Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please describe how showing how few Latter-day Saints understood or believed that interest on tithing reserves were used facilitates the building of empathy by the majority who understood differently (and stayed in the Church, with or without corrected understanding) towards those who left the Church (who also understood differently).

What would be nice if people said something like the following.

“You know what? Huntsman’s thoughts on this issue are similar to what many members of the Church used to think. The Saints who got mad at Craig Paxton’s assertion (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) were mad for basically the same reason that James Huntsman was mad. Like Huntsman, they understood Hinckley as promising that tithing wouldn’t be used, and like Huntsman, they inferred that not using tithing meant tithing wouldn’t be used indirectly.

“While I don’t support his lawsuit, I can understand why he felt betrayed."

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

 

That isn’t what I’m doing. I’m asking you to look at what they said in context. Specifically, I asked you just two simple questions:

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?
2. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.

Why won’t you answer those questions?

I did.

Let me make sure I understand you. For reference, here is the 2012 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...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?

You responded by providing a few out-of-context quotes. For example, one of your quotes is:

• "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.".

Three follow-up questions:

1. Do you think this statement answers JAHS’s 2012 question? 
2. Do you think this statement is a good answer to that question?
3. Do you think this answer is a better than Craig Paxton’s answer (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)? 
4. Do you think this answer is true? Specifically, do you think “tithing funds” are not commingled with investment funds? Because I didn’t think anybody disputed that Ensign Peaks does commingle tithing funds and investment funds.

For my part, I think what this poster said is true if what was meant is that tithing funds include tithing donations that were deposited into the sacred “tithing fund”, and the investment income in that same fund. That money is in the Church’s non-profit arm, and is not commingled with the Church’s for-profit arm.

If you insist that tithing funds include pure, unadulterated  tithing donations only, then they are in fact commingled with investment earnings.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Analytics

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here you go: Declaration of James Huntsman in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Notably absent from his Declaration is any claim regarding or referencing the "direct" or "indirect" use of tithing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.  Do you also have his deposition?

And I found it interesting that his lawyer (on page 29 in one of the emails sent to the church) said:

Quote

This statement by Mr. McMullin is particularly egregious given that at the time it was made, we understand Mr. McMullin himself had already issued checks (comprised of funds from Ensign Peak Advisors’ accumulation of tithing principal) to be used for City Creek Mall development and the Beneficial Life Insurance bailout.

It looks like the original argument from Huntsman was that the principal (the actual dollars that were donated) was used.  Looks like Huntsman's lawyers had to change tactic once the church was able to show that no tithing principal was used.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let me make sure I understand you. For reference, here is the 2012 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...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?

You responded by providing a few out-of-context quotes. For example, one of your quotes is:

• "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.".

Three follow-up questions:

1. Do you think this statement answers JAHS’s 2012 question? 
2. Do you think this statement is a good answer to that question?
3. Do you think this answer is a better than Craig Paxton’s answer (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)? 
4. Do you think this answer is true? Specifically, do you think “tithing funds” are not commingled with investment funds? Because I didn’t think anybody disputed that Ensign Peaks does commingle tithing funds and investment funds.

For my part, I think what this poster said is true if what was meant is that tithing funds include tithing donations that were deposited into the sacred “tithing fund”, and the investment income in that same fund. That money is in the Church’s non-profit arm, and is not commingled with the Church’s for-profit arm.

If you insist that tithing funds include pure, unadulterated  tithing donations only, then they are in fact commingled with investment earnings.

Apart from countering your ongoing mischaracterizations of past statements by Latter-day Saints, I don't really care about this issue, as it has no bearing on the lawsuit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, webbles said:

Thanks.  Do you also have his deposition?

No.

54 minutes ago, webbles said:

And I found it interesting that his lawyer (on page 29 in one of the emails sent to the church) said:

It looks like the original argument from Huntsman was that the principal (the actual dollars that were donated) was used.  Looks like Huntsman's lawyers had to change tactic once the church was able to show that no tithing principal was used.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

A pretty solid summary of last week's hearing by the Tribune:

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing. Back then, most Saints thought the Church didn’t indirectly use tithing because as they understood him, Hinckley said they didn’t use tithing, which implies they didn’t use it directly and didn’t use it indirectly.

