Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The only "discrepancy" that can be alleged is based on a re-definition of tithing to include non-tithed monies.

And yet, a team of pretty good lawyers have made allegations that the Church has made false and misleading representations that are not based on re-defining tithing.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Malarky.  The Huntsman and MDL lawsuits are predicated on allegations of fraud, not fraudulent nondisclosure.  You yourself have characterized these cases as arising from the Church lying.

I have not characterized these cases as arising form the Church lying. I have characterized the accusations as accusations that the Church was lying.

If the Church would have followed best practices in transparency, there would be no Mormon Leaks about secret shell LLC’s, and there would have been no letter to an IRS director. If the Church would have been transparent, Ensign Peak Advisors would not have been fined by the SEC. The Church itself would not have been fined by the SEC. If the Church would have followed best practices in transparency, there would be no basis for a lawsuit to claim things like:

46. Plaintiffs and Class members did not discover and could not discover through the

exercise of reasonable diligence that Defendants had been engaged in a scheme to defraud

Plaintiffs and other donors by soliciting charitable donations using false and misleading

representations, actually directing donor funds towards Ensign’s investment portfolio, and

engaging in a series of sham transactions and securities law violations in order to obscure the

true use of the funds from donors and regulatory authorities.

 Fundamentally, the lawsuit was driven by the Church not being transparent. That’s why the plaintiffs feel lied to.  

As another example:

180. LDS made these statements with an intent to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class and

to induce reliance on these misrepresentations. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and the Class

would not have donated money, or would have donated less, had they known that the funds

would be used for these purposes.

That is the heart of the matter here. Regardless of whether it was an honest misunderstanding or really is deliberate fraud, the Church’s lack of transparency is what’s driving this. 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

You persistently refuse to evaluate the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, which affects what you "see" (and don't see).

Actually, I have evaluated it. I asked Chat GPT4 to provide a summary of it, and I said its summary rang true. I considered the cases you brought up, and according to my evaluation, decided that they aren’t very applicable. That’s because those cases aren’t about alleged lies and an alleged lack of transparency. To me, they don’t seem applicable.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The charge that "the Church misled the membership about how donations were being deployed" only works if you re-define "tithing" to include non-tithed monies.

I would think whether something is a lie, is deceitful, is intentionally misleading, etc., is a function of the what the speaker was actually intending to communicate and what a reasonable listener could reasonably be expected to infer. If you insist those considerations don’t matter and the only thing that really matters is a specific technical definition that you carefully choose, then you are free to make that argument.

I don’t buy it.

Are reasonable minds allowed to disagree about this one?

Edited July 25, 2024 by Analytics

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that formulation makes things less clear.

Not really.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I assume you mean per se (Latin for "by or in itself").

Ok

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The funds used to develop City Creek were not "tithing" in any sense of the word.

Did I say the funds were tithing?  I said they funds were likely earnings on excess tithing and other donations made to the church that the church invested.  

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Earnings from invested reserve funds, yes.

This endless regression stuff doesn't work in general.  And it really doesn't work to rehabilitate claims allegting falsity in the Church's statements about tithing relative to City Creek.

Thanks,

-Smac

Whether it works or not it is a fact.  The church initially at some point only had free will donations. Tithing and other donations. As a CPA I would not call the $200 earned off the $1000 of tithing that may have been invested tithing.  But like it or not, if EPA invested excess tithing funds it clearly  used earning from those tithing $ to buy a mall. Personally I don't think any law suit on this has much merit. But I am just a stupid tax accountant.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet, we have ample evidence that the Church's finances are in good order, that the Brethren are not enriching themselves, that sacred funds are being properly used, and so on.

I don't know that I have ever argued the church finances are not in good order.  But even though you think that you are getting financial transparency you are not. All the things you point to are hardly considered to be financial transparency by anyone who understands what financial transparency really means.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So all this hue and cry is . . . for what, really?

What hue and cry is that?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's not so.  We have ample evidence that the Church is a good steward of its finances:

Hardly.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  

So?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We also see beautiful church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, colleges, missionary programs, family history efforts, youth programs, women's programs, Deseret Industries, Humanitarian Square, Welfare Square, canneries and storehouses, public statements about billions being spent on collaborative humanitarian efforts, and on and on and on.  

You see buildings being built and programs being funded. That is not called financial transparency.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We also have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  

You seem to have trouble understanding the roll of an internal audit committee. Is that deliberate?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We also have a notable lack of evidence of any pattern of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.  Last year's SEC issue is the exception that proves this rule.

You really don't know if there has been malfeasance that has been covered up now do you?  You have no way to know this until, like the SEC issue, it comes to light.  There is no independent audit. It is all internal. For all you know the audit committee and the Council on the Disposition of Tithes could  be committing massive fraud and keeping it well hidden.  You have no way to know since there is no independent audit of the church financials nor any financial disclosures by the church to you.  I doubt such things are happening but my point is there really is not financial transparency.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We also have the annual audit report during General Conference.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you really think that audit report is anything by meaningless you are showing what a neophyte you are on such matters.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Smac and Analytics are talking past each other because each one is using a different definition of the word "use."  Neither seems to acknowledge the manner in which the other one is using the word, and so they just keep talking past each other again and again and again. Both uses are valid, though I think Smac's is the more common sense approach. 

Respectfully that’s not what is happening. Analytics is stating over and over again how *he is using the word “use” and @smac97 is completely ignoring this. @Analyticsis not telling Smac how to use the word “use”. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I still don’t understand.

I was responding to the question, "Why don't they just come right out and say it?". My contention is that it's not that easy especially with lawyers, PR people, and worry warts at the COB vetting public statements. Like any corporation there are "rules" to those things.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I was responding to the question, "Why don't they just come right out and say it?". My contention is that it's not that easy especially with lawyers, PR people, and worry warts at the COB vetting public statements. Like any corporation there are "rules" to those things.

He was not referring to the church saying anything, but critics. Critics have no one vetting their public criticisms before they state it in most cases. 
 

Quote

If a critic wants to say that tithing funds were used only indirectly (i.e., by taking excess tithing income and investing it, which in turn generated investment income (which is not tithing income) that was (again, if not needed) subsequently re-invested into other projects - including but not limited to the mall), then why not just come out and say that? Why not simply state that you believe tithing funds only played an indirect role in financing the mall?

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

He was not referring to the church saying anything, but critics. Critics have no one vetting their public criticisms before they state it in most cases. 
 

 

🤣🤣🤣 My bad. Now I know why you were confused. I completely misread it!

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

🤣🤣🤣 My bad. Now I know why you were confused. I completely misread it!

lol, thanks…I just couldn’t connect it.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Perhaps, but I’d add to this that if we are talking about an account that generates investment income, the principal and interest are fungible.

And THIS is the issue that you and I go round and round on every time this subject comes up.

This is not an insurmountable problem; throughout the country, tens of thousands of organizations deal with it every year in their budgets.  The Church only need a couple of lines on a spreadsheet to track it: tithing dollars in, tithing-eligible expenses out.  The difference between the two remains tithing dollars, and any balance in excess of that difference are not tithing dollars and can therefore be spent on other priorities.  

Cities and municipalities do this all the time, and even win distinguished budget awards for their budgets (so it's not like they're doing anything shady here). The municipality I work for (with a decade or more of those award-winning budgets) has a Streets Fund that is largely funded by allocations from the state gas tax.  It can only be spent on roadway infrastructure.  Our finance department tracks Streets Funds in, streets-eligible spending out, and the difference between the two is carried forward to the Streets Fund in next year's budget.  Any interest earned on the Streets Fund while it is sitting in investments waiting to be spent, are tracked on a single "interest earned" line item that is shared with every other interest-generating fund in the budget.  Those interest dollars are counted as part of the general fund, and can be spent on any municipal priority.  

I've swam in municipal accounting my whole career and never knew this was odd until you began arguing otherwise in these threads.  I am supremely unbothered if the Church is tracking its funds like tens of thousands of other government and non-profit organizations throughout the country.  

Edited July 25, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet, we have ample evidence that the Church's finances are in good order, that the Brethren are not enriching themselves, that sacred funds are being properly used, and so on.

So all this hue and cry is . . . for what, really?

I dispute that the funds “are being properly used” and are “in good order":

1. It is not proper for a non-profit to use 80% of its annual income to increase the size of its obscenely oversized so-called “rainy day fund”.
2. It is not proper for a non-profit to create an expensive and extremely complicated set of fake LLC’s that serve no purpose whatsoever other than to mislead the SEC and its own membership about how much wealth it has and who controls it.
3. It is not proper for the Church to conceal from the twelve apostles the Church’s pecuniary assets; without that information, the apostles cannot perform their fiduciary duty to the Church.
4. It is not proper for the Church to conceal from the general membership of the Church its financial statements because without that information, it is impossible for them to make an informed decision about whether nor not to make donations.

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

And THIS is the issue that you and I go round and round on every time this subject comes up.

This is not an insurmountable problem; throughout the country, tens of thousands of organizations deal with it every year in their budgets.  The Church only need a couple of lines on a spreadsheet to track it: tithing dollars in, tithing-eligible expenses out.  The difference between the two remains tithing dollars, and any balance in excess of that difference are not tithing dollars and can therefore be spent on other priorities.  

They could do that; sure. But was this made clear to the membership when the assurances were given? And more fundamentally, why would the Church bother keeping careful track of tithing vs. non-tithing? I acknowledge that some organizations might have rules about such things, but does the Church? Why would the Church create a rule that says it is okay to invest tithing money in Nvidia, but it is not okay to invest it in City Creek? Is Nvidia more sacred than City Creek because it has a higher expected rate of return?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

They could do that; sure. But was this made clear to the membership when the assurances were given? And more fundamentally, why would the Church bother keeping careful track of tithing vs. non-tithing? I acknowledge that some organizations might have rules about such things, but does the Church? Why would the Church create a rule that says it is okay to invest tithing money in Nvidia, but it is not okay to invest it in City Creek? Is Nvidia more sacred than City Creek because it has a higher expected rate of return?

And it has been looked down on in the past and maybe currently, to save tithing until the very end of the year before tithing settlement and paying in one lump sum, that was earning some interest before turning it over to the church. But talked about paying tithing before anything else. Apparently if true, the church can invest and earn interest, but not the members.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And it has been looked down on in the past and maybe currently, to save tithing until the very end of the year before tithing settlement and paying in one lump sum, that was earning some interest before turning it over to the church. But talked about paying tithing before anything else. Apparently if true, the church can invest and earn interest, but not the members.

Perhaps members could set up a trust when they are 20, in the church's name. Donate 10% of income invested in an index fund. "Interest" belongs to the member, and "tithing" belongs to the church when the individual passes away. The member stays a full tithe payer, the church doesn't need the money now vs in 50-70 years, and since interest on tithing isn't tithing, it shouldn't matter who it goes to.

Edited July 25, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps members could set up a trust when they are 20, in the church's name. Donate 10% of income invested in an index fund. "Interest" belongs to the member, and "tithing" belongs to the church when the individual passes away. The member stays a full tithe payer, the church doesn't need the money now vs in 50-70 years, and since interest on tithing isn't tithing, it shouldn't matter who it goes to.

Seems like you could retire early on this, and if this thread has taught me anything, it's the following. No one would be able to reasonably claim that you "used" tithing funds to fund your own retirement. 

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Seems like you could retire early on this, and if this thread has taught me anything, it's the following. No one would be able to reasonably claim that you "used" tithing funds to fund your own retirement. 

EXACTLY!!!! 

[webbles]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps members could set up a trust when they are 20, in the church's name. Donate 10% of income invested in an index fund. "Interest" belongs to the member, and "tithing" belongs to the church when the individual passes away. The member stays a full tithe payer, the church doesn't need the money now vs in 50-70 years, and since interest on tithing isn't tithing, it shouldn't matter who it goes to.

Some could argue that you need to pay tithing on the interest as well, since we are supposed to pay on our "increase".  It wouldn't be the full interest but it would be 10% of the interest.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

Some could argue that you need to pay tithing on the interest as well, since we are supposed to pay on our "increase".  It wouldn't be the full interest but it would be 10% of the interest.

Does this mean 1/10 of the money EPA earns should be viewed as tithing?

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

Some could argue that you need to pay tithing on the interest as well, since we are supposed to pay on our "increase".  It wouldn't be the full interest but it would be 10% of the interest.

Fair point.

As a simple model to illustrate the value of this, say somebody makes a flat $100k every year from age 25 to age 67. That turns out to $4.3 million of lifetime earnings, and a total tithing bill of $430,000.

If he decides to pay the tithing at the end of his working life, and saves the money in a “tithing fund” that earns 5% interest, that fund will grow to about $1,500,000 when he retires. He then cuts a check to the church for $430,000 to settle his tithing obligation in full, and has a $1,070,000 left in the fund. It would be appropriate to pay $107,000 tithing on that investment income, leading to an extra $963,000 of retirement assets. 

Not bad.

Remember, the definition of tithing is to pay the church 10% of your income, but it doesn’t say anything about when you should pay the 10%. If your personal rainy day fund isn’t as strong as the Church’s why wouldn’t you do this?

[JVW]

I think I missed a few pages of the thread before posting.

Edited July 26, 2024 by JVW

[webbles]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does this mean 1/10 of the money EPA earns should be viewed as tithing?

I've never heard about companies paying tithing on their income, only actual humans.  So the employees of EPA should pay tithing but EPA (or Deseret Book, DI, etc) wouldn't.

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Remember, the definition of tithing is to pay the church 10% of your income, but it doesn’t say anything about when you should pay the 10%. If your personal rainy day fund isn’t as strong as the Church’s why wouldn’t you do this?

I think it comes down to how a person views tithing.  For me, I don't see why I would do what you propose since it doesn't fit my mental model of how I should pay tithing.

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think it comes down to how a person views tithing.  For me, I don't see why I would do what you propose since it doesn't fit my mental model of how I should pay tithing.

I guess I should I say I do something like you propose in one aspect of my finances.  I'm gifted RSUs at my company.  They are worth money as soon as they vest but I don't pay tithing when they vest.  I wait till I actually sell them and then pay tithing on that.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 7/24/2024 at 10:30 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Too much bureaucracy at COB. 

Even though I completely misread what I was responding to, I still stand by the above statement. 😁

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Even though I completely misread what I was responding to, I still stand by the above statement. 😁

How do you know how much bureaucracy there is?

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How do you know how much bureaucracy there is?

From all I've heard from Church members online about how out of the box activities often need to be run by lawyers and such at COB and are often denied because of liability issues, thus making youth programs vastly less engaging than when I was a youth. Red tape apparently is killing some of the social aspects of the Church.