Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[SeekingUnderstanding]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We now know that every year, the church takes in several hundred billion dollars in tithing revenue more than it spends.

Off by a couple orders of magnitude…

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Off by a couple orders of magnitude…

Oops. I meant millions. Thanks.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

For what it's worth, I don't have much sympathizers for the complainers, either. President Hinckley's comments were at best confusing, and if you understand anything about finance, you understand that the way you cause principal to grow with interest is by investing the principal in for-profit businesses, either by purchasing stocks, bonds, or bank deposits. So why would somebody need assurance that tithing wouldn't be used for that particular investment? It's okay to use tithing to buy shares of the Apple, but it isn't okay to use it to build the mall that hosts the Apple Store?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Which is one reason why if anyone sat down and really thought of it, they would recognize even if all the Church did was put the money in a savings account, it would then be used by the bank to invest.  The only way not to use tithing for any secular purpose is to bury it in the ground until needed and we already know how that goes.

Which means to say that tithing is untouched has to mean the account never drops lower than the principle.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

You are, once again, misrepresenting the facts of this case.

You are stating that the Church used "tithing dollars ... to buy a mall across the street from the temple."

No.  No.  "Tithing dollars" were not spent to "buy a mall."  You are making a false statement of fact when you say this.

Again:

Quote

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 Paul 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.

Pres. Hinckley told us two decades ago that the money for City Creek "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," and that tithing funds would not be used.

As long as you persist in misrepresenting the facts, I will continue to call you on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

It's been interesting to read the back and forth between defenders and critics. Some defenders act like the average lay member should have understood exactly what Hinckley allegedly meant when he referred to "earnings of invested reserve funds." Most members just heard that tithing would not be used and the rest just sounded like Greek - you know those annoying letters that are used in upper level math. This case is all about what Hinckley really meant when he made that statement AND what a member should have reasonably inferred from it. I have noticed over the years the changes to the disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip. I wonder if somebody has a tithing slip from the time of Hinckley's statement. It would be interesting to read the disclaimer.

[Analytics]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are, once again, misrepresenting the facts of this case.

You are stating that the Church used "tithing dollars ... to buy a mall across the street from the temple."

No, I'm not stating that. Don't be silly. 

What I'm doing is explaining how apologists saw the issue. In their way of thinking, indirectly using something is still using something. That is why Russell McGregor was sure that if you followed the money trail, it led back to legacy for-profit businesses and not to tithing. In his words: "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."

Of course you refuse to accept that this was their reasoning, so enlighten me: 

Why was Russell McGregor "confident" that the ultimate source of the money for the mall was the Church's legacy businesses, not investment income on unspent tithing?

Why was Kim Pearson confident about the same thing?

What was their basis of this confidence? And why was it an issue to them?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

For what it's worth, I don't have much sympathizers for the complainers, either. President Hinckley's comments were at best confusing,

Pres. Hinckley's comments were clear and straightforward.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

and if you understand anything about finance, you understand that the way you cause principal to grow with interest is by investing the principal in for-profit businesses, either by purchasing stocks, bonds, or bank deposits.

I entirely agree.

The question, then, is whether James Huntsman is someone who "understand{s} anything about finance."  If he is, and if he "understand that the way you cause principal to grow with interest is by investing the principal in for-profit businesses, either by purchasing stocks, bonds, or bank deposits," then he cannot credibly claim that "tithing" - a voluntary donation of the Church of a tenth of one's income - does not fit within these parameters.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

So why would somebody need assurance that tithing wouldn't be used for that particular investment?

Because tithing wasn't "used for that particular investment."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It's okay to use tithing to buy shares of the Apple,

Yes.  It is perfectly appropriate for the Church to do this where:

• A) the Church is not in debt;
• B) the Church chooses to functioning within its means, such as to leave a surplus each year;
• C) the Church uses eminently sensible means to use the surplus to strengthen the Church's financial health;
• D) the Church's efforts in this regard comply with the law (and, where errors are made, the Church is held accountable, corrects itself, and pays recompense as appropriate); and
• E) the Church's efforts comport with the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.

The Church would be derelict in its stewardship of the Lord's funds if, as you seem to imply it ought, proverbially "went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

but it isn't okay to use it to build the mall that hosts the Apple Store?

I could see all sorts of reasons why the Brethren would want to speak publicly about the funding of City Creek.  A few thoughts:  

Possible Reason No. 1: Ours is a worldwide church, but everyone knows we are headquartered in Utah.  The Church using tithing funds to buy shares in Apple benefits all members equally, whereas the Church investing in a mall would disproportionately benefit members in Utah.  Regardless of whether the investment was a good idea in financial terms (it clearly was), the "optics" would be that the Church is using tithes from the Saints worldwide to disproportionately help the Saints in Utah (as the Utah Saints would, and do, comprise a sizable portion of the people going to the mall as customers).  Consequently, Pres. Hinckley and others, having become aware of potential or actual concerns about perceived "favoritism" arising from it investing in a mall in Salt Lake City, gave assurances over the years that City Creek was purely a financial/business matter, and one that would not arise from tithing funds being used to disproportionately benefit the Saints in Utah. 

Possible Reason No. 2: The Church was, in 2003 (when Pres. Hinckley made his remarks about City Creek), even less communicative about the particulars of its stewardship of the Lord's money than it is now.  This was an instance where it was more communicative and open about the particulars.  Perhaps Pres. Hinckley, being the excellent communicator that he was, saw the utility of the Church becoming less guarded.

Possible Reason No. 3: The Church has long invested in real estate, but has seldom publicly commented on such investments.  Perhaps there is something particular about conspicuous real estate investments in large cities that merit particularized treatment and explanation by the Church.  For example, consider this 2014 KSL Article:

Quote

PHILADELPHIA — The LDS Church announced the construction of a 32-story City Creek-style mixed-use building in downtown Philadelphia for residential and commercial tenants.

The 490,000 square-foot tower at 1601 Vine Street will include 271 market-rate apartments in the Center City district, a few blocks from the iconic Philadelphia City Hall.

Although intended for a wide audience, the building is expected to complement the nearby Philadelphia LDS Temple and adjacent meetinghouse, both of which are currently under construction with an expected completion date of 2016.

The project will be developed by Property Reserve, Inc., the for-profit commercial real estate division of the church corporation.

"The project will be developed by Property Reserve, Inc., the for-profit commercial real estate division of the church corporation."

In other words, the Church was signaling that this development - like City Creek - was a for-profit venture, but using less emphasis about the source of the funds.  Because it is in Philadelphia, far away from headquarters in Utah, there was likely little concern about the Church seemingly showing "favoritism" to the Saints there.

See also this 2022 story out of Arizona: 

Quote

Suburban Land Reserve Inc., the real estate division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has become the latest developer to receive approval from the Glendale City Council to build a large industrial park in the Arizona city’s growing Loop 303 corridor.

The $600 million Parkway 303 East will feature four industrial buildings of 1.1 million square feet each. The 276-acre development site, previously used for agricultural purposes, is at the intersection of Olive and Sarival avenues.
...

Project details

At full build-out, Parkway 303 East will comprise four facilities with 55 feet in height. The development will have approximately 37 percent of lot coverage and feature a total of 2,868 vehicle parking spaces and 957 truck and trailer stalls.

A timetable for when the developer will move forward with the project was not available. The development team includes Withey Morris PLC, the law firm representing Suburban Land Reserve in dealings with the city, architectural firm Butler Design Group and Hunter Engineering.