I'd be curious if you could cite any sources that refer to the "use of funds" to mean "use indirectly."  Generally, when an organization says "we're gonna use these funds to build a rec center," they DON'T mean that they're going to invest those funds and build the rec center from the generated interest.  In applications related to money or funds, I've found that "use" will almost always mean "spend."  Thus, when Hinckley says the inverse, that "no tithing funds will be used," it is generally understood to mean "no tithing funds will be spent" because that's how money is "used" when people talk about "using" it.  

To argue otherwise seems rather pedantic. Unless you have some solid examples showing that orgs actually do sometimes refer to "using money" to mean an indirect usage of the money.  

This is not a formal CFR, but I think it's a huge weakness in this particular argument.  If you could cite some organizations that use the word "use" in this way, it'd go a long way towards me taking the argument more seriously.  

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apart from countering your ongoing mischaracterizations of past statements by Latter-day Saints, I don't really care about this issue, as it has no bearing on the lawsuit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

A central part of this court case is whether the Church’s statements about how the mall would be funded are true.

Huntsman interpreted the statements one way. Judge Wilson interpreted them another way. Who is right? Who is interpreting the statements the way a reasonable Latter-day Saint would? Looking at conversations among knowledgeable Latter-day Saints from before the IRS complaint about whether interest on unspent tithing was used is an excellent way to figure out what they were thinking.

But you have to read their comments in context.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What would be nice if people said something like the following.

“You know what? Huntsman’s thoughts on this issue are similar to what many members of the Church used to think. The Saints who got mad at Craig Paxton’s assertion (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) were mad for basically the same reason that James Huntsman was mad. Like Huntsman, they understood Hinckley as promising that tithing wouldn’t be used, and like Huntsman, they inferred that not using tithing meant tithing wouldn’t be used indirectly.

“While I don’t support his lawsuit, I can understand why he felt betrayed."

But the common understanding has evolved over the last 20 years with clarifying information, discussion and legal actions. That is a long time to sustain empathy for the attitudes and actions of someone who doesn't likewise adjust (you point out that JH did adjust).

The empathy shifts to their inability to adjust and overcome the effects of misperceived betrayal, and the emotional support is more accurately in the realm of understanding with sympathy or compassion than sharing unresolved and rationalized feelings of betrayal.

On what point(s) are people lacking empathy for JH given his clear understanding? His feelings about the size / use of funds the Church holds? 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

My last point isn’t speculation about question of law, and it isn’t about how a reasonable juror should approach an analysis. Rather, it is evidence of facts about how contemporaneous Latter-day Saints did in fact interpret Hinckley’s remarks.

I really want to go back to that thread and see if I interpret it the same way you do. Short phrases so often leave out context that I don’t feel comfortable assuming you are correct for several of the comments you have quoted. Just to be clear, I think your effort to summarize other posters was smart and you are likely right in a number of the cases.  I just know that people can get lazy, sloppy, or just assume the other person knows all the conditions they are putting on words because they explained them earlier or thought they didn’t have to and this can lead to an abbreviated way of speaking that is ambiguous.

Unfortunately I have other commitments that are keeping me busy enough I shouldn’t even be here, except my mental health needs my daily boost.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

The majority of Latter-day Saints were bothered by this assertion because to them, assurance that tithing wouldn’t be used meant that it would be used neither directly nor indirectly

Or they were bothered enough by the negativity of the criticism they overemphasized some points, unwittingly making it appear they thought using money from  income from invested funds set aside for a rainy day was the same thing as using the invested funds or was the same thing as using tithing (I am trying to be less ambiguous here, but am probably being more confusing, lol).  

I base this on the number of times I have used tithing or other words while thinking “that’s not quite right, but it is good enough because it will take too long to write out exactly what I mean” in this and other conversations as well as the number of times posters clarify what they mean and I realize I or someone else misunderstood what they said because they used an abbreviated way of expressing themselves.

Everyone would have as long of posts as I do when I am trying to be precise if they were trying to be completely unambiguous.  Most people assume others will make the connections anyway, unlike me, but the world hasn’t exploded yet, so they must get close enough most of the time.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Apart from countering your ongoing mischaracterizations of past statements by Latter-day Saints, I don't really care about this issue, as it has no bearing on the lawsuit.  

A central part of this court case is whether the Church’s statements about how the mall would be funded are true.

Yes.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Huntsman interpreted the statements one way.

And his subjective (and, I think, contrived and pretextual and ad hoc) interpretation of Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement, in the end, does not hold sway.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Judge Wilson interpreted them another way.

Judge Wilson concluded, as a finding of fact, Pres. Hinckley's statement was factually correct.  Huntsman attempted to persuade Judge Wilson that Pres. Hinckley's statement could be factually false if the term "tithing" were interpreted to conflate what Pres. Hinckley differentiated (tithes from earnings on invested reserves).  Judge Wilson rejected this proposal because such an exercise in interpretation, re-definition, whatever you want to call it, would violate the First Amendment:

• "Neilsen conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds."
• "{Huntsman} simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds."
• "{T}ithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two."
• "Hinckley distinguished between tithing funds and the earnings on invested reserve tithing funds."
• "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project - both the acquisition of property and the development of that property.  And, as discussed above, that is exactly what happened.  Accordingly ... the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true."
• "{Huntsman} argues that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin.'"
• "{B}ecause Plaintiff’s argument effectively asks this Court to define the term 'tithing funds,' the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s argument."
• "{D}etermining whether the term 'tithing funds' encompasses earnings on invested tithing funds would require an analysis of the Church doctrines and teachings. Such an inquiry would entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of 'ecclesiastical rule, custom or law.' {} The First Amendment bars such an inquiry."

This is a question of law, not fact.  You do not seem to appreciate the profound difference between the two.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Who is right?

On questions of law?  Judge Wilson.  Full stop.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Who is interpreting the statements the way a reasonable Latter-day Saint would?  Looking at conversations among knowledgeable Latter-day Saints from before the IRS complaint about whether interest on unspent tithing was used is an excellent way to figure out what they were thinking.

But such an exercise would be utterly irrelevant to the question of law at hand.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 1, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing.

But I don’t see using invested income as indirectly using tithing because the funds are no longer tithing once they are received by the Church. Maybe I am unusual in this. If I understand correctly, CV sees it the same way.  So maybe there are a few others and maybe there are a lot.  
 

The problem is even if I don’t see it as “tithing” I use that term when I should be using “the funds formerly known as tithing”.  You might see this as a distinction without a difference, but it is a major difference to me because there is a disconnection at the point of reception of my tithing.  The funds no longer have any connection to me, they are not mine, so how can my tithing be indirectly used when it no longer exists?

Hopefully that is clear enough on why I debate your use of “indirect use” and don’t see it as settled or factual as you appear to see it if I understand you correctly.

This belief that tithing once it leaves my hands and is received no longer is mine at all is a religious belief in part because of the reason I pay tithing, but I see the same thing with any service or product I pay for. Someone using the salary I gave them is not me indirectly paying for their purchases even if I am the only one paying them.  That money is all theirs. I have no control over it and therefore it is not indirectly connected to me in the sense of using me or mine.  If I have some sort of influence over how a gift or payment is being used, then I might say “indirectly using something I once possessed”, but otherwise it has no connection to me.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Were the Latter-day Saints who weighed in on those threads unreasonable? That is certainly an argument you could make, but personally, I think more highly of you guys than that.

Is this point irrelevant to whether or not there was fraud involved in your view?

Because if fraud is directly tied to indirect use, I think that is where people will see your reasoning as unreasonable.  They may be making a connection in your reasoning you are not…or maybe you are as I have tried to clarify by asking you some questions, but the answered haven’t teased out the distinction yet I am thinking might be there.

I am trying to see if you are shoehorning members into a position I think many did not hold, unintentionally in my view so I would not accuse you of gaslighting.  I just think you are so certain of your interpretation, you can’t see the nuances that I do and possibly others here, which is why they may be rejecting your premises you think are undeniable.

Maybe in the past conversations people were using “not direct or indirectly” for the same reason I do.  Perhaps they hadn’t yet separated all the reasons they found the critics’ claims offensive out in their mind yet, so they clumped stuff they wouldn’t have clumped if asked for clarification.  And perhaps the response was more a gut response towards the accusation of misuse of funds and so it wasn’t reasoned out yet before they borrowed language from the criticism to reject it, rejecting all the claim because they saw the conclusion as fundamentally wrong. Or something else as what is said often has a mass of unpackable assumptions buried in it in my experience.  And what people think is clear communication isn’t at all. This thread is a great example of that imo as I don’t think there is one conversation going on, but at least two based on how others are describing what they think the other said and then getting disagreed with by the other.

For example, you believe you have a clear and obvious presentation of what members of the board thought back in the day while others think you have substantially misrepresented them. I can see both interpretations myself. I need more time I don’t have to decide which way I lean more, though my guess is more “misrepresented, but only because people weren’t clear about the assumptions they attached to the words” rather than intentional. 

Edited October 1, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 10/1/2024 at 10:28 AM, Analytics said:

What would be nice if people said something like the following.

“You know what? Huntsman’s thoughts on this issue are similar to what many members of the Church used to think.

First, I don't think this is remotely accurate.  I think most Latter-day Saints gave little or no thought to the funding of City Creek.

Second, most of the faithful Latter-day Saints on this board who gave this matter some attention and commented on it understood that Pres. Hinckley stated that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for City Creek Center, and that funding would instead come from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.”  And as Judge Wilson aptly noted, "that is exactly what happened."

Third, Huntsman was paying tithing well before and long after Pres. Hinckley's April 2003 conference talk, so I lend little credence to his insistence that the one or two sentences from that talk were determinative of his decision to contribute tithing.  

Fourth, you yourself have stated that you think Huntsman has "real grievance{s}" against the Church other than those which form the basis for his lawsuit ("1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members"), but that the "problem" with those "real grievance{s}" is that he "{doesn't} have a legal basis to sue on those grounds," and that Huntsman instead "{has} a case" based on City Creek, and so he is suing about that and not about the "real grievance{s}" (regarding the Church's reserve funds).

Fifth, given the pretextual (as in "constituting a pretext; dubious or spurious") nature of Huntsman's lawsuit, your plea that we demonstrate some sort of empathy for his pretextual grievance is . . . pretty weird.

On 10/1/2024 at 10:28 AM, Analytics said:

The Saints who got mad at Craig Paxton’s assertion (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) were mad for basically the same reason that James Huntsman was mad.

I think the Saints who were upset with Craig's comment were likely responding to his effort to frame the issue in provocative and inflammatory and offensive and accusatory terms.  Much like you have done throughout this thread.  And even then, the Saints who spoke up were substantively correct in their assessment (which differentiated between tithing and other sourced of income).  So it was, and is, the Latter-day Saints, not their critics, who had a correct understanding of the funding of City Creek.

And again, even by your own estimation, Huntsman's lawsuit isn't even about City Creek, and is instead about his other (and unstated) "real grievance{s}," which makes comments from Latter-day Saints in 2012 and 2015 even less relevant to the lawsuit.

On 10/1/2024 at 10:28 AM, Analytics said:

Like Huntsman, they understood Hinckley as promising that tithing wouldn’t be used,

And as it turns out, their understanding was vindicated because tithing wasn't used to fund City Creek.

The Latter-day Saints differed from Huntsman in that they did not file a pretextual lawsuit that eventually sought to re-define tithing to conflate tithing with “earnings of invested reserve funds," thus contradicting Pres. Hinckley.

On 10/1/2024 at 10:28 AM, Analytics said:

and like Huntsman, they inferred that not using tithing meant tithing wouldn’t be used indirectly.

This is flagrantly incorrect.  As long as you persist as distorting and mischaracterizing what a few Latter-day Saints said in 2012 and 2015, I will continue to provide links to what they said and quote them verbatim:

Quote

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.

And again, you yourself are no longer buying the factual basis for Huntsman's lawsuit.

On 10/1/2024 at 10:28 AM, Analytics said:

“While I don’t support his lawsuit, I can understand why he felt betrayed."

I don't think he felt "betrayed" at all regarding City Creek.  I think he lost his faith and stopped his observance of the Restored Gospel (around, IIRC, 2015), and some years later saw Nielsen's report, which fostered - as you put it - "real grievance{s}" about the Church's reserve funds, and he then fabricated a fraud claim as a pretext for filing a big splashy lawsuit against the Church (because, as again you put it, his "real grievance{s}" are not "a legal basis to sue" the Church). 

And later on in the suit, when it became apparent to Huntsman and his attorneys that the wheels were coming off the fraud claim, they began to be more explicit in their efforts to re-define tithing so as to avoid summary judgment:

• "Neilsen conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds."
• "{Huntsman} simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds."
• "{T}ithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two."
• "Hinckley distinguished between tithing funds and the earnings on invested reserve tithing funds."
• "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project - both the acquisition of property and the development of that property.  And, as discussed above, that is exactly what happened.  Accordingly ... the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true."
• "{Huntsman} argues that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin.'"
• "{B}ecause Plaintiff’s argument effectively asks this Court to define the term 'tithing funds,' the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s argument."
• "{D}etermining whether the term 'tithing funds' encompasses earnings on invested tithing funds would require an analysis of the Church doctrines and teachings. Such an inquiry would entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of 'ecclesiastical rule, custom or law.' {} The First Amendment bars such an inquiry."

I can, and do, empathize with Huntsman regarding his loss of faith.  I hope he comes back.  But empathize with him about his lawsuit, which even you (!) admit is pretextual and not about his "real grievance{s}" against the Church?  Nope.  Not gonna.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 24, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing. 

Just a page or two back you were saying that Huntsman's "real grievances" were about "1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members" and not about how the Church used "some of its investments" to fund City Creek.

Now you are saying "the real issue" is about the Church "indirectly using tithing" to fund City Creek (which is just a variation on Huntsman's abortive attempt to conflate tithing with earnings on invested reserve funds). 

You also seem to be fabricating this "indirectly using tithing" thing about of thin air.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 1, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

But the common understanding has evolved over the last 20 years with clarifying information, discussion and legal actions. That is a long time to sustain empathy for the attitudes and actions of someone who doesn't likewise adjust (you point out that JH did adjust).

The empathy shifts to their inability to adjust and overcome the effects of misperceived betrayal, and the emotional support is more accurately in the realm of understanding with sympathy or compassion than sharing unresolved and rationalized feelings of betrayal.

On what point(s) are people lacking empathy for JH given his clear understanding? His feelings about the size / use of funds the Church holds? 

I'm asking for one thing: don’t gaslight us and pretend that "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project” (quote from Judge Wilson’s opinion). He did not say that.

I acknowledge that Wilson was able to parse together talks from the 1990’s and 2000’s to make it seem that he said that.

But most Saints didn’t interpret Hinkley in the way Wilson did. We know this because nobody answered the 2012 question by saying, “The correct way to answer the critics is to tell them they are right; we know they are right because Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project."

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the Saints who were upset with Craig's comment were likely responding to his effort to frame the issue in risible and offensive and accusatory terms. 

This

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

don’t gaslight us

This is offensive as it takes intentionally misleading to a malicious level. I could say the same thing about you if I assumed when you have misrepresented my own or smac or others’ comments it was intentional and an attempt to deceive. I don’t believe that. 

I wish the moderators would ban the use of “gaslight” on this board.  It is so insulting  

Smac, your accusations of fabrication out of thin air get close to this, imo. I get you see misrepresentations as so egregious they have to be intentional, but as evidenced in this thread making the accusation of intentional misrepresentation with fabrication or gaslighting does nothing but derail the conversation from the lawsuit…or do it seems to me.  We will save so much time and trouble if everyone drops the accusations of lying and we just have an understanding that misrepresentations happen, who cares why, just correct them and if they repeat, point them out again…and the reader will be able to judge for themselves whether it is rigid entrenched ideas and assumptions that won’t let the writer see other options and therefore adapt or whether it is intentional deception or something else.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm asking for one thing: don’t gaslight us and pretend that "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project” (quote from Judge Wilson’s opinion). He did not say that.

Pres. Hinckley stated that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for City Creek Center, and that funding would instead come from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.”  And as Judge Wilson aptly noted, "that is exactly what happened."

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I acknowledge that Wilson was able to parse together talks from the 1990’s and 2000’s to make it seem that he said that.

LOL.  How many times have you complained about a supposed lack of "context"?  

But when Judge Wilson provides context for Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement, that's . . . bad?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But most Saints didn’t interpret Hinkley in the way Wilson did.

I think most Saints gave little thought to this specific issue.  Those who did, and who commented on this board about it in 2012 and 2015, accepted Pres. Hinckley's differentiation between tithing and “earnings of invested reserve funds," which is also the "the way {Judge} Wilson" understood Pres. Hinckley's remarks.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We know this because nobody answered the 2012 question by saying, “The correct way to answer the critics is to tell them they are right; we know they are right because Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project."

As long as you persist as distorting and mischaracterizing what a few Latter-day Saints said in 2012 and 2015, I will continue to provide links to what they said and quote them verbatim:

Quote

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 October 1, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, most of the faithful Latter-day Saints on this board who gave this matter some attention and commented on it understood that Pres. Hinckley stated that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for City Creek Center, and that funding would instead come from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.”  And as Judge Wilson aptly noted, "that is exactly what happened."

Show me an example. Just one. Because in 2012, it was the critics who were saying the money from the commercial entities and reserves "must have started with tithing money.” JAHS seemed to be bothered by this and asked how this criticism should be responded to.

The correct response is, apparently, "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project,” and according to Judge Wilson, everybody who was paying any attention understood this since 2002. So answer the question you keep dodging and put this to rest:

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?
2. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.

Here is the link:

Go to that link and show me one example of somebody who correctly explained how you should respond to critics when the critics correctly conclude that “it must have started with tithing money."

Since “most” members correctly knew that "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project,” it should be easy to point out somebody who explained this widely known fact to JAHS.

[smac97]

Just now, Analytics said:

Quote

Second, most of the faithful Latter-day Saints on this board who gave this matter some attention and commented on it understood that Pres. Hinckley stated that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for City Creek Center, and that funding would instead come from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.”  And as Judge Wilson aptly noted, "that is exactly what happened."

Show me an example. Just one.

Done.  Many times over.

Just now, Analytics said:

Because in 2012, it was the critics who were saying the money from the commercial entities and reserves "must have started with tithing money.” JAHS seemed to be bothered by this and asked how this criticism should be responded to.

The correct response is, apparently, "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project,” and according to Judge Wilson, everybody who was paying any attention understood this since 2002. So answer the question you keep dodging and put this to rest:

 

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?
2. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.

Here is the link:

Go to that link and show me one example of somebody who correctly explained how you should respond to critics when the critics correctly conclude that “it must have started with tithing money."

Apart from disputing your ongoing distortions and mischaracterizations of past statements of Latter-day Saints on this board, I don't care about this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

I do find the accusation of “gaslighting” insulting enough that I will likely start reporting it since accusing others of lying on the board is against the rules as well unless my memory is mixed up. Will check before reporting.  I will also report anything else I see as an accusation of lying rather than misrepresentation as the latter can be either intentional or unintentional,  but the former is very intentional and is insulting.

[Analytics]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

 

I think the Saints who were upset with Craig's comment were likely responding to his effort to frame the issue in risible and offensive and accusatory terms. 

This

Some of Craig’s posts had some inflammatory jabs in them, but most of them did not. For example, there was nothing “risible and offensive and accusatory” in this question:

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.

Two points on this question. First, in this non-risible, non-offensive, and non-accusatory question, Craig summarized his position (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) as simply tithing funds were used to fund the mall. This indicates that saying funds were indirectly used to fund the mall is implying that funds were used to fund the mall. It’s basic logic, and that is in fact how people talked about it then. This quote proves it.

So what is the answer to Craig’s question? Why was it such a big deal? Nobody said he was saying things that were essentially true but they were upset because he was stating the truth in risible and offensive and accusatory terms. 

Rather, they said:

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.

And they said:

Because the First Presidency has said they weren't and you are calling them liars.

Do you see that? According to their logic, if [Tithing-->Tithing in Excess of Current Needs is Invested--> Investments Earn Return-->$$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in the City Creek Mall], as Craig said, then Church officers/the First Presidency are liars.

That is why they were offended; saying tithing was indirectly used to fund the mall implies that tithing was used to fund the mall, and implying that tithing was used to fund the mall is calling the First Presidency liars.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Show me an example. Just one.

Done.  Many times over.

CFR. 

For your reference, here is the question that establishes the context of that conversation:

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...So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money...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?

CFR: Show me the one example of somebody correctly answering that question before the IRS complaint, or show me the post where you already provided an example.

For your reference, here is the link with the responses to that question: