represented that tithing money was not used to finance commercial projects.' ...  Huntsman’s claim reflected his understanding that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin,' such that proceeds from invested tithing reserves constitute 'tithing funds.'").

You are now trying to bolster Huntsman's absurd characterization of the Church's statement by suggesting that "apologists" construed them in much the same way Huntsman did, namely, by conflating "tithing" with other forms of Church income.

Your problem is that you aren't actually quoting these "apologists," and are instead presuming to speak for them, to characterize their statements rather than quote them.

I think that is problematic given how egregiously you seem to be misrepresenting these "apologists" and their understanding of the meaning of "tithing." 

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

In the context of those questions, Craig Paxton said that it is patently obvious what happened:

Most of the apologists you quoted took issue with Craig Paxton on this. They didn't believe it. They thought Hinckley had assured them that this didn't happen--when he said tithing funds weren't used, he meant that broadly. Tithing wasn't used directly or indirectly. Mola Ram considered Craig Paxton's accusation to be "fluff and stuff." When Mola Ram, for example, said "the church can claim [that they didn't use tithing money] because they did not," he meant that in a broad way--he thought the Church didn't use tithing money, neither directly nor indirectly.

Again, you are not quoting "apologists," and are instead telling us what they said and thought.  

This is why I took the time yesterday to actually go through the two threads, skim to the ones that actually reference "tithing" and its variants, and then provided links and verbatim quotes to what Latter-day Saints (who, it seems, you universally characterize as "apologists") actually said in those threads.  And what they said was overwhelmingly and manifestly at odds with your (and Huntsman's) tortured re-definition of "tithing."

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

If you aren't willing to read my references carefully, I'm not going to discuss it with you.

You haven't provided any references.  

At this point I'm content to let the readers review my post (here) and contrast it to your various posts and decide for themselves which of us is more accurately stating the position of the Latter-day Saints.

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

Look at the context. Look at why the original question was asked. Focus on the word "indirectly".

Right back atcha.  Look at the context.  JAHS was asking about commentary from the Church's opponents, commentary which conflates "tithing" with other forms of Church income.

It is the critics who are doing that, not the Latter-day Saints.  

Huntsman is doing this because that the is only way his lawsuit - which has on very shaky legal ground from its inception - can be maintained.  

On 9/23/2023 at 1:45 PM, Analytics said:

Think about why Pahoran said:

"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."

Also think about why Pahoran also said this:

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.

Of all the Latter-day Saints in the world you could quote in an attempted bolstering of Huntsman's stupid re-invention of the word "tithing," you are pointing to . . . Russell McGregor?  Seriously?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

I wasn’t putting words into anybody’s mouth.

Yes, you were.  And are.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

The question I was addressing was how members interpreted Hinckley’s claim.

And in doing so you are mischaracterizing and misrepresenting the Latter-day Saints.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

In a post that was upvoted 19 times, Kim Pearson interpreted Hinckley’s remark as referring to whether the the money came from tithing funds (ie the non-profit sacred funds with the interest they generated)

What on earth are you doing here?  Since when is the phrase "tithing funds" understood as being "the non-profit sacred funds with the interest they generated"?  Why do you keep trying to foist this onto the Latter-day Saints?  What stunt are you trying to pull here?

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

or the separate for-profit funds that are not commingled.

He said:

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls.

One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church.  All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund.  Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates.  All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity.  Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross.  This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time.  The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members.  Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings.

The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity.  This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio.  The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank.  This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold.  Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses.  Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church.  As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash.  These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek.  No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek.  That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status.  The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either.  Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans.  I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited.  Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash.  Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church.  Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good.

The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity.  All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States.  The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country.

There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities.  The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity.

Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies.  Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws.  If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case.  Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties.

Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen.

None of this supports the proposition that "tithing" or "tithing funds" includes monies that are not originating as "tithes," that is, from a member's voluntary donation of a tenth of his income to the Church.

For example, Kim states: "This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund."  He is plainly not, as you seem to want to claim, conflating "tithing" with other sources of income ("fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund").

Kim further states: "Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates."  Again, Kim differentiated these contributions from "tithing," contrary to your increasingly weird attempt to claim that "tithing" includes these other forms of income.

Kim further states: "This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time. The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members."  Again, Kim is differentiating "reserve funds that are invested" from the Church's other forms of income, noting that "the Church really does operate on" the latter - tithes, fast offerings, donations to the missionary, perpetual education and humanitarian programs - as opposed to the former ("reserve funds that are invested").

Kim further states: "The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity. ... These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek. No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek."  Again, Kim is differentiating the Church's income from its for-profit endeavors from "tithing" and other charitable donations from the members.  

I found this part of Kim's comments interesting: "Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans. I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited."  If I am understanding him correctly, Kim is rebutting the generalized "Hey, all of the Church's money originates from tithes, so it's all 'tithing' in some sense"-style of reasoning.  He is saying that virtually all of the money used to start the Church's for-profit entities - the source of the monies used to fund City Creek - "was borrowed." 

So this bolster's Huntsman's and your tortured re-definition of "tithing" . . . how, exactly?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Now, the question the apologists are focusing on is whether investment income on tithing “is” tithing.

Well, since this thread is about Huntsman's lawsuit, and since the entirety of Huntsman's lawsuit turns on whether "tithing" means A) "tithing" as I have been explaining, or B) "tithing" plus income from investments.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I think that is the wrong question.

It is obviously and manifestly the right question.  I think you have steered yourself up a blind alley with your advocacy of Huntsman's untenable position, and are now trying to backtrack by saying "Hey, this issue really isn't about 'tithing' after all."

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think a pretty important part of the context is the first three words of the OP: "When people accuse..."  And also the next paragraph: "But then of course critics ask..."  And the next paragraph: "And they conclude..."

JAHS was not stating the position of the Latter-day Saints.  He was stating the position of its detractors and opponents.  People like you.

JAHS then concludes his statement of the position of the Church's opponents this way: "...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?"

JAHS's comments sought input on how to respond to critics' characterization of the Church's use of its funds.

Right I have never considered interest earned on my tithing donations as part of my tithing donation. 
I am not even sure that everything members gave to the Church 150 years ago to get it started was considered Tithing. I suppose some of it was. Many members may have simply donated their time and money but did not consider it tithing. 
Once the tithing leaves my hands it no longer belongs to me, and really it never did in the first place; it was always God's. 
Although the mall may have been built using interest earned by the tithing, that interest was not my money and therefore no longer my concern. 
Lastly I have faith in our church leaders that they will use the money wisely for the benefit of the Church, the health of the neighboring community, and the people living in the community. 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Right I have never considered interest earned on my tithing donations as part of my tithing donation. 
I am not even sure that everything members gave to the Church 150 years ago to get it started was considered Tithing. I suppose some of it was. Many members may have simply donated their time and money but did not consider it tithing. 
Once the tithing leaves my hands it no longer belongs to me, and really it never did in the first place; it was always God's. 
Although the mall may have been built using interest earned by the tithing, that interest was not my money and therefore no longer my concern. 
Lastly I have faith in our church leaders that they will use the money wisely for the benefit of the Church, the health of the neighboring community, and the people living in the community. 

Hi JAHS,

May I ask you a few questions? I've done my best to read and understand that thread you started, and I sincerely want to understand your perspective.

Eleven years ago, you asked the following question:

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

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

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

We know more about Church finances now than we did then, and I was wondering what you now thought of this. I'll ask some questions and give you my impressions of what you were thinking. I ask that you provide any clarification about what your thoughts at the time were, and how you interpreted other Saints in those conversations.

1. Do you now agree with the critics that "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members"? 
   
   [I would presume that you now agree that the critics were right about this; every year, several hundreds of millions of dollars of tithing are collected that are never used for the 4-fold mission of the Church. This excess money is used to purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and for other commercial endeavors. This has resulted in the Church accumulating many tens of billions of dollars, and that is the source of funding for the mall.]
    
2. When President Hinckley assured us that tithing money would not be used, did he qualify that at all? Did he say tithing money wouldn't be used directly, but that it would be used indirectly?
   
   [As I understand what you said, using tithing money indirectly is still using tithing money. Hinckley said without qualification that tithing money would not be used, and that implies it wouldn't be used, neither directly nor indirectly. That is how the majority of Saints interpreted him at the time.]
    
3. Did you presume that when Hinckley said tithing money wouldn't be used, he meant it wouldn't be used directly or indirectly? Why would it be wrong to use tithing money directly to fund this? If it is wrong to use tithing money directly to fund this, is it equally wrong to use tithing money indirectly?
   
   [I think at the time, the majority of members interpreted his comment without qualification. Not using tithing money meant not using it, neither directly nor indirectly. If for some unstated reason it is wrong to use tithing money directly, it is equally wrong to use it indirectly.]
    
4. With 20-20 hindsight, what is your answer to the question, "how does one respond to this?"
   
   [I believe the best apologetic response would be along the lines of this: the critics are right; in an indirect way, the City Creek mall was in fact made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members. Maintaining and enhancing the value of the property around the Salt Lake City temple is a valid use of the Church's resources. With 20-20 hindsight, it is unfortunate that President Hinckley didn't qualify his assurance that "tithing money would not be used," because indirectly, it was used. And that is okay.]
    
5. Russell McGregor said "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." Kim Pearson said, "Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws.  If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case." In the full context of everything they said and in the full context of those conversations, when these folks said they were confident that "no tithing funds were used," do you think they meant "tithing funds wouldn't be used directly, but probably were used indirectly," or did they mean, "I'm confident that they weren't used directly or indirectly, and that instead the funds came from legacy Church-owned businesses that were not originally capitalized with tithing revenue."
   
   [I think the opinions of Russell and Kim are are representative of the majority of believing members who weighted in on these threads. They believed that when Hinckley said "tithing money would not be used" he purposefully said it without qualification, meaning tithing money wouldn't be used directly and tithing money wouldn't be used indirectly. They also believed that the Church had massive wealth from legacy businesses that were never originally capitalized with tithing. Putting all of that together, they inferred that the money came from these legacy businesses, not from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly.]

I've spent a lot of time trying to understand what you and what other Latter-day Saints believed about this. Rather than being thanked for trying to understand you, I've been accused of maliciously trying to put words in your mouth. So please, provide any clarity you can about what you were thinking 11 years ago when you started that thread. I really want to understand.

Thanks.

 

 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hi JAHS,

May I ask you a few questions? I've done my best to read and understand that thread you started, and I sincerely want to understand your perspective.

Eleven years ago, you asked the following question:

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

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

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

We know more about Church finances now than we did then, and I was wondering what you now thought of this. I'll ask some questions and give you my impressions of what you were thinking. I ask that you provide any clarification about what your thoughts at the time were, and how you interpreted other Saints in those conversations.

1. Do you now agree with the critics that "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members"? 
   
   [I would presume that you now agree that the critics were right about this; every year, several hundreds of millions of dollars of tithing are collected that are never used for the 4-fold mission of the Church. This excess money is used to purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and for other commercial endeavors. This has resulted in the Church accumulating many tens of billions of dollars, and that is the source of funding for the mall.]
    
2. When President Hinckley assured us that tithing money would not be used, did he qualify that at all? Did he say tithing money wouldn't be used directly, but that it would be used indirectly?
   
   [As I understand what you said, using tithing money indirectly is still using tithing money. Hinckley said without qualification that tithing money would not be used, and that implies it wouldn't be used, neither directly nor indirectly. That is how the majority of Saints interpreted him at the time.]
    
3. Did you presume that when Hinckley said tithing money wouldn't be used, he meant it wouldn't be used directly or indirectly? Why would it be wrong to use tithing money directly to fund this? If it is wrong to use tithing money directly to fund this, is it equally wrong to use tithing money indirectly?
   
   [I think at the time, the majority of members interpreted his comment without qualification. Not using tithing money meant not using it, neither directly nor indirectly. If for some unstated reason it is wrong to use tithing money directly, it is equally wrong to use it indirectly.]
    
4. With 20-20 hindsight, what is your answer to the question, "how does one respond to this?"
   
   [I believe the best apologetic response would be along the lines of this: the critics are right; in an indirect way, the City Creek mall was in fact made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members. Maintaining and enhancing the value of the property around the Salt Lake City temple is a valid use of the Church's resources. With 20-20 hindsight, it is unfortunate that President Hinckley didn't qualify his assurance that "tithing money would not be used," because indirectly, it was used. And that is okay.]
    
5. Russell McGregor said "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." Kim Pearson said, "Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws.  If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case." In the full context of everything they said and in the full context of those conversations, when these folks said they were confident that "no tithing funds were used," do you think they meant "tithing funds wouldn't be used directly, but probably were used indirectly," or did they mean, "I'm confident that they weren't used directly or indirectly, and that instead the funds came from legacy Church-owned businesses that were not originally capitalized with tithing revenue."
   
   [I think the opinions of Russell and Kim are are representative of the majority of believing members who weighted in on these threads. They believed that when Hinckley said "tithing money would not be used" he purposefully said it without qualification, meaning tithing money wouldn't be used directly and tithing money wouldn't be used indirectly. They also believed that the Church had massive wealth from legacy businesses that were never originally capitalized with tithing. Putting all of that together, they inferred that the money came from these legacy businesses, not from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly.]

I've spent a lot of time trying to understand what you and what other Latter-day Saints believed about this. Rather than being thanked for trying to understand you, I've been accused of maliciously trying to put words in your mouth. So please, provide any clarity you can about what you were thinking 11 years ago when you started that thread. I really want to understand.

Thanks.

11 years is a long time to remember what I was thinking. The Church was claiming that no tithing money was used for building the mall. Critics were saying that money generated by subsequent investments by the Church was initially started by the sacred tithing from early members of the church and so any money that comes from that (what you call Indirect tithing money) should be considered also sacred and not used for building the mall.

I believe what the church said when they said the tithing money was not directly used. If there was money generated from the tithing (what you call indirectly) that is not my concern and I don't care what they do with it.

There is really no such thing as indirect sacred tithing money. Money generated from tithing is not called sacred tithing anymore because it was not donated by the member. It's just plain money and can therefore be used for whatever purpose the Church considers necessary and prudent.  My opinion.

The Tithing that is donated by me is sacred funds in the sense that I was faithful enough to obey the law of tithing. Once I give it to the Church I don't care what it does with it; I was obedient to the law.
I trust the Church to use the tithing money I donate in any way they decide. If the Church leaders handle it against the will of God they are the ones that will have to answer for it.

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of all the Latter-day Saints in the world you could quote in an attempted bolstering of Huntsman's stupid re-invention of the word "tithing," you are pointing to . . . Russell McGregor?  Seriously?  

Yes. Absolutely. He makes my point exactly.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

[Kim Pearson] is saying that virtually all of the money used to start the Church's for-profit entities - the source of the monies used to fund City Creek - "was borrowed." 

So this bolster's Huntsman's and your tortured re-definition of "tithing" . . . how, exactly?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sigh. I'm not redefining tithing. That is a straw man on your part.

Just as going to California "in an indirect way" is still going to California, using tithing "in an indirect way" (JAH's terms) to build a mall is still using tithing to build a mall, regardless of how "tithing" is defined.

11 years ago, Russell McGregor was a faithful tithe-paying Latter-day Saint who was "confident" (his word) that the funds for City Creek didn't come from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly. He was confident they came from the Church's legacy businesses.

8 years ago, Kim Pearson was a faithful tithe-paying Latter-day Saint who was "confident" (his word) that the funds for City Creek didn't come from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly. He was confident they came from the Church's legacy businesses.  

(If you need me to provide quotes about this again, let me know and I'll provide them in a giant font.)

The question I have for you is why were they "confident" this was the case? I believe the reason they were confident in their positions is because they thought that when Hinckley said the money for the mall came from "commercial entities owned by the Church" and not from tithing, they assumed he meant that it didn't come from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly.

Like Russell McGregor and Kim Pearson, James Huntsman was a faithful tithe-paying Latter-day Saint who was confident that the funds for City Creek didn't come from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly.

We now know with 20-20 hindsight that despite their confidence to the contrary, Russell McGregor, Kim Pearson, James Huntsman, were all wrong. The funds for City Creek didn't come from the Church's pioneer-era businesses. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

There is really no such thing as indirect sacred tithing money. Money generated from tithing is not called sacred tithing anymore because it was not donated by the member. It's just plain money and can therefore be used for whatever purpose the Church considers necessary and prudent.  My opinion.

Thank you for at least partially addressing my questions.

We now know that every year, the church takes in several hundred million dollars in tithing revenue more than it spends. That excess tithing is then donated to Ensign Peak Advisors to be invested. It's curious that members don't seem to have a problem with using tithing dollars to buy stocks and bonds from corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon, but do have a problem with using it to buy a mall across the street from the temple.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Analytics

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thank you for at least partially addressing my questions.

We now know that every year, the church takes in several hundred billion dollars in tithing revenue more than it spends. That excess tithing is then donated to Ensign Peak Advisors to be invested. It's curious that members don't seem to have a problem with using tithing dollars to buy stocks and bonds from corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon, but do have a problem with using it to buy a mall across the street from the temple.

If faithful members were complaining, they had the wrong attitude about tithing.  What they gave to the Church never belonged to them in the first place; it always belonged to God before and after it was given.