Neighboring industrial developments

Suburban Land Reserve is also the developer of Parkway 303 West, an industrial park with six buildings totaling 3.4 million square feet at Cotton Lane and Peoria Avenue. The Glendale City Council approved the annexation of 262 acres for the project and rezoning in November 2021.

Note that the story A) acknowledges the relationship between Suburban Land Reserve and the Church, but also B) explains that this is a commercial/business project by the former, with no particular religious dimension as to the latter.

Possible Reason No. 4: City Creek's proximity to Temple Square, plus the Church's investment in it, would have created all sorts of questions/concerns if the Church had not preemptively given public notice about its planned involvement.  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to surmise that some of those questions/concerns would have been about whether the Church was using tithing funds for the project.  Put another way, it would be been unwise for the Church to not do what it did in announcing the particulars of City Creek.

These are just speculation, and off the top of my head.  I suspect the Brethren had more, and more substantive, grounds for their course of action.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Which means to say that tithing is untouched has to mean the account never drops lower than the principle.

This is not entirely true. Tithing is supposed to be used for things like building chapels and temples and for their maintenance, etc. Certainly it would drop below the principal for such expenditures.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is not entirely true. Tithing is supposed to be used for things like building chapels and temples and for their maintenance, etc. Certainly it would drop below the principal for such expenditures.

That is true, I was referring to not dropping below the principal for less religious expenditures. 

[Tacenda]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

For what it's worth, I don't have much sympathizers for the complainers, either. President Hinckley's comments were at best confusing, and if you understand anything about finance, you understand that the way you cause principal to grow with interest is by investing the principal in for-profit businesses, either by purchasing stocks, bonds, or bank deposits. So why would somebody need assurance that tithing wouldn't be used for that particular investment? It's okay to use tithing to buy shares of the Apple, but it isn't okay to use it to build the mall that hosts the Apple Store?

I hadn't thought of that.

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's been interesting to read the back and forth between defenders and critics. Some defenders act like the average lay member should have understood exactly what Hinckley allegedly meant when he referred to "earnings of invested reserve funds." Most members just heard that tithing would not be used and the rest just sounded like Greek - you know those annoying letters that are used in upper level math. This case is all about what Hinckley really meant when he made that statement AND what a member should have reasonably inferred from it. I have noticed over the years the changes to the disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip. I wonder if somebody has a tithing slip from the time of Hinckley's statement. It would be interesting to read the disclaimer.

c/p'd from a blog...the below hasn't helped my trust issues.

"In my country, the…we say the people’s churches, the protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.

HINCKLEY:

Yeah. Yeah.

REPORTER:

Why is it impossible for your church?

HINCKLEY:

Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes."

Salt Lake City, Utah January 29, 2002 Conducted by Helmut Nemetschek at 47 East South Temple, Prior To And In Preparation For, The “Mormon Winter Olympics” – Full Transcript: https://wasmormon.org/gordon-b-hinckley-interview-transcript-zdf-german-television/

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Hinckley's comments were clear and straightforward.

If you say so. But that doesn't change the fact that so many members (e.g. Russell McGregor, Kim Pearson, James Huntsman) thought he meant something other than what you now claim was so clear.

In response to my question, "So why would somebody need assurance that tithing wouldn't be used for that particular investment?" you said:

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because tithing wasn't "used for that particular investment."

That doesn't answer my question. Just because something is true doesn't mean people need assurance of it. President Hinckley didn't assure the Saints that 2 + 2 = 4, because they already knew that. President Hinckley didn't assure the Saints that the Sego Lily is Utah's state flower, because nobody cares. Something being true isn't a sufficient condition of needing to assure somebody of something. If somebody is going to assure somebody of something like this, whether or not it is true has to matter.

So why does it matter whether this was funded with principal or with interest? 

When the Church asked EPA to sell $1.4 billion of their stocks and bonds in for-profit companies so they could transfer the proceeds back to the Church so it could invest it in City Creek Reserve, Inc., why would it matter whether or not the managers at EPA carefully used their tweezers to ensure the specific dollars they sent back were "interest" dollars and not "principal" dollars? President Hinckley felt that the members of the Church needed this assurance. But why? Why is it okay for the non-profit to invest tithing dollars in Apple and Microsoft, but it isn't okay for the non-profit to invest tithing dollars in City Creek Reserve, Inc.?

I'm repeating the same question that in form you answered as Possible Reason No. 1 through Possible Reason No. 4. Those reasons don't answer the questions. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Analytics

[smac97]

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

If you say so. But that doesn't change the fact that so many members (e.g. Russell McGregor, Kim Pearson, James Huntsman) thought he meant something other than what you now claim was so clear.

Well, no.

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

In response to my question, "So why would somebody need assurance that tithing wouldn't be used for that particular investment?" you said:

Quote

Because tithing wasn't "used for that particular investment."

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does.  So does the rest of my post ("I could see all sorts of reasons why the Brethren would want to speak publicly about the funding of City Creek.  A few thoughts:  ..."), which you are apparently ignoring.

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

Just because something is true doesn't mean people need assurance of it.

And yet, sometimes they do.

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

President Hinckley didn't assure the Saints that 2 + 2 = 4, because they already knew that.

But some of them likely did not know whether tithing funds were going to be used to fund City Creek.  And perhaps that was a concern for some, hence Pres. Hinckley's clarification and assurance on that point.

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

President Hinckley didn't assure the Saints that the Sego Lily is Utah's state flower, because nobody cares.

But some of them likely did care about whether tithing funds were going to be used to fund City Creek, hence Pres. Hinckley's clarification and assurance on that point.

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

So why does it matter whether this was funded with principal or with interest? 
...
Why is it okay for the non-profit to invest tithing dollars in Apple and Microsoft, but it isn't okay for the non-profit to invest tithing dollars in City Creek Reserve, Inc.?

Asked and answered ("I could see all sorts of reasons why the Brethren would want to speak publicly about the funding of City Creek.  A few thoughts:  ...")

On 9/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Analytics said:

I'm repeating the same question that in form you answered as Possible Reason No. 1 through Possible Reason No. 4. Those reasons don't answer the questions. 

I think they do.  And I think my off-the-cuff thoughts don't come close to covering all possible reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

An update on the appeal for an en bank review by the Ninth Circuit, from the Deseret News: Various faith groups support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Huntsman tithing appeal

Quote

The ruling that reinstated the lawsuit of a former Latter-day Saint seeking the return of his tithing donations is a dangerous intrusion into internal religious issues that would cause constitutional chaos, a diverse group of religions say in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Cool!

Quote

The brief from Jewish, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist denominations and other organizations says the August ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violates the First Amendment and threatens all denominations, which “now risk a deluge of dubious lawsuits over their use of donated funds.”

This is an entirely reasonable prediction.  And it is, I think, a feature, not a bug, of Huntsman's lawsuit.  

Quote

The group of religions took specific issue with the court saying the issue at hand was secular, not religious, which the brief said was an attempt to do an end run around First Amendment constraints.

Yes, the First Amendment seems to be predominating here.

Quote

“If a court can reframe an inquiry into the meaning of a religious term, as indicated by a church’s highest ecclesiastical leader, as purely ‘secular’ in nature, then there is no sacred ground left under the First Amendment for religious organizations,” the brief said.

Good stuff.  

