Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Not that I’m aware of.

Huntsman's lawyers do argue this.  They cite the Nielsen affidavit that says that all the money managed by the EPA was considered tithing.  They also point to the later statements from the church that didn't separate tithing from income from tithing investments.  The appeals court ruling that was vacated also focus on that.  For instance, they said:

Quote

Third, there is evidence in the record indicating that the term “tithing funds,” in common usage within the Church, refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal.

 

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

Huntsman's lawyers do argue this.  They cite the Nielsen affidavit that says that all the money managed by the EPA was considered tithing.  They also point to the later statements from the church that didn't separate tithing from income from tithing investments.  The appeals court ruling that was vacated also focus on that.  For instance, they said:

Quote

Third, there is evidence in the record indicating that the term “tithing funds,” in common usage within the Church, refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal.

The specific question was, "So you are saying there is no debate on whether tithing includes investment income earned off of tithing or not?"

I think there is, or at least could be, debate about whether according to common usage in the Church and in the context of what Hinckley has said, “tithing funds” refers to funds that were seeded with tithing money and have grown with interest. There could also be debates about whether the phrase “tithing will not be used“ implies that tithing means tithing won’t be used directly or indirectly.

But I believe these debates are all secular in nature, and don’t effect the agreed-upon secular fact that “tithing” means the donations that were made under the designation of “tithing.” 

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Then in your view is the only issue more or less is whether to trust Pres Hinckley or Rytting’s testimonies no tithing was used?

The issue is whether or not they are lying?

At this point, I think the real issue is whether a reasonable juror could conclude the nine issues needed to establish fraud have been met. If a reasonable juror concludes that it’s possible there was fraud, then there should be discovery and a trial.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

——

This perception would seem to be a significant obstacle to agreement on this thread since smac, myself, and webbles at least appear to me to all believe this is a significant issue being argued by Huntsman’s lawyers. 

Bluntly but respectfully because I understand intelligent and reasonable people can see things very differently, I am having a hard time understanding why you are not seeing such a debate when it seems front and center to me. 

Please read my answer to Webbles above. The real argument isn’t about what “tithing” means. The real argument is what Hicnkley’s words meant in context using the common usage that exists in the Church. Just because we might argue about now typical members of the Church would interpret “the Church didn’t use tithing for project xyz” doesn’t mean there is a dispute about what “tithing” is.

For example, if you go back and look at those old threads I keep linking to, many Saints were very confident that Hinckley’s words should be taken broadly and that the funding originally came from the Church’s legacy for-profit businesses and not from tithing in any way. Others weren’t so sure and suspected that interest on unspent tithing was used. Just because there was disagreement among members of the Church about this exact same issue doesn’t mean that these same members of the Church disagreed on the definition of “tithing."

Edited September 28, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just because there was disagreement among members of the Church about this exact same issue doesn’t mean that these same members of the Church disagreed on the definition of “tithing."

So it’s not that there is a longtime commitment to use tithing certain ways and not to use it in others, but just that one and only that one statement by Pres Hinckley and members’ responses to that which is the issue that needs addressing in your opinion?

Edited September 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

that the funding originally came from the Church’s legacy for-profit businesses and not from tithing in any way

I know when I have brought up the fact that the Church has owned for profit businesses from the beginning plus iirc got land by developing it originally and then there were volunteered donations and work by members to help fund publishing; to build churches, needed buildings and even communities, etc that was not counted as tithing (tons of fundraisers for specific projects, for example), it was in response to claims that all the Church’s wealth came originally from tithing.  That position is not meant to exclude tithing as one of the original sources, but just to point out it was one of many.  Any statement by me it did not come from tithing would have referred to the here and now.

I have no clue if others discussing the topic held the same position as me, but It would probably be a good idea to look at the overall context to make sure anyone claiming “not from tithing in any way” while mentioning for profit businesses didn’t have the same idea before counting them as no tithing nor income from anything bought or built with that tithing was ever used for CC.

Having said that, I do believe there are likely members who held in my view a rather simplistic belief about church finances, that never had the need to really consider the difficulties with financial transactions back in the days everything was done by hand and depositing tithes in the bank before going home at night was not an option for a bishop and so assume in the back of their mind that church leaders had the ability somehow back then to keep tithing donations completely separate from other types of donations and somehow understood Pres. Hinckley’s words in the same vein even if it seems to me to likely mean the opposite.

But isn’t that irrelevant unless Pres. Hinckley actually meant that, that he meant the earned investment income or however he said that did not come from tithing investment, but investment of other sources?  

Edited September 28, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

C'mon, Roger.  In your analogy, nobody disputes that the Church Autonomy Doctrine would not bar a claim for theft.  This is nonsensical because A) nobody disputes that theft occurred (where in Huntsman the parties disagree a lot about whether fraud occurred)...

In my analogy, the defendant does dispute that theft occured.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

...and B) the Church Autonomy Doctrine is a an affirmative defense and/or jurisdictional argument that would be invoked by the Church, not by the guy who stole the Church's money.

The Church’s actual autonomy doesn’t magically appear when it's convenient for the Church and then disappear when it is inconvenient to the Church. Yes, in my example the defense is the one invoking Church autonomy, but him invoking it doesn’t mean he’s wrong. The Church can’t sanction the state establishing government-official definitions of religious doctrine when that is convenient for it.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

But the Church does dispute that "tithing" refers to earnings on invested reserves.  This was addressed at length during the hearing on Wednesday.

The "money we are talking about" is in dispute.  When Pres. Hinckley referenced "tithing" in 2003, was he referring to (A) the voluntary donations by members of one tenth of their increase annually, or (B), both (A) and also any post-donation income generated from invested reserves?

Unless, of course, a litigant wants the court to re-define tithing so that it is both (A) and (B) above.

The way you frame this issue is silly, and I’m going to turn to use some old quotes in a new way to show you why:

Somebody started a conversation with this OP in 2012:

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...

And we now know that “they,” “the critics," were right.

A specific example of “they” is Craig Paxton. Craig said: 

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

Responding to that specific quote, Pahoran replied:

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

It is beyond dispute that the contemporaneous record indicates that Pahoran was confident that tithing money wasn’t used, neither directly nor indirectly. The contemporaneous record indicates that many Saints, including Pahoran, interpreted the Church’s remarks exactly as Huntsman claims he did.

So Here Is The Point

Many Saints, including Pahoran, Mola Ram Suda Ram, and Kim Pearson, were confident that the Church hadn’t used investment income on unspent tithing to fund the mall. The source of this confidence was the Church’s statements.

Why did they think this? Was it because Pahoran, Mola Ram Suda Ram, Kim Pearson, and all the rest thought that the definition of “tithing” was the voluntary donations by members of one tenth of their increase annually and also any post-donation income generated from invested reserves?

According to your world view, they must have thought the official definition of “tithing" was donations plus investment income, right? How else can you explain why they interpreted “no tithing will be used” to exclude investment income on unspent tithing from being used?

In my view, Pahoran and Kim Pearson know exactly what “tithing” means. They just thought that assurances that tithing wouldn’t be used means that it wouldn’t be used directly and wouldn’t be used indirectly. 

The real issue isn’t these persnickety definitions of “tithing.” The real issue is how a reasonable member would interpret the totality of what was said in context. You focus myopically on the word “tithing” and refuse to consider what the word “use” means in this context.

[Analytics]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know when I have brought up the fact that the Church has owned for profit businesses from the beginning plus iirc got land by developing it originally and then there were volunteered donations and work by members to help fund publishing; to build churches, needed buildings and even communities, etc that was not counted as tithing (tons of fundraisers for specific projects, for example), it was in response to claims that all the Church’s wealth came originally from tithing.  That position is not meant to exclude tithing as one of the original sources, but just to point out it was one of many.  Any statement by me it did not come from tithing would have referred to the here and now.

I have no clue if others discussing the topic held the same position as me, but It would probably be a good idea to look at the overall context...

The overall context is this, from the OP:

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

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

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

We now know that the correct answer to that is this:

While the Church has some wealth that originated from non-tithing donations and its legacy businesses from the pioneer era, the vast majority of its wealth is from unspent tithing that has been invested in Wall Street investments.

Back then, what we now know is the truth was considered an anti-Mormon accusation that needed a response. One of the reasons these people felt it was an anti-Mormon accusation was because of the Church’s assurances that are now being quoted in this lawsuit.

There can be many reasons they interpreted Hinckley’s comments in the same way Huntsman claims he interpreted them. Not knowing what “tithing” means is not one of those reasons.

 

Edited September 28, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

So it’s not that there is a longtime commitment to use tithing certain ways and not to use it in others, but just that one and only that one statement by Pres Hinckley and members’ responses to that which is the issue that needs addressing in your opinion?

In my opinion, the issue is whether fraud was committed. This is a secular dispute and  the Church’s motions to dismiss the case based on church autonomy should all be denied.

It’s up to the plaintiffs to prove their accusation about fraud has merit so that it survives summary judgment. If it survives summary judgment, it will be their obligation to prove fraud happened.

Their arguments are about everything they say they are, which go beyond “one and only one statement” that somebody made at some point. Their arguments do not rely on alternative definitions of “tithing."

 

Edited September 28, 2024 by Analytics

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The specific question was, "So you are saying there is no debate on whether tithing includes investment income earned off of tithing or not?"

I think there is, or at least could be, debate about whether according to common usage in the Church and in the context of what Hinckley has said, “tithing funds” refers to funds that were seeded with tithing money and have grown with interest. There could also be debates about whether the phrase “tithing will not be used“ implies that tithing means tithing won’t be used directly or indirectly.

But I believe these debates are all secular in nature, and don’t effect the agreed-upon secular fact that “tithing” means the donations that were made under the designation of “tithing.” 

So "tithing" is different from "tithing funds"?  Because you seem to have said that there is no doubt that tithing does not include "investment income earned off of tithing".  Why are they different?

If we just look at the secular nature, Huntsman looses.  He has no case.  The money that he (and everyone else) donated as tithing was not used in the City Creek mall.  He is the one who is trying to redefine tithing.

 

[Analytics]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

So "tithing" is different from "tithing funds"?  Because you seem to have said that there is no doubt that tithing does not include "investment income earned off of tithing".  Why are they different?

Using tithing to generate investment income which is then used to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall.

Nobody is changing the definition of “tithing.” Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them.

The phrase tithing fund can mean multiple things according to the context. It could mean a fund into which tithing is deposited and then grows with interest.

Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but as far as I can tell, a common Mormon sentiment is that interest generated from unspent tithing is just as sacred as tithing itself. That seems logical, doesn’t it? Nielsen’s affidavit supports this. If somebody sees the world that way, when they hear “tithing funds will not be used for something,” they’ll infer that no tithing funds will be used because tithing is too sacred for that use. If they see it that way, they’ll infer that “no tithing will be used” should be interpreted broadly and that tithing won’t be used directly or indirectly.

That is in fact the way many Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley’s remarks.

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

If we just look at the secular nature, Huntsman looses.  He has no case. 

I agree with that, but two judges of the circuit court panel disagree with you.

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

The money that he (and everyone else) donated as tithing was not used in the City Creek mall.  He is the one who is trying to redefine tithing.

1. His actual arguments do not rely on a redefinition of tithing
2. Many members of the Church, including participants on this forum, interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the same way Huntsman did
3. If “interest on unspent tithing” was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly.
4. You have to use an artificially constrictive definition of “use” to get to your argument that he’s changing the definition of tithing.

 

[webbles]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but as far as I can tell, a common Mormon sentiment is that interest generated from unspent tithing is just as sacred as tithing itself. That seems logical, doesn’t it? Nielsen’s affidavit supports this. If somebody sees the world that way, when they hear “tithing funds will not be used for something,” they’ll infer that no tithing funds will be used because tithing is too sacred for that use. If they see it that way, they’ll infer that “no tithing will be used” should be interpreted broadly and that tithing won’t be used directly or indirectly.

I would agree that it is a common sentiment but it is a religious sentiment.  It has no bearing on the case as it is talking about something that is sacred.  So it has crossed the church autonomy doctrine.  If we look at the money in the secular manner, Huntsman loses.

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I agree with that, but two judges of the circuit court panel disagree with you.

They disagreed because they were willing to expand the definition of tithing beyond its secular meaning.  And that is probably why their decision was vacated.

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

• His actual arguments do not rely on a redefinition of tithing
• Many members of the Church, including participants on this forum, interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the same way Huntsman did
• If “interest on unspent tithing” was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly.
• You have to use an artificially constrictive definition of “use” to get to your argument that he’s changing the definition of tithing.

His actual arguments do rely on the redefinition of tithing.  As you have said multiple times, the secular definition of tithing is what Huntsman donated.  And that money was not used for the City Creek.  So, by the secular definition, Huntsman looses.  He has to redefine tithing to include returns on investments or to include all "sacred money" (which is what Neilson's affidavit states).

I don't see how arguing about "used indirectly" have anything to do with this.  Did President Hinckley or any of the other statements say that any money tangentially/indirectly related would not be used?  If I paid a contractor to build my home and he promised that he would not use any of my funds to get lunch from the restaurant down the street (because I'm in a bitter dispute with the restaurant), do I have the ability to sue him for fraud if it turns out that his employees used their paycheck (which came indirectly from the money that I paid the contractor) to buy lunch from the restaurant?

Edited September 28, 2024 by webbles

[Analytics]

55 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't see how arguing about "used indirectly" have anything to do with this.  Did President Hinckley or any of the other statements say that any money tangentially/indirectly related would not be used? 

“Indirect” has everything to do with it because it is something we’ve been discussing on this board for about 12 years now. Based on the responses of faithful Saints to these topics, a plurality of Latter-day Saints thought when Hinckley said “no tithing would be used” he meant no tithing would be used directly, and no tithing would be used indirectly. We talked about this specific issue, and that is what they said.

Putting this in context, somebody asked the following:

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

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

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money...So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members... 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?

Looking at a specific example, one critic by the name of Craig Paxton said: 

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

According to the Church’s current story he was exactly right, but Saints found this line of reasoning offensive and heaped a bit of abuse on him for saying this.

He was surprised about why and asked, "Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall?"

A Latter-day Saint responded, "The Church officers have publically stated that no tithing funds were used in the purchase of the mall. You are calling those Church officers liars."

Do you see that? Asserting that investment returns on unspent tithing were used to fund the mall was “calling Church officers liars."

Why do you think they thought that? Did Latter-day Saints not know what tithing was back in 2012?

Edited September 28, 2024 by Analytics

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

“Indirect” has everything to do with it because it is something we’ve been discussing on this board for about 12 years now. Based on the responses of faithful Saints to these topics, a plurality of Latter-day Saints thought when Hinckley said “no tithing would be used” he meant no tithing would be used directly, and no tithing would be used indirectly. We talked about this specific issue, and that is what they said.

Putting this in context, somebody asked the following:

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

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

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money...So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members... 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?

Looking at a specific example, one critic by the name of Craig Paxton said: 

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

According to the Church’s current story he was exactly right, but Saints found this line of reasoning offensive and heaped a bit of abuse on him for saying this.

He was surprised about why and asked, "Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall?"

A Latter-day Saint responded, "The Church officers have publically stated that no tithing funds were used in the purchase of the mall. You are calling those Church officers liars."

Do you see that? Asserting that investment returns on unspent tithing were used to fund the mall was “calling Church officers liars."

Why do you think they thought that? Did Latter-day Saints not know what tithing was back in 2012?

I'm talking about the secular definitions that you've been working discussing the last few days.  That tithing is the money that Huntsman donated.  By that definition, two judges ruled agreed that the case failed.

You are now trying to expand the definition of tithing.  I agree that people can believe that tithing may include both the indirect use, but that crosses into the 1st amendment.  Because, I bet if you asked a lot of those members back in 2012, they would say that all money that is indirectly related to tithing is sacred and thus should be treated the same way as the original tithing.  And that crosses into religion.  The courts can't go there.  In the Wednesday hearing, the judges talked about how can the court discuss what a reasonable member would think since that will get into religious meaning.

That's the problem with going outside of the secular definition of tithing.  Once you talk about "indirect usage", how can you tell if the person is saying that "indirect usage" is tithing because of a secular definition or because of a religious definition.  How can you even ask what a reasonable member in 2012 understood without going into their religious belief on tithing?  As several judges noted, tithing is inherently religious.  Trying to keep the discussion to secular definitions is going to be really hard, if not impossible (as you've probably felt like in this discussion).

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

“Indirect” has everything to do with it because it is something we’ve been discussing on this board for about 12 years now. Based on the responses of faithful Saints to these topics, a plurality of Latter-day Saints thought when Hinckley said “no tithing would be used” he meant no tithing would be used directly, and no tithing would be used indirectly. We talked about this specific issue, and that is what they said.

Putting this in context, somebody asked the following:

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

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

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money...So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members... 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?

Looking at a specific example, one critic by the name of Craig Paxton said: 

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

According to the Church’s current story he was exactly right, but Saints found this line of reasoning offensive and heaped a bit of abuse on him for saying this.

He was surprised about why and asked, "Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall?"

A Latter-day Saint responded, "The Church officers have publically stated that no tithing funds were used in the purchase of the mall. You are calling those Church officers liars."

Do you see that? Asserting that investment returns on unspent tithing were used to fund the mall was “calling Church officers liars."

Why do you think they thought that? Did Latter-day Saints not know what tithing was back in 2012?

I think a semantical correction needs to be made: there is no such thing as “excess tithing” or “tithing in excess of current needs” because tithing is 10% of each contributor’s interest annually.

10% of many contributors’ interest annually creates funds that meet immediate needs, and when immediate needs are met those that are not used are invested and reinvested. The investment doesn’t come from tithing or from funds created by tithing, it comes from funds freed up by met needs. Tithing creates the funds to meet immediate needs, and met needs create the funds for investment.

A lot of the misunderstanding seems to arise from verbal shorthand. Interpreting an indirect relationship between tithing and invested funds is faulty because there are no more funds from tithing once current needs are met, but there are funds from met needs to be invested and reinvested.

[CV75]

ETA: there seems to be some missing steps in the process listed above, which serve as catalysts for creation or conversion of funds:

Member Pays Tithing-->Tithing Funds Created-->Funds used for Immediate Needs-->Met Needs-->Investment Funds Created-->Tithing in Excess of Current Needs-->Investments Earn Return-->$$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in XYZ...

Edited September 29, 2024 by CV75

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm talking about the secular definitions that you've been working discussing the last few days.

And I’m talking about a secular definition of the word “use.” 

I just posed the following question to ChatGPT:

Is using something indirectly still using it? For example, if a Church uses tithing revenue to generate investment income, and then uses that investment income to fund the purchase item “x”, is it accurate to say the Church used tithing revenue to fund the purchase of “x”?

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes, using something indirectly is still considered using it, especially in cases like the one you've described. In your example, the tithing revenue is the original source of the funds, even though it was first invested to generate income. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the purchase of "x" was ultimately funded by tithing revenue, albeit indirectly through investment income.

"The distinction lies in the process, but the original source (tithing) remains essential to the acquisition of "x". Some might phrase it differently to highlight the intermediate step, but from a broader perspective, the church is still using tithing revenue to fund the purchase."

 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

Because, I bet if you asked a lot of those members back in 2012, they would say that all money that is indirectly related to tithing is sacred and thus should be treated the same way as the original tithing.  And that crosses into religion.

That is the only reason why it matters if it’s indirect or direct.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think a semantical correction needs to be made: there is no such thing as “excess tithing” or “tithing in excess of current needs” because tithing is 10% of each contributor’s interest annually.

10% of many contributors’ interest annually creates funds that meet immediate needs, and when immediate needs are met those that are not used are invested and reinvested. The investment doesn’t come from tithing or from funds created by tithing, it comes from funds freed up by met needs. Tithing creates the funds to meet immediate needs, and met needs create the funds for investment.

A lot of the misunderstanding seems to arise from verbal shorthand. Interpreting an indirect relationship between tithing and invested funds is faulty because there are no more funds from tithing once current needs are met, but there are funds from met needs to be invested and reinvested.

You expressed this so well, imo.  This is how see I see it.  I was struggling to think of a nonclunky way to describe how tithing ceases to be tithing the moment it ceases to be a donation, the moment it shifts from being received by the Church to being used by the Church.  Funds formerly known as tithing wasn’t working for me.

Edited September 29, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

10% of each contributor’s interest annually.

Interest or income?

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And I’m talking about a secular definition of the word “use.” 

I just posed the following question to ChatGPT:

Is using something indirectly still using it? For example, if a Church uses tithing revenue to generate investment income, and then uses that investment income to fund the purchase item “x”, is it accurate to say the Church used tithing revenue to fund the purchase of “x”?

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes, using something indirectly is still considered using it, especially in cases like the one you've described. In your example, the tithing revenue is the original source of the funds, even though it was first invested to generate income. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the purchase of "x" was ultimately funded by tithing revenue, albeit indirectly through investment income.

"The distinction lies in the process, but the original source (tithing) remains essential to the acquisition of "x". Some might phrase it differently to highlight the intermediate step, but from a broader perspective, the church is still using tithing revenue to fund the purchase."

 

And this is why we shouldn’t use ChatGPT to teach our kids.

And why lawyers should not use it to write legal opinion, besides it makes things up.

A hammer was used to build my house.  My house shelters me.  Does that hammer shelter me?  To say that I am still using that hammer that pounded a nail in my home 45 years ago makes “use” useless in describing a relationship between cause and effect, imo.

Edited September 29, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

A hammer was used to build my house.  My house shelters me.  Does that hammer shelter me?  To say that I am still using that hammer that pounded a nail in my home 45 years ago makes “use” useless in describing a relationship between cause and effect, imo.

I think what ChatGPT said makes more sense than this.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think what ChatGPT said makes more sense than this.

A is used to make B.  B is used by C. Is C using A?

[webbles]

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And I’m talking about a secular definition of the word “use.” 

I just posed the following question to ChatGPT:

Is using something indirectly still using it? For example, if a Church uses tithing revenue to generate investment income, and then uses that investment income to fund the purchase item “x”, is it accurate to say the Church used tithing revenue to fund the purchase of “x”?

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes, using something indirectly is still considered using it, especially in cases like the one you've described. In your example, the tithing revenue is the original source of the funds, even though it was first invested to generate income. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the purchase of "x" was ultimately funded by tithing revenue, albeit indirectly through investment income.

"The distinction lies in the process, but the original source (tithing) remains essential to the acquisition of "x". Some might phrase it differently to highlight the intermediate step, but from a broader perspective, the church is still using tithing revenue to fund the purchase."

 

I don't think the Huntsman case even cares about the definition of "use" so I'm not sure why it matters.  Is there anything in any of the rulings or filings that talk about this?  Because it feels like you just trying to move the goalpost.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

ETA: there seems to be some missing steps in the process listed above, which serve as catalysts for creation or conversion of funds:

Member Pays Tithing-->Tithing Funds Created-->Funds used for Immediate Needs-->Met Needs-->Investment Funds Created-->Tithing in Excess of Current Needs-->Investments Earn Return-->$$$ From This Return on Investments is Reinvested in XYZ...

I've wondered if this is how President Hinckley and other leaders of the church see it.  The church accepts tithing, the Council on the Disposition of Tithes then allocates that tithing, and once it is allocated, it is no longer tithing.  So the tithing that went to EPA isn't seen as tithing by President Hinckley and others.  It is now just "reserve funds".  President Hinckley did say it was interest on reserve funds and not interest on tithing so it could be that he didn't see the reserve funds as "tithing" anymore.  They were sacred funds, but not "tithing" funds.

[let’s roll]

As a lawyer who won a case on appeal in the Ninth Circuit regarding what constitutes fraud, I admit to being somewhat baffled by the fact that folks find the topic interesting enough to generate over 40 pages of comments, although glancing at some as the appear in the Activity feed, a majority of those may have been from two posters.

Fraud is, at the same time, both simple and esoteric.  In the case I was involved with, the plaintiff failed in their first seven attempts to state a cause of action for fraud.  We went to trial on the 7th amended complaint, lost at trial but were given a jnov by the trial judge, which was affirmed on appeal by the 9th Circuit.

My experience has been juries view fraud much more broadly than judges.  That said judges, like the one in the case I tried, aren’t above giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to argue their case (e.g. granting leave to amend a complaint seven times) in hopes the parties will settle.  But a defendant that chooses to stand on principle rather than settle will most often get a result based on the narrower judicial view of fraud.