Huntsman is framing his claim as a tort (fraud) because there is case law that allows such secular claims to continue.  But I think this brief is right, Huntsman's lawsuit really does ask the Court to dive into religious doctrine, such as the meaning of "tithing," which so many here have - following Huntsman's lead - attempted to re-define so as to include monies that are manifestly not "tithing."

Quote

The faith organizations filed the brief Monday with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

California businessman James Huntsman filed a federal lawsuit in March 2021 asking for the return of more than $5 million in tithing he said he donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over a quarter of a century.

A U.S. District Court judge tossed out Huntsman’s lawsuit in September 2021.

But a 2-1 vote in August by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision and reinstated Huntsman’s suit, saying that the issue in question was secular, not religious.

The brief homed in on that part of the decision.

“The majority determined that the questions it faced were ‘secular,’” the brief said. “Yet the question it faced was the meaning of a religious term. And if that is ‘secular,’ then nothing is sacred.”

Not only that, Huntsman wants the federal courts to define this "religious term," and to impose that definition on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Quote

The denominations who filed the amicus brief said labeling the issue secular was a sleight of hand to get around the First Amendment. They called it an enormous threat to religious organizations throughout the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Oregon Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana.

“Under the panel’s logic, every religious dispute can be recharacterized as secular, gutting constitutional protections for religious entities and societies,” the amicus brief said.

“That is why the Supreme Court has consistently refused to allow courts to hide theological elephants in secular mouseholes,” the brief added.

The Church of Jesus Christ appealed the ruling by the two judges last month. The church is seeking an en banc review or rehearing before 11 judges of the Ninth Circuit. The religions that co-signed the amicus brief also requested a rehearing.

The amicus brief quoted the ruling of a previous en banc review of another case by the Ninth Circuit in 2010, when the larger panel of judges declared that the First Amendment “prohibits government from intervening in a religious dispute.”

What does James Huntsman allege?

Huntsman’s suit said that late church President Gordon B. Hinckley and other senior Latter-day Saint leaders misrepresented the financing of the City Creek Mall project when they said tithing funds were not used.

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project,” a church spokesman said when Huntsman filed the lawsuit. “As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 general conference of the church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 general conference.”

The 9th Circuit panel in August held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the questions regarding the fraud claims were secular and did not implicate religious beliefs about tithing itself.

What did the church say in its appeal

“Under the panel’s decision, any disillusioned former adherent who finds his way to the 9th Circuit can sue for a refund and attempt to get civil authorities to label their former church a liar,” lawyers representing the church wrote in its appeal. “It is hard to imagine a greater threat to religious liberty or a better reason to grant en banc review.”

I look forward to reviewing the entirety of the amicus brief.

Quote

What does the amicus brief from other faiths argue?

The amici (friends) represent about 24 million Americans of faith who are not in theological agreement with Latter-day Saints about tithing, the brief said.

But if the panel’s decision stands, it added, “no religious organization within the Ninth Circuit — the nation’s largest circuit, both geographically and demographically — will be safe from judicial or jury intrusion into internal religious issues.”

The panel’s decision represents a broad threat, the brief said, because it would require that every time a disgruntled former church member or employee raised an allegation, a judge or jury would be asked to decide who had more theological understanding, the religious organization or the person.

“And, in attempting to redefine a theological dispute as a secular one, the panel misunderstood the very type of inquiry in which it engaged: interpreting the words of the church’s highest spiritual leader who was, in turn, providing a doctrinal interpretation of religious term based on church scripture and his theological understanding

“It is hard to see an issue that is less secular than that,” the brief said.

I like how plainspoken this brief is.  

Quote

President Hinckley declared that “tithing funds” and “reserve funds” were not the same, and that tithing funds were not being used on the mall project, the brief said.

“The Constitution prohibits any further inquiry, even if there are secular dimensions to the case, because the ultimate inquiry is a theological one,” it said.

The amicus brief also took issue with the panel’s conclusion that it was common usage in the church to consider tithing principal and earnings on tithing principal to be “tithing funds.”

“How did the majority determine this ‘common usage?’” the brief asked. “The only evidence cited was usage by some employees in a single church-directed entity that only handled financial matters.”

The real questions, the brief said, are whether tithing is still called tithing after receipt by the religious organization, and if tithing refers just to the original donation or any interest that may accrue afterward.

“Both across faiths and within faiths, there are a host of opinions on these issues,” the brief said. “Yet somehow the panel majority deemed a district judge or jury to possess sufficient theological prowess to answer the last of these questions, which is the religious dispute at the heart of this case. In so doing, however, the panel ran through the guardrail of the First Amendment — a collision the majority’s decision cannot survive.”

The brief said the panel’s decision ran through that guardrail in three ways:

• “First, it authorizes a jury or judge to decide what amounts to an intra-church dispute between the top leader and employees of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the meaning of tithing.
• “Second, and perhaps alternatively (it’s not clear), the decision authorizes a government decisionmaker to determine which of two possible religious meanings of tithing church leaders were invoking when they made the statements challenged by Huntsman.
• “And third, the decision allows a jury to interpret the church’s scripture.

“In all three respects, the decision gravely offends the First Amendment.”

Wow!  Really good stuff, this.

Quote

Who signed the amicus brief supporting the Latter-day Saints?

• Agudath Israel of America.
• The Christian and Missionary Alliance.
• The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
• The California Southern Baptist Convention.
• The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
• The General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church.
• The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
• The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.
• The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
• The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

Various Jewish groups.  Evangelical Protestants.  Baptists.  Seventh-day Adventists.  Methodists.  Evangelical Pentecostals.  Lutherans.  

I think religionists will continue to have an ever-increasing need to come together to protect themselves from secular opponents, and will therefore have less time and effort available to argue with each other.  Perhaps that's a good thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

"The ruling that reinstated the lawsuit of a former Latter-day Saint seeking the return of his tithing donations is a dangerous intrusion into internal religious issues that would cause constitutional chaos, a diverse group of religions say in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The brief from Jewish, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist denominations and other organizations says the August ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violates the First Amendment and threatens all denominations, which “now risk a deluge of dubious lawsuits over their use of donated funds.”

The group of religions took specific issue with the court saying the issue at hand was secular, not religious, which the brief said was an attempt to do an end run around First Amendment constraints.

“If a court can reframe an inquiry into the meaning of a religious term, as indicated by a church’s highest ecclesiastical leader, as purely ‘secular’ in nature, then there is no sacred ground left under the First Amendment for religious organizations,” the brief said.

The faith organizations filed the brief Monday with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco."

Read the rest:
Various faith groups support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Huntsman tithing appeal

[JustAnAustralian]

The various amicus briefs (there's more than just the one in that article) can be read on the courtlistener page https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66752633/james-huntsman-v-corporation-of-the-president/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Edited October 6, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[smac97]

An opinion piece from the Tribune: William C. Duncan: Coverage of LDS Church tithing lawsuit is missing some key details

Quote

The ongoing lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by a former member over past tithing payments has resulted in some news coverage, including in this paper, that lacks some important details. While good legal reporting is no simple feat, the people’s civic understanding could benefit from improvements in coverage of cases that impact core constitutional rights.

William C. Duncan is "the constitutional law and religious freedom fellow at Sutherland Institute."

Quote

The basic facts of the case are straightforward. The lawsuit is premised on a claim that the church misled members about whether tithing funds would be used on the development of City Creek Center. The church argues, and the trial court agreed, that there was no fraud because the key statement by then-church President Gordon B. Hinckley about the use of tithing funds on the project was factually correct — that money from commercial entities owned by the church and interest earned on reserve funds, not donated tithing funds, would be used on the project.

On appeal, a 2-1 decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed with the trial court and determined the lawsuit should be revived. One circuit judge dissented, agreeing with the trial court decision, but the majority believed a jury should determine whether a reasonable person might have agreed with the plaintiff’s characterization of what constitutes tithing funds, rather than the definition of tithing offered by leaders of the church.

We've seen strenuous efforts, both by Huntsman and some on this board, to conflate "money from commercial entities owned by the church and interest earned on reserve funds" with "donated tithing funds."  I think in the end this will work.

Quote

As reported last week, the church has petitioned for a rehearing by the panel of judges who made that decision or a larger “en banc” panel of judges on the circuit.

The reporting on this petition, however, missed several points, which may give readers a mistaken impression about the important religious freedom implications of the case.

For instance, while The Tribune’s article noted that the church’s petition raised religious freedom concerns, it also relayed the plaintiff’s claim “that all the judges who had reviewed the case thus far — both in U.S. District Court and the three-judge appellate panel — had rejected the idea that it was barred by religious protections.”

This statement misses some key context. As noted above, the trial judge rejected the lawsuit out of hand since President Hinckley’s statement accurately described the source of the funds used in City Creek (no misstatement, no fraud). Thus, an extended discussion of religious freedom might have seemed unnecessary. However, the trial judge actually did talk about religious freedom and did not reject the religious freedom claim. As explained in the petition:

Accordingly, the district court concluded that it “need not” reach or apply the church-autonomy doctrine. But the court recognized that James Huntsman’s claim implicated it. As it explained, 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.” But the court observed that “determining whether the term ‘tithing funds’ encompasses earnings on invested tithing funds would require an analysis of Church doctrines and teachings,” and “[t]he First Amendment bars such an inquiry.”

The dissenting opinion in the 9th Circuit ruling did not address religious freedom claims, but that is different from rejecting the religious freedom issues at play. Having decided there was no misstatement from church leaders that could justify a claim of fraud, the dissenting judge may simply have decided that there was no reason to address the religious freedom concerns.

I noted this same issue here:

Quote

It's not that the trial court deemed the doctrine inapplicable, it just did not "reach" the need to examine the facts in the light of that doctrine.  That happens all the time.

This changes my assessment a bit.  If the trial court did not "reach" the Church Autonomy / Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine (at least, the trial court's decision was not based on it), then the three-judge circuit panel would not have addressed it either, and least not substantively.  Paul Clement may therefore be on stronger legal ground than I first thought.  I had thought that the trial court had evaluated the doctrine and determined that it did not apply, and that Clement would therefore need to overcome that evaluation.  Instead, the trial judge never actually reached or applied that doctrine. And to the extend the trial court discussed the doctrine, it held that “[t]he First Amendment bars such an inquiry.”

The en banc review, if it is granted, will almost certainly "reach" this issue.

Quote

A reader of The Tribune’s coverage could be excused for concluding that the religious freedom claims in the petition had been raised only after other legal arguments had failed, when in fact, they have been a part of the church’s legal filings in response to fraud claims from the beginning.

The press has great capacity to contribute to civic understanding. Legal reporting is not easy, given the volume of documents, technical language, and the nuances of the legal process. But simple practices like summaries of competing arguments could help. Maybe there are other steps that can be taken to help reporters and readers navigate legal issues in ways that increase civic knowledge. Figuring that out would be a valuable contribution because litigation and court decisions have implications for public policy and constitutional rights.

This is a polite critique of the Trib's legal coverage.  I am glad to see it.  Clear, but civil.  Pointed, but constructive.

Quote

As this case continues either to review by a larger panel at the 9th Circuit, review by the Supreme Court, or a return to the district court, members of the press will have the opportunity to enhance the public’s understanding of the core constitutional right of religious freedom. For the benefit of their readers’ civic understanding, they would be wise to do so.

Good stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

On 10/5/2023 at 7:41 PM, smac97 said:

Well, no.

I don’t know if I should be astounded or impressed by your ability to say this with a straight face. Are you really incapable of reading what these guys said without applying 20-20 hindsight?

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Pres. Hinckley's comments were clear and straightforward.

If you say so. But that doesn't change the fact that so many members (e.g. Russell McGregor, Kim Pearson, James Huntsman) thought he meant something other than what you now claim was so clear.

 

Well, no.

 

I don’t know if I should be astounded or impressed by your ability to say this with a straight face.

Roger, you simply are not credible when it comes to fairly or accurately characterizing the position of Latter-day Saints on this issue.

I actually quoted, verbatim, the Latter-day Saints whom you are, in my estimation, mischaracterizing as conflating tithing with, as Mr. Duncan put it, "money from commercial entities owned by the church and interest earned on reserve funds."  Here is the post where I did so.  An excerpt:

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.

This is not the first time you have materially mischaracterized the position of the Latter-day Saints.  For example, back in 2019, you made these remarks about Terryl Givens:

Quote

Your fixation on Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay's theory about "big lists" is really missing the mark here. As a chess analogy, I'm not a very good chess player. At all. But if you put me in the middle of a game with a strong enough position, I could beat any Grand Master or chess supercomputer. The Grand Masters could write hundreds of books about chess, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the pieces are arranged in such a way that even a dimwit like me can see the endgame, I will win.

As an example of what I mean, our own consiglieri is an extremely well-read ex-apologist now critic. He has a very articulate and accessible podcast called "Radio Free Mormon". A recent episode is called "The Amazingly Subversive Terryl Givens," which goes through Givens's latest book and shows how it is subversive in the sense that it contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a "big list." Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language, but if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud. A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless. Listen to the podcast. 

Once more, your characterization of Terryl Givens:

• "Givens's latest book ... is subversive ... {and} contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a 'big list.'"
• "Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language,"
• "if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud."
• "A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless."
• "Listen to the podcast."

I responded:

Quote

So I listened to most of the podcast (it's a bit tedious).  

I also sent an email to Terryl Givens.  I quoted (verbatim) the second paragraph above, and asked him if he would agree with your characterization/conclusion (that he is conceding that the Pearl of Great Price is "a fraud").  He responded within minutes and categorically rejected your characterization (calling "patently false" your allegation that he believes or implies the PoGP is a "fraud").

Given that Givens is perhaps the world's leading expert on what he believes, and given how massively incorrect you were in reaching a purportedly "inescapabl{e}" conclusion derived from applying "patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying," I think you'll understand which of the two sources I will find more persuasive.  

I just now went back and looked at the email I received from Bro. Givens.  Not only did he call your claim about him "patently false," he also said this: "I dont believe any careful reader of the entire book could reasonably conclude such a thing."

To paraphrase a guy, I don’t know if I should have been astounded or impressed by your ability to make claims about "inescapabl{e}" conclusions such as the above.

Anyhoo, you then responded in that thread:

Quote

Thank you for listening to the podcast and for giving Dr. Givens an opportunity to respond to my characterization. And thank you for considering my views on this. 

I presume you see my point, and with that, I'll bow out of the conversation.

I took the first line above as a tacit admission of material error on your part, but then in the second part you state "I presume you see my point," which I did not know then, and do not know now, how to construe.  

You have now done the same in this thread as regarding the position of Sky, Scott Lloyd, Mola Ram, Pahoran, Freedom, JAHS, BCSpace, Mark Beesley, Deborah, Wade Englund, selek1, LeSellers, The Nehor, Robert F. Smith, JLHPROF, Bluebell, Storm Rider, Mystery Meat, Stargazer, readstoomuch, mikegriffith1, and kimpearson.  You are not fairly or accurately stating their positions/understandings of what does, and does not, constitute "tithing" in a Latter-day Saint context.

Now, I am certainly open to correction.  I may be wholly or partially misreading/misunderstanding/mischaracterizing the positions of the foregoing persons taken in 2012 and 2015.  Feel free to provide quotes from these folks to demonstrate that, and I will retract and apologize for any error on my part.  But at present, I will reiterate my prior assessment:

Quote

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.

I will also re-post my 2019 comment (emphases added) :

Quote

I've been musing the last little bit about Consig's and Analytics' assessment of Terryl Givens.  These two are well-seasoned observers of the Church.  They know a lot about the Church.  It is interesting, then, to see them so spectacularly mis-read Givens. 

Consig pubicly characterizes Givens' latest book as "amazingly subversive."  Roger publicly declares that if "patience and intellect" are used to read Givens' book, "one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud."

Givens himself rebuts these characterizations of his position.  "Patently false," he calls them.

This does not seem like an isolated incident.  I feel like our critics are not really listening to us.  They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position.  It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charact{er}ize us.  They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light.  

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility (the "hammer"), then every story about the Church can be construed to make us look bad ("as if it were a nail").

Roger, you are not listening to us. Your "inescapable" conclusion about Givens's position was, according to Givens, "patently false."  Your characterization of Latter-day Saints in the 2012 and 2015 is likewise entirely or mostly wrongheaded.

You are not understanding us.  You are not accurately describing or characterizing our position.  And since you seem to be repeating this behavior, I surmise that you don't want to listen to or understand or fairly characterize us.  I just do not see how a person as manifestly intelligent as you can end up with such utterly wrongheaded characterizations of the Latter-day Saints.  

23 hours ago, Analytics said:

Are you really incapable of reading what these guys said without applying 20-20 hindsight?

I attempted to overcome "20-20 hindsight" by actually quoting, and providing specific links to (for context and foundation), the 2012/2015 comments of the Latter-day Saints.

I let the Latter-day Saints speak for themselves.  I think you should do the same.

Again, you simply are not credible when it comes to fairly or accurately characterizing the position of Latter-day Saints on this issue.

I am content to let readers review my posts (which include verbatim quotes from various Latter-day Saints in 2012 and 2015) and your posts (which rely on your characterization of Latter-day Saints, rather than the statements of the Latter-day Saints themselves) and reach their own conclusions about which of us hews more closely to correctly understanding and presenting the position of the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by smac97

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Now, I am certainly open to correction.  I may be wholly or partially misreading/misunderstanding/mischaracterizing the positions of the foregoing persons taken in 2012 and 2015.  Feel free to provide quotes from these folks to demonstrate that, and I will retract and apologize for any error on my part.

Okay, I’ll accept your invitation. 

Part 1: As a baseline for comparison, here are the facts that we know:

Starting in the early 1960’s, the Church decided it would budget its operations to live on a percentage of annual tithing and save the remainder in a reserve fund.

In September 1996, Ensign Peak Advisors was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) charity, with the intention that it would be an integrated auxiliary of the Church and hold “the reserves of the reserves.” The Church made regular donations of surplus tithing to Ensign Peak Advisors, which for a number of years were approximately $1 billion per year. By November 2019, its invested assets were about $105.6 billion. This was composed of cash, treasury securities, bonds, public and private stock, etc. Ensign Peak Advisors does not use fund accounting, and there is no way of identifying whether or not a particular dollar was a dollar of tithing or a dollar of investment returns. 

The money in Ensign Peak Advisors is essentially unspent tithing revenue, accumulated with investment returns. 

Between 2010 and 2014, approximately $1.4 billion of money in Ensign Peak Advisors was donated back to the Church. The Church used the money it received from Ensign Peak Advisors to purchase newly issued stock in City Creek Reserves, Inc.

Those are the facts. I’m not representing what anybody believes. I’m just stating what is true.

Part 2: How the Appologists Got it Wrong

As few representative examples, I’ll quote a few apologists. I’ll mark in red things we now know are false.

In one of the most up-voted threads in the history of this board, Kim Pearson said on June 15, 2015:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65492-not-tithing-funds/page/3/

Quote

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation.
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls.
 
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.

That is false. The Church may earn a return on its savings by loaning money to for-profit businesses, including the ones it owns. It may also earn a return on its savings by purchasing equities, including the equities that were issued by City Creek Reserve, Inc.

Quote

 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.

That is false. While some of the reserves are invested conservatively, others are invested in stocks, which are not "very conservative investments." Furthermore, the amount of money saved in the reserves is enough to sustain the Church for a very long time, perhaps into perpetuity.

Quote

 The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members.

That's true, but misleading. It's investment income is now more than the donations of the members.

Quote

 Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings.

That is false. When you include investment returns as part of its income, the Church uses the majority of its income to increase the size of its investment portfolio. It uses less than 50% of its income for the things Pearson listed above.

Quote

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.

While the Church probably used some money that Deseret Management Corp. had lying around, it also used $1.4 billion of money from the 501(c)(3) non-profit Ensign Peak Advisors (which in the broad scheme of things is purportedly part of the "non for profit entity we all know as the Church" and not part of the for-profit entity).

Quote

 No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek.  

Money from Ensign Peak Advisors was used to finance City Creek, and the source of that money was donations from Church members. The claim that interest on savings was used and not principle isn't even wrong--there is no way to tell whether the specific dollars donated were tithing dollars or interest dollars. Accounting doesn't work that way. 

Quote

That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status.

That is false. Churches are allowed to invest their savings.

Quote

 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.
 

Note the following:

• Pearson says "All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity." That would seem to preclude the Church saving vast amounts of unspent tithing so that it could accumulate vast quantities of interest and use some of it to build a mall, but who am I to try to understand his point?
• Pearson says "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." That would seem to preclude the Church saving vast amounts of unspent tithing so that it could accumulate vast quantities of interest and use some of it to build a mall, but who am I to try to understand his point?

Even though his post received zero up-votes, Mormonnewb made the excellent point that "One quick question: Is the Church really spending just about every dime it gets from tithing/charity (less a tiny reserve that doesn't seem to accumulate)?  If so, isn't this a problem for the long-term?  As the Church continues to grow faster outside of America and Europe, its membership will be become progressively poorer (on a per-capita income basis).  In turn, this should result in a reduced rate of giving per member (in general, poor people give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than their richer counterparts).  If the Church is just barely keeping its head above water now (from a tithing standpoint), what's going to happen as expenses grow faster than revenue?"

Pearson responded:

Quote

I have never heard of the for profit arm of the Church being used to prop up the non for profit arm of the Church.  My understanding is that the Church in recent times has always lived with in its means.  If tithing and other offerings declines, the Church slows down construction of buildings and temples and will look to cut administrative costs related primarily to paid Church employees who work for the non profit arm (mainly in the Church administrative organization in Salt Lake and seminaries and institutes).

That's actually true, which is why it doesn't need the huge reserves it now has.

Quote

 The reserves carried by the non profit arm have been described as prudent.  My guess would be  maybe 6 months to a 1 year.

Yes, reserves of the size Pearson imagines would be prudent. However, the actual sizer of the reserves is perhaps 30 times that.

Quote

 Yes the Church would quickly be in trouble if a significant number of members stopped any and all donations.  I view that as part of the miracle that is the Church finance system under guidance from above.  There is a lot of faith being exercised as temples and buildings are announced.  This is also why no more Church schools are being opened.  The other side of the miracle is that for years members supported local building operations and construction with additional budget assessments.   That all ceased in the late 80's because members became more faithful in their payment of tithes and offerings.

Alan said:

Quote

In my view the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable. After all, that is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.

Exactly. We can argue until the end of time about whether using using tithing to generate investment income to build a mall is really using tithing money to build a mall, but Alan was exactly right when he said "[tithing] is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place."

That seems obvious to us now, but back then, Bluebell took issue with this and said he was wrong. Her argument was:

Quote

If you read further you'll find a post from someone who has worked as an accountant for the church. They explain how tithing wasn't used.

I realize you'll refuse to concede this, but in the context of what Alan and Kim Pearson had just said, claiming "tithing wasn't used" was claiming it wasn't used directly, and wasn't used to generate investment income to then be used for the mall (i.e. "tithing wasn't used" was taking issue with Alan saying "[tithing] is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.")

A critic took issue with this line of thinking and explained how the Church must have significant reserves saved up. He said, "For example, say that one year the Church takes in a cool $1 Billion in tithing.  It might budget to spend $900 Million on its various "paid by tithing" operating expenses, and save the remaining $100 Million." The result is vast sums of money that must be invested commercially in order to generate a return.

Bluebell responded,

Quote

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

That is false. At the time, the Church was saving about a billion dollars a year, every year and had enough saved up to keep the church running for decades. Some of the money was liquid. Much of it was invested in illiquid private equity and real estate.

The critic then said,

Quote

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.

Was the critic wrong?  

Three years earlier, Pahoran said something that was exactly in line with KimPearson. Somebody asked:

Quote

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

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

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

Pahoran responded:

Quote

 

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

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

Of course, planting and raising crops, building houses and cities, digging irrigation ditches and various other activities does create wealth; just not of the monetary kind. Monetary wealth comes from business, the buying and selling of goods and services. From the very earliest period of settlement, the Church was investing in business ventures. They were primarily driven by "community good" considerations, but of course they had to make a profit in order to be viable. If a "genealogy" of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to the tithing paid in St George after President Snow's famous "Windows of Heaven" talk, but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Pahoran was wrong. We now know that if City Creek Mall's pedigree goes back to tithing paid in the 60's through 2000's--not to the original ZCMI.

My assertion is that Kim Pearson, Pahoran, Bluebell, et. al. believed exactly what they said. And my further assertion is that James Huntsman believed the same things they believed for the same reasons. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Analytics

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

You have now done the same in this thread as regarding the position of Sky, Scott Lloyd, Mola Ram, Pahoran, Freedom, JAHS, BCSpace, Mark Beesley, Deborah, Wade Englund, selek1, LeSellers, The Nehor, Robert F. Smith, JLHPROF, Bluebell, Storm Rider, Mystery Meat, Stargazer, readstoomuch, mikegriffith1, and kimpearson.  You are not fairly or accurately stating their positions/understandings of what does, and does not, constitute "tithing" in a Latter-day Saint context.

Now, I am certainly open to correction.  I may be wholly or partially misreading/misunderstanding/mischaracterizing the positions of the foregoing persons taken in 2012 and 2015.  Feel free to provide quotes from these folks to demonstrate that, and I will retract and apologize for any error on my part.  But at present, I will reiterate my prior assessment:

Quote

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.

 

Okay, I’ll accept your invitation. 

And yet, you didn't.  My "invitation" pertains to you defending what I have described as you "not fairly or accurately stating their positions/understandings of what does, and does not, constitute 'tithing' in a Latter-day Saint context."  In your very long post here, you don't do that (barely at all, anyway).

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Part 1: As a baseline for comparison, here are the facts that we know:

<SNIP>

None of this is particularly relevant to what - according to Latter-day Saints - does, and does not, constitute "tithing" in a Latter-day Saint context.

Again, you are not listening to us.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Part 2: How the Appologists Got it Wrong

As few representative examples, I’ll quote a few apologists. I’ll mark in red things we now know are false.

In one of the most up-voted threads in the history of this board, Kim Pearson said on June 15, 2015:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65492-not-tithing-funds/page/3/

Quote

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation.
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls.
 
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.

That is false. The Church may earn a return on its savings by loaning money to for-profit businesses, including the ones it owns. It may also earn a return on its savings by purchasing equities, including the equities that were issued by City Creek Reserve, Inc.

First, gotta love the "apologists" label.  I suspect you mean it as a deprecation, but I am happy to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  That said, the topic here isn't really about the Church's doctrines, history, practices, etc. (which are the usual topics for "apologetics").  Instead, to topic under discussion here is your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."  In that context, you are the "apologist."

Second, the predicate to the red-font statement by Kim ("All of these funds") is, I think, in the immediately preceding sentence: "Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates."  (Emphasis added.)  "Specific donations" are, by my understanding, not "tithing."  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here.  I think Kim was referring to donations to the Church that come "with strings attached."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

As a general rule, gifts of cash, land, easements, or other assets to a charity may be used, at the discretion of the charity, for any of its charitable purposes. A conservation organization soliciting a gift for a specific purpose, or a donor willing to give only for a specific purpose, may be creating a restricted gift, a gift which limits—sometimes sharply—the organization’s discretion in managing the gift. A specific purpose may be defined narrowly or broadly. The narrower the purpose (in other words, the more restrictive the gift), the greater the likelihood that it will present management challenges to the organization.

Here:

Quote

Regardless of the form of the donation, the permissible uses of charitable gifts by a nonprofit depend on whether the donations are restricted gifts or unrestricted gifts. Restricted gifts to charities are funds that are set aside for a particular purpose by a donor. Charities are limited to using those funds only for that purpose. Per a donor’s wishes, restricted gifts could be for a specific purpose, such as designating funds for a special project, or for use within a certain period of time. Restrictions on gifts to charities can also be permanent or temporary, depending on the donor’s instructions.

Here:

Quote

Gifts can be restricted as to time, restricted as to a specific purpose, or both. Time restrictions on gifts require that an organization hold a gift for some period of time, or more commonly, in perpetuity. 

We can, I suppose, contact Kim about this.  But I don't much see the point, since it is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

That is false. While some of the reserves are invested conservatively, others are invested in stocks, which are not "very conservative investments."

Says you.

There is a very broad spectrum of risk in investing in the stock market.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

What Is Conservative Investing?

Conservative investing is an investment strategy that prioritizes the preservation of capital over growth or market returns. Conservative investing thus seeks to protect an investment portfolio's value by investing in lower-risk securities such as blue chip stocks, fixed-income securities, the money market, and cash or cash equivalents.

In a conservative investing strategy more than half of a portfolio will generally be held in debt securities and cash equivalents rather than equities or other risky assets. Conservative investing can be contrasted with aggressive investing.

My understanding is that the Church does not do "aggressive investing," and instead does "conservative investing." 

You must be aware of this stuff, and yet here you are, blithely declaring that there is no such thing as "very conservative investments {in stocks}."

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, the amount of money saved in the reserves is enough to sustain the Church for a very long time, perhaps into perpetuity.

Says you.  There are all sorts of scenarios where the Church could run low on donations and high on expenditures, and end up in economic peril.

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members.

That's true, but misleading. It's investment income is now more than the donations of the members.

A point not addressed in Kim's statement.

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings.

That is false. When you include investment returns as part of its income, the Church uses the majority of its income to increase the size of its investment portfolio. It uses less than 50% of its income for the things Pearson listed above.

"When you include" being the operative phrase.  I don't know that Kim was doing that, and from the context I really doubt he was.

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

 

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.

 

While the Church probably used some money that Deseret Management Corp. had lying around, it also used $1.4 billion of money from the 501(c)(3) non-profit Ensign Peak Advisors (which in the broad scheme of things is purportedly part of the "non for profit entity we all know as the Church" and not part of the for-profit entity).

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek.  

Money from Ensign Peak Advisors was used to finance City Creek, and the source of that money was donations from Church members.

This is getting stale.  You want to conflate all of the Church's income into "donations from Church members," and then conflate all such donations into "tithing" (as evidenced by your repeated use of the infinitely regressive "hey, it's all 'derived from' tithing, so it's all tithing!" reasoning, such as it is).  This is a rank falsehood of your own fabrication.

And I addressed this earlier in this thread:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Tithing is what I give to the Church in my view.  What the church owns is not tithing, but just money in my view as they are not tithing it to anyone.

But all of EPA came from tithing.

 

 

This is infinitely regressive.

Tithing is a charitable donation by members of the Church to the Church.  If the Church receives $1,000.00 as a tithe and invests it, earning $200 in interest, that $200.00 is not tithing because it is not a charitable donation by a member of the Church to the Church.

Quote

We can parse the words all we want.  But the church assets ultimately all come from contributions. 

But the Church's assets and income are not all "tithing."

Again, what you are saying here is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

The claim that interest on savings was used and not principle isn't even wrong--there is no way to tell whether the specific dollars donated were tithing dollars or interest dollars. Accounting doesn't work that way. 

Roger, you are just up in the night about this.

The Church is obligated to keep track of its sources of income.  Some of those sources of income are charitable donations characterized as "tithing," and some other charitable donations can also be made (fast offerings, bequests, restricted donations, etc.) that - while "charitable," are not "tithing."  Still other sources of income are from investments (which income, under the law, is tax free)  and for-profit ventures (which do pay taxes).

Your are making an ongoing attempt to spin a yarn about the Church's finances being a po-tay-to po-tah-to sort of thing, where each dollar it holds is legally/financially indistinguishable from every other dollar (in terms of it source, whether it is taxable, its intended use, the Church's discretion as to its use, etc.).  This is untrue, and at this point that yarn insults the intelligence of your readers.  

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status.

That is false. Churches are allowed to invest their savings.

Obviously "{c}hurches are allowed to invest their savings."  Nobody (including, I suspect, Kim) is suggesting otherwise.

I'm reasonably confident that Kim's point was that what the Church can't do is lie to its members about the source of the funds used to finance City Creek (since Kim was, in context, speaking of the statement that "{n}o donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek").  

And again, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

Note the following:

• Pearson says "All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity." That would seem to preclude the Church saving vast amounts of unspent tithing so that it could accumulate vast quantities of interest and use some of it to build a mall, but who am I to try to understand his point?
• Pearson says "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." That would seem to preclude the Church saving vast amounts of unspent tithing so that it could accumulate vast quantities of interest and use some of it to build a mall, but who am I to try to understand his point?

What does any of this have to do with your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing"?

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Even though his post received zero up-votes, Mormonnewb made the excellent point that "One quick question: Is the Church really spending just about every dime it gets from tithing/charity (less a tiny reserve that doesn't seem to accumulate)?  If so, isn't this a problem for the long-term?  As the Church continues to grow faster outside of America and Europe, its membership will be become progressively poorer (on a per-capita income basis).  In turn, this should result in a reduced rate of giving per member (in general, poor people give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than their richer counterparts).  If the Church is just barely keeping its head above water now (from a tithing standpoint), what's going to happen as expenses grow faster than revenue?"

Pearson responded:

Quote

I have never heard of the for profit arm of the Church being used to prop up the non for profit arm of the Church.  My understanding is that the Church in recent times has always lived with in its means.  If tithing and other offerings declines, the Church slows down construction of buildings and temples and will look to cut administrative costs related primarily to paid Church employees who work for the non profit arm (mainly in the Church administrative organization in Salt Lake and seminaries and institutes).

That's actually true, which is why it doesn't need the huge reserves it now has.

A value judgment on your part, and one that is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The reserves carried by the non profit arm have been described as prudent.  My guess would be  maybe 6 months to a 1 year.

Yes, reserves of the size Pearson imagines would be prudent. However, the actual sizer of the reserves is perhaps 30 times that.

Quote

Yes the Church would quickly be in trouble if a significant number of members stopped any and all donations.  I view that as part of the miracle that is the Church finance system under guidance from above.  There is a lot of faith being exercised as temples and buildings are announced.  This is also why no more Church schools are being opened.  The other side of the miracle is that for years members supported local building operations and construction with additional budget assessments.   That all ceased in the late 80's because members became more faithful in their payment of tithes and offerings.

Again, what you are saying here is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Alan said:

Quote

In my view the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable. After all, that is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.

Exactly.

No, not "exactly."  Not even close.

Again, you are just spinning a yarn about the Church's finances being a po-tay-to po-tah-to sort of thing, where each dollar it holds is legally/financially indistinguishable from every other dollar.  This is not remotely accurate.

And more to the point, this is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing." 

It looks like Alan (who, based on his posts, is an observant Latter-day Saint) buys into the same general conclusion you have (he says "the claim that no tithing funds were used for City Creek et al is unsustainable").  So you managed to find one Latter-day Saint that kinda sorta agrees with you.  Kinda not, though, since he does not seem to actually conflate all the Church's income into the rubric of "tithing," and instead adopts the "infinitely regressive" philosophy that, in my view, has little relevance to Pres. Hinckley's remarks.  Alan's presupposition in 2012, and your presupposition in 2023, cannot reasonably be retroactively passed back in time to Pres. Hinckley's statement in 2003.  Pres. Hinckley clearly believed that the statement (that no tithing funds were used for City Creek) was sustainable because, well, he said it.  Publicly.  In prepared (not off-the-cuff) remarks.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

We can argue until the end of time about whether using using tithing to generate investment income to build a mall is really using tithing money to build a mall, but Alan was exactly right when he said "[tithing] is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place."

"{D}erived from tithing" doesn't work.  You simply cannot conflate all of the Church's sources of income into the rubric of "tithing."  And you cannot foist that false conflation onto the Latter-day Saints.  We do not believe that, nor does the Church teach this, nor does the government act as if this is so.  You are just making this stuff up as you go along.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

That seems obvious to us now, but back then, Bluebell took issue with this and said he was wrong. Her argument was:

Quote

If you read further you'll find a post from someone who has worked as an accountant for the church. They explain how tithing wasn't used.

I realize you'll refuse to concede this, but in the context of what Alan and Kim Pearson had just said, claiming "tithing wasn't used" was claiming it wasn't used directly, and wasn't used to generate investment income to then be used for the mall (i.e. "tithing wasn't used" was taking issue with Alan saying "[tithing] is where the church get's it's money. The income from investments is derived from tithing, for these investments were obtained using excess tithing funds in the first place.")

Again, what you are saying here is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

I realize you'll refuse to concede this, but

• "tithing" is an unrestricted charitable donation, typically 1/10th of one's "increase," to the Church, and
• the Church also receives other charitable donations, both restricted and unrestricted (fast offerings, bequests, etc.) that are not "tithing," and
• the Church also invests a portion of tithed funds, and in so doing realizes income on those investments, which investment income is not "tithing," and
• the Church also has for-profit ventures, the profits of which are taxed, but which post-tax profits also constitute income to the Church, but which income is not "tithing," and
• faithful and observant Latter-day Saints, and even most reasonable outsiders (including secular governments), acknowledge the foregoing distinctions between "tithing" and the Church's other sources of income.

Kim, AFAICS, said nothing to support your continued misrepresentation about what Latter-day Saints do, and do not, consider to be "tithing."

"Alan" apparently buys into your position, but I think more in an abstract, philosophical sense. 

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

A critic took issue with this line of thinking and explained how the Church must have significant reserves saved up. He said, "For example, say that one year the Church takes in a cool $1 Billion in tithing.  It might budget to spend $900 Million on its various "paid by tithing" operating expenses, and save the remaining $100 Million." The result is vast sums of money that must be invested commercially in order to generate a return.

Bluebell responded,

Quote

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

That is false. At the time, the Church was saving about a billion dollars a year, every year and had enough saved up to keep the church running for decades. Some of the money was liquid. Much of it was invested in illiquid private equity and real estate.

Again, what you are saying here is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

For pete's sake, Roger.  Bluebell is still on this board.  We can just ask her if your characterization is accurate or not.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

The critic then said,

Quote

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.

Was the critic wrong?  

Again, what you are saying here is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Three years earlier, Pahoran said something that was exactly in line with KimPearson. Somebody asked:

<SNIP>

Pahoran responded:

<SNIP>

Pahoran was wrong. We now know that if City Creek Mall's pedigree goes back to tithing paid in the 60's through 2000's--not to the original ZCMI.

Again, what you are saying here is not germane to your continued failure/refusal to listen to, or accurately characterize, the position of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and is not, "tithing."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

My assertion is that Kim Pearson, Pahoran, Bluebell, et. al. believed exactly what they said.

None of which, though, said anything supportive of your ongoing mischaracterizations of the Latter-day Saints regarding what they understand is, and is not, "tithing."

Ironically, you omit a reference to Alan, the one Latter-day Saint who said something that sort of does support your characterization.  Weird.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

And my further assertion is that James Huntsman believed the same things they believed for the same reasons. 

What a waste of time you just spent on this post.  You did nothing to advance or defend your ongoing mischaracterizations of the Latter-day Saints regarding what they understand is, and is not, "tithing."

Roger, you simply are not credible when it comes to fairly or accurately characterizing the position of Latter-day Saints on this issue (that is, the understanding of the Latter-day Saints regarding what is, and what is not, "tithing").  I actually quoted, verbatim, the Latter-day Saints whom you are, in my estimation, mischaracterizing as conflating tithing with, as Mr. Duncan put it, "money from commercial entities owned by the church and interest earned on reserve funds."  Here is the post where I did so. 

You have materially misrepresented, by this point several times over, the positions of various Latter-day Saints (Sky, Scott Lloyd, Mola Ram, Pahoran, Freedom, JAHS, BCSpace, Mark Beesley, Deborah, Wade Englund, selek1, LeSellers, The Nehor, Robert F. Smith, JLHPROF, Bluebell, Storm Rider, Mystery Meat, Stargazer, readstoomuch, mikegriffith1, and kimpearson).  You are not fairly or accurately stating their positions/understandings of what does, and does not, constitute "tithing" in a Latter-day Saint context.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 11, 2023 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

18 hours ago, Analytics said:

The claim that interest on savings was used and not principle isn't even wrong--there is no way to tell whether the specific dollars donated were tithing dollars or interest dollars. Accounting doesn't work that way. 

 

You keep saying this, and it keeps boggling my brain.  As a financial layman, it makes no sense to me when experience and logic tell me otherwise.  

• Endowments HAVE TO distinguish between principal and interest.  If accounting doesn't work that way, how could they do that?
• When I make my monthly mortgage payment to the bank, they are able to determine how much of that payment applies to principal and how much to interest.  If accounting doesn't work that way, how could they do that?
• The annual budget for the city I live in has a line item called "interest on investments."  The principal for those investments came from unspent taxes and fees, yet the line item only accounts for the interest on those investments.  If accounting doesn't work that way, how could they do that?
• Logic tells me that if my mother gives me $50 a month for groceries, and after four months, I have spent $75 on groceries and have a balance of $127, then $2 of that balance did not come from my mother.  It is simplicity itself to set up a spreadsheet to track this.  Perhaps this goes against some professional accounting standard; I don't know.  But it is inaccurate to say "there is no way to tell," when obviously, there is some way to tell. 

Again: I'm a financial layman.  You could very well be right.  But because your claim goes against everything that I do know about math and finance, that this statement needs to be clearly demonstrated and not just asserted. 

This is not a formal CFR. Feel free to respond or ignore; we all have busy lives.    

Edited October 11, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

You keep saying this, and it keeps boggling my brain.  As a financial layman, it makes no sense to me when experience and logic tell me otherwise. 

The issue is that the money is fungible. When you use currency, it doesn't matter whether you use a dollar bill or 4 quarters. With physical currency, you could separate it out - this hundred came from here, and that hundred came from there. But once we put this money in to the bank (into the digital economy) there is no way to distinguish between one dollar and another. We can't separate them out (except as an accounting exercise) - and since we aren't dealing with physical currency, this sort of distinction makes no sense at all.

This is what he is referring to. When my wife and I have our paychecks deposited into the same account, there isn't any way to determine who earned which dollar we just spent - and since it is a digital currency, the idea of trying to differentiate between the two is meaningless. As an accounting feature, we can say how much of what we spent came from my check as opposed to my wife's check - but this is a feature of the accounting (the paper exercise - or as you describe it, the spreadsheet). The accounting create an illusion that we know where the money came from - but with digital currency, it is only an illusion.

[Stormin' Mormon]

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The issue is that the money is fungible. When you use currency, it doesn't matter whether you use a dollar bill or 4 quarters. With physical currency, you could separate it out - this hundred came from here, and that hundred came from there. But once we put this money in to the bank (into the digital economy) there is no way to distinguish between one dollar and another. We can't separate them out (except as an accounting exercise) - and since we aren't dealing with physical currency, this sort of distinction makes no sense at all.

This is what he is referring to. When my wife and I have our paychecks deposited into the same account, there isn't any way to determine who earned which dollar we just spent - and since it is a digital currency, the idea of trying to differentiate between the two is meaningless. As an accounting feature, we can say how much of what we spent came from my check as opposed to my wife's check - but this is a feature of the accounting (the paper exercise - or as you describe it, the spreadsheet). The accounting create an illusion that we know where the money came from - but with digital currency, it is only an illusion.

Isn't the point of Fund Accounting to make that illusion more real?

Quote

If the donor temporarily restricts how the funds can be utilized, the organization must use the funds for the designated purpose. If the funds are permanently restricted, the donation acts as the principal amount, and only the interest earned can be spent on charitable activities. There may also be restrictions on how the interest amount can be spent.

From: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/wealth-management/restricted-funds/

In other words, using fund accounting, interest and principal are not only distinguishable, they HAVE TO be distinguishable.  

I've only been tangentially involved in fund accounting for the non-profit and government entities I've worked for.  I know enough to be dangerous.  But it seems to me that fund accounting makes this particular objection moot.  

Edited October 11, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon