Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[CV75]

1 hour 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."

 

It is pitiful to seriously use ChatPG as an arbiter, but just for fun, try asking it this way:

If a Church uses tithing funds for immediate operational purposes, and those purposes are met, and their fulfillment creates new funds for investment purposes, is it semantically accurate to say the Church did not use the tithing funds for investment purposes (either directly or indirectly)? Is it semantically accurate to say the Church used tithing funds for investment purposes (either directly or indirectly)?

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

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.

 

I agree. This thread is weird.

The plaintiffs' fraud complaints are relatively weak. While I think there was some clear deception--or at the very least broad misunderstanding--about where the funds for City Creek came from, its a stretch to say all nine hurdles for legal fraud are likely to be cleared.

What is really weird is that there is little talk about that. Rather, the conversation has mostly been about whether this should be dismissed based on the church autonomy doctrine.The Church has been arguing for this over and over and over again, but so far it hasn’t convinced a single judge in any case in any venue that it should be dismissed based on that. Nevertheless, some people have been strenuously arguing that this is the Church’s best argument.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

Let me repeat what the judges said on the circuit appeals panel:

"In the case before us, we are not required to rely on or interpret the Church’s religious teachings to determine if it misrepresented how it was using tithing funds. Nor are we required to examine Huntsman’s religious beliefs about the appropriate use of church money. Instead, as presented to us, the questions are secular. The questions are whether the Church’s statements about how it would use tithing funds were true, and whether Huntsman reasonably relied on those statements when he made tithing contributions. A court or jury can answer these questions based on secular evidence and analysis.” (emphasis added)

They care about the definition of the word “use” because they use that word a lot. Understanding what use actually means helps you see why Smac’s arguments about the definition of tithing isn’t getting much traction with the judges, at least so far.

Edited September 29, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Hammers are one of many tools used to make houses. Houses are used for shelter. Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is pitiful to seriously use ChatPG as an arbiter…

I’m just using ChatGPT to help articulate my views which, uncoincidentally, are tightly aligned with how judges have been ruling on the various motions. 

[let’s roll]

53 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

I agree. This thread is weird.

The plaintiffs' fraud complaints are relatively weak. While I think there was some clear deception--or at the very least broad misunderstanding--about where the funds for City Creek came from, its a stretch to say all nine hurdles for legal fraud are likely to be cleared.

What is really weird is that there is little talk about that. Rather, the conversation has mostly been about whether this should be dismissed based on the church autonomy doctrine.The Church has been arguing for this over and over and over again, but so far it hasn’t convinced a single judge in any case in any venue that it should be dismissed based on that. Nevertheless, some people have been strenuously arguing that this is the Church’s best argument.

Well I think the unusual nature of both the case and the thread are driven by the cast of characters in each.  
 

The case is part unicorn, part sideshow.  The plaintiff understands the case makes no sense financially, less than a 5% chance of ultimately prevailing in court and even a smaller chance of a settlement.  Faced with such a calculus, only a unicorn plaintiff with significant means would decide to proceed unless a law firm took the case on contingency and because of the significant legal hurdles in the case and with a defendant with every reason not to settle, the business leaders in any firm would push not to take the case on contingency.  So this case is best understood not as an financial endeavor, or even an effort to make a point (competent counsel would advise the plaintiff that there’s a greater likelihood that the case will result in a strengthening of the church autonomy doctrine than a final judgment of fraud), but as a plaintiff funded sideshow (which explains why I haven’t spent significant time following it).

As for the substance of the comments in the thread, my opinion isn’t based on a thorough review of the posts, I’ve read fewer than a dozen, but it’s completely understandable that those sympathetic to the Church’s position would champion the legal doctrine, and a result based on that doctrine, that precludes evaluating the fraud claim. That’s particularly true of the most prolific poster on the thread.  True to his legal training and experience he’s a consistent advocate of that position.  I lack both his persistence and his verbosity.

A post script.  I believe the impact of the venue of the case has been discussed to some extent.  Having practiced in the 9th Circuit for the majority of my career, I can say my prior references to unicorns and sideshows applies to the venue of the case as well.

All that said, I trust you and Spencer both enjoy and benefit from your exchanges.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hammers are one of many tools used to make houses. Houses are used for shelter. Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course.

So I am using a hammer when I use my house?

I am using this analogy to demonstrate what the issue is in equating “indirectly using” and “using” as if it’s somehow the same sort of action or implying “indirectly using” is inherently significant. 
 

Plus “not indirectly used” was not used by President Hinckley or anyone other leader and I don’t believe that just because many might have understood it that way, leaders should be held to a standard of using a term that wasn’t imo even implied given Pres Hinckley identified investment income as a source.  
 

Edited September 29, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe that just because many might have understood it that way, leaders should be held to a standard of using a term that wasn’t imo even implied given Pres Hinckley identified investment income as a source.  

Hinckley's comments were vague and misunderstood at best, deliberately misleading at worst. I’m simply explaining why people understood him the way they did.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’m just using ChatGPT to help articulate my views which, uncoincidentally, are tightly aligned with how judges have been ruling on the various motions. 

Try what I suggested anyway.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

I think this is most likely. There is apparently a tension between how the Church and those opposing her on this point view the principles and activities of the kingdom of heaven on earth, and how each interprets and manages the available earthly rules, regulations and due processes to justify their views and endeavors.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Hinckley's comments were vague and misunderstood at best, deliberately misleading at worst. I’m simply explaining why people understood him the way they did.

The first sentence here describes your understanding; the second applies your understanding to the existence of opposing interpretations and understandings. This entire thread is an exercise in subjectivity on several layers. The objective measures in place don't seem to have resolved anything. Judicial arguments might, on a judicial basis.

[longview]

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hinckley's comments were vague and misunderstood at best, deliberately misleading at worst. I’m simply explaining why people understood him the way they did.

I seriously do not consider Hinckley's comments to be vague. I think he was addressing a "few" people's concerns back in 2003 about the "commercialization" aspects of City Creek development. I think the first and primary consideration of the Church was to help reverse "urban decay" along Main Street south of Temple Square in order to safeguard and maintain the beauty of Temple Square. To hold it sacred.

I have absolutely no problem with the Church engaging in many varied "economic" ventures such as welfare farms, land holdings, canneries, and YES certain commercial enterprises. This was true in the days of Joseph Smith where there were extensive dynamic and necessary intermingling of religious and "secular" activities. As shown in Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo. This was massively the case in Brigham Young's settlement and development of the State of Deseret. My great grandfather, an immigrant from Norway, used his skills to do fine cabinetry and deluxe staircases for various temples and he operated a lumber mill with the backing of the Church.

As I was reading through this thread, I keep wondering about how the new (current) Nauvoo temple was built. If I remember correctly, the Church only consented to build it due to the urging of a group of very wealthy members. I wonder if the Nauvoo temple was NOT a priority at that time because it has a slate of more urgent needs in many places around the world. This group provided ALL the funding. The Church only needed to oversee and administer the new temple. Was it built with tithing money? No. Was the funding provided by people who were living the "Law of Consecration" above and beyond the "Law of Tithing"? Yes.

[smac97]

.

Edited September 29, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

I seriously do not consider Hinckley's comments to be vague. I think he was addressing a "few" people's concerns back in 2003 about the "commercialization" aspects of City Creek development. I think the first and primary consideration of the Church was to help reverse "urban decay" along Main Street south of Temple Square in order to safeguard and maintain the beauty of Temple Square. To hold it sacred.

I have absolutely no problem with the Church engaging in many varied "economic" ventures such as welfare farms, land holdings, canneries, and YES certain commercial enterprises. This was true in the days of Joseph Smith where there were extensive dynamic and necessary intermingling of religious and "secular" activities. As shown in Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo. This was massively the case in Brigham Young's settlement and development of the State of Deseret. My great grandfather, an immigrant from Norway, used his skills to do fine cabinetry and deluxe staircases for various temples and he operated a lumber mill with the backing of the Church.

As I was reading through this thread, I keep wondering about how the new (current) Nauvoo temple was built. If I remember correctly, the Church only consented to build it due to the urging of a group of very wealthy members. I wonder if the Nauvoo temple was NOT a priority at that time because it has a slate of more urgent needs in many places around the world. This group provided ALL the funding. The Church only needed to oversee and administer the new temple. Was it built with tithing money? No. Was the funding provided by people who were living the "Law of Consecration" above and beyond the "Law of Tithing"? Yes.

Well stated

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

deliberately misleading at worst.

How in the world were they deliberately misleading?

[smac97]

@Analytics,

I am hoping you can walk me through a few things:

1. You have, for several pages now (and perhaps for several months/years) argued that

(A) the Church Autonomy Doctrine is irrelevant to the fraud-based lawsuits against the Church (or, at least, irrelevant to Huntsman),
(B) the definition of tithing is also irrelevant to these fraud-based lawsuits,
(C) Huntsman is not asking the courts to define or re-define tithing,
(D) "every" judge who has reviewed Huntsman has reached the same conclusions you have, and
(E) Pres. Hinckley's remarks were either "vague" or "deliberately misleading," and/or that his communications amount to "clear deception."

Question #1: Have I stated your position correctly here?

2. Here is a link to the trial court's decision in Huntsman which is currently on appeal.  

Question #2: Have you previously reviewed the Huntsman trial court's decision?

3. Back on September 12 I posted a link to the Church's Motion to Dismiss.  

Question #3: Have you previously reviewed this document?

4. In the Church's Motion to Dismiss, the following excerpt from the trial court's decision is quoted verbatim, as follows:

The primary dispute in Huntsman, where these same allegations were advanced, was over the meaning of “tithing.” After the Church submitted evidence that it used “earnings on invested reserves” to pay for City Creek, Huntsman argued that these funds were “tithing,” because tithing and earnings on invested reserves are “two sides of the same financial coin.” Huntsman, 2021 WL 4296208, *6 n.4. The court rejected that argument for two reasons:
 

First, for the purposes of this case, tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two. Second, because Plaintiff’s argument effectively asks this Court to define the term “tithing funds,” the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s argument.  {EDIT TO ADD} Specifically, determining whether the term "tithing funds" encompasses earnings on invested tithing funds would require an analysis of the Church doctrines and teachings.  Such an inquiry would entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of "ecclesiastical rule, custom or law." {} The First Amendment bars such an inquiry.

Id. Here, by asserting that “tithing” was used without saying what they mean, Plaintiffs fail to plead with sufficient specificity that the statements at issue were false. Falsity must be pled with particularity, meaning the plaintiff must “explain why the statement was misleading, and allege with particularity his basis for believing the statement was false.” Nakkhumpun v. Taylor, 782 F.3d 1142, 1147 (10th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs fail to do that. Huntsman also demonstrates that courts cannot resolve a dispute over what “tithing” means, which is an ecclesiastical question.

Question #4: Have you previously reviewed this specific portion of the Church's Motion?

5. I am trying to understand your position on the Huntsman case given the foregoing quote.

 

Question #5: How do you square the assertions recited in item 1(A)-(E) above with the above excerpt from the trial court's decision in Huntsman (that Huntsman "effectively asks" the court to "define the term 'tithing funds,'" and that "the First Amendment {that is, the Church Autonomy Doctrine} bars such an inquiry")?

6. Following is another excerpt from the Huntsman decision (from pp. 8-9) :

Neilsen conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds. ... It is on this basis that he then asserts that EPA directed approximately $1.4 billion in tithing funds to pay for {City Creek}. However, Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project - both the acquisition of property and the development of that property.  And, as discussed above, that is exactly what happened.  Accordingly ... the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true.

Question #6: How do you square the assertions recited in item 1(A)-(E) above with the above excerpt from the trial court's decision in Huntsman (that Neilen "conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds," that this is the "basis" for his allegations about City Creek, that Pres. Hinckley "expressly" differentiated between tithing and earnings on invested tithings, that this "is exactly what happened," and that therefore Pres. Hinckley's statement was "true")?

7. Following is another excerpt from the Huntsman decision (from pp. 9-10) :

Plaintiff offers no evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact.  Plaintiff does not argue that earnings on invested tithing funds were not actually used{.} ... Instead, Plaintiff simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds.  {} However, Hinckley's statement is what creates a distinction between the two.  Specifically, Hinckley distinguished between tithing funds and the earnings on invested reserve tithing funds.  Hinckley's statement forms the basis for the fraud claim, and on reasonable juror could ignore the distinction within this statement.

Question #7: How do you square the assertions recited in item 1(A)-(E) above with the above excerpt from the trial court's decision in Huntsman (that Huntsman "simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds," but that Pres. Hinckley did, in fact, distinguish between the two)?

8. Following is an excerpt from an article published by The Sutherland Institute about the Huntsman lawsuit: 
 

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.”

Question #8: Do you disagree with the Sutherland Institute's comment above?  If so, what is your reasoning?

I have previously been, at times, overly strident in my commentary.  I think you have gone out of your way to speak in provocative and offensive and derisive ways about the Church, and I have at times allowed myself to be provoked and offended, and have therefore responded in kind.  I should not have done so, and I apologize.  The foregoing is an attempt by me to return to a more detached and clinical assessment of the Huntsman lawsuits.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

However, Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project - both the acquisition of property and the development of that property.  And, as discussed above, that is exactly what happened.

This is in the decision by the judge, not in the Church’s argument, correct?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

However, Hinckley's statement is what creates a distinction between the two.  Specifically, Hinckley distinguished between tithing funds and the earnings on invested reserve tithing funds.  Hinckley's statement forms the basis for the fraud claim, and on reasonable juror could ignore the distinction within this statement.

This “no reasonable juror” decision is key to me. 

I get that without basic knowledge of how the Church does accounting and that there is a leftover tithing investment fund, that some members might understand the earned investment reserve comment to refer to investment of business profits.  But I think this is a case of where once you see something, you can’t unsee it.  Thus almost anyone with the basic knowledge of the leftover funds investment will automatically*** jump to thinking that is what Pres Hinckley is talking about and anyone very familiar with the system would only think of it that way…and apparently the judge agrees with his “no reasonable juror”….which is why I find the “at worst deliberately misleading” odd and those who go there first are wishful thinking.  

So my guess and I feel quite confident in it is that it didn’t occur to Pres. Hinckley or anyone else who might have been involved that anyone would misunderstand it as being investment of business profits rather than leftover funds from tithing donations.  I based this confidence on how leadership has been typically slow in responding to other misperceptions about policies and such.  I believe this happens because it doesn’t occur to them the misunderstandings will occur.  After all, the Church has a strong PR department from what I have seen (though it does vary in quality, I do believe it was pretty good during Pres. Hinckley’s tenure).  Why wouldn’t leadership ask them to prepare responses just in case a story breaks the wrong way for the Church if they considered it a possibility and especially if they expected it, but were simply hoping it wouldn’t happen.

***If someone has first encountered ideas that push the bias that the Church leadership lies/twist things and therefore looks to see how anything the Church says could be read as deceptive, then they might not automatically go to ‘leftover tithing investment’.  And if someone else less biased first encounters the deception claims or spends time trying to look at such an argument in a positive way (whether because they generally like the critics using the argument or feel more a part of their community than an outsider) before really dealing with the Church’s arguments and the judge’s decision quoted here, I can also see why they might be open to the deception claim as a possibility…but when Pres Hinckley “accurately” described the source of the payment to CC, claiming it was deliberately misleading just strikes me as absurd if you know the context and have no reason to want it to be misleading, including sympathy for members who believe the Church betrayed them in some fashion. 

I would love to be able to test this by finding a variety of members and nonmembers who haven’t a clue about anything this case deals with, never heard of CC even and test the difference in reaction if they were aware of the funds leftover from tithing donations investment funds, including after hearing how they themselves perceived it, finding out how often it occurs to those who were told about the fund that those who weren’t might misunderstand where the funds came from.  I just don’t think leaders were primed back then and not all of them now to even consider “how will critics take this the wrong”, let alone “how could members take it the wrong way”?

Edited September 29, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is in the decision by the judge, not in the Church’s argument, correct?

Correct

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

@Analytics,

I am hoping you can walk me through a few things:

1. You have, for several pages now (and perhaps for several months/years) argued that

(A) the Church Autonomy Doctrine is irrelevant to the fraud-based lawsuits against the Church (or, at least, irrelevant to Huntsman),
(B) the definition of tithing is also irrelevant to these fraud-based lawsuits,
(C) Huntsman is not asking the courts to define or re-define tithing,
(D) "every" judge who has reviewed Huntsman has reached the same conclusions you have, and
(E) Pres. Hinckley's remarks were either "vague" or "deliberately misleading," and/or that his communications amount to "clear deception."

Question #1: Have I stated your position correctly here?

 

Not exactly.

A: I believe the courts who have rejected the Church Autonomy motions to dismiss made the right call.

B: The definition of all words used in this case are relevant. I believe the word “tithing” has multiple definitions, some of which are religious, and some of which are secular. I believe the religious definitions are irrelevant to this case.

C : Correct; he isn’t asking the courts to redefine tithing. The members on this board who interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the same way Huntsman did are using the same definition of tithing that Huntsman used.

D : On this issue of church autonomy, with the exception of what one judge has said on one narrow issue, my understanding is that every judge has rejected the Church’s motions to dismiss, because they all decided this case is in fact secular. I believe my reasoning on this is a reflection of their combined reasoning. Am I wrong about this? Who has granted a motion to dismiss based on church autonomy?

E: I wouldn’t say his remarks were "clear deception," but I would say members of the Church thought they raised more questions than they answered. Although there were some exceptions, critics came to the conclusion that investment earnings on unspent tithing were used, and faithful Saints generally had false beliefs like Pahoran, who said, "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...but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution."

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. Here is a link to the trial court's decision in Huntsman which is currently on appeal.  

Question #2: Have you previously reviewed the Huntsman trial court's decision?

Yes.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

3. Back on September 12 I posted a link to the Church's Motion to Dismiss.  

Question #3: Have you previously reviewed this document?

Yes.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

4. In the Church's Motion to Dismiss, the following excerpt from the trial court's decision is quoted verbatim, as follows:

The primary dispute in Huntsman, where these same allegations were advanced, was over the meaning of “tithing.” After the Church submitted evidence that it used “earnings on invested reserves” to pay for City Creek, Huntsman argued that these funds were “tithing,” because tithing and earnings on invested reserves are “two sides of the same financial coin.” Huntsman, 2021 WL 4296208, *6 n.4. The court rejected that argument for two reasons:

First, for the purposes of this case, tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two. Second, because Plaintiff’s argument effectively asks this Court to define the term “tithing funds,” the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s argument.  {EDIT TO ADD} Specifically, determining whether the term "tithing funds" encompasses earnings on invested tithing funds would require an analysis of the Church doctrines and teachings.  Such an inquiry would entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of "ecclesiastical rule, custom or law." {} The First Amendment bars such an inquiry.

Id. Here, by asserting that “tithing” was used without saying what they mean, Plaintiffs fail to plead with sufficient specificity that the statements at issue were false. Falsity must be pled with particularity, meaning the plaintiff must “explain why the statement was misleading, and allege with particularity his basis for believing the statement was false.” Nakkhumpun v. Taylor, 782 F.3d 1142, 1147 (10th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs fail to do that. Huntsman also demonstrates that courts cannot resolve a dispute over what “tithing” means, which is an ecclesiastical question.

Question #4: Have you previously reviewed this specific portion of the Church's Motion?

Yes.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

5. I am trying to understand your position on the Huntsman case given the foregoing quote.

Judge Wilson said the following, which I agree with: "The Court concludes that the instant case presents a purely secular dispute. To resolve the dispute, no analysis of church policy or doctrines is necessary. Nor must a court or jury determine whether those policies or doctrines allow Defendant to spend tithing funds on the City Creek project."

The area where Judge Wilson diverged from the appeals court is when Judge Wilson summarized Hinckley’s comment thusly: "Specifically, Hinckley did not just state that tithing funds would not be used. Rather, he also explained that earnings from invested reserve tithing funds would be used.” A few points, Hinckley said “earnings of invested reserve funds,” not “earnings from invested reserve tithing funds.” I completely understand how, with 20/20 hindsight and the careful guidance of some attorneys, one could come to the conclusion that Hinckley unambiguously said that earnings of invested unspent tithing would be used. However, if one does not have this 20/20 hindsight, coming to the conclusion that Hinckley’s statement was true is a lot harder.

To see how these words were contemporaneously interpreted by Latter-day Saints, you have to look back to discussions that we had on this very issue.

In 2012, JAHS asked the following:

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

Exactly zero Latter-day Saints responded by saying, “no reasonable person could disagree with the critics on this issue; President Hinckley clearly explained that earnings from invested reserve tithing funds would be used to build the mall."

However, a critic, Craig Paxton, did say that the mall must have been funded in part by investment income on unspent tithing.

• Several Saints got upset with him for saying this
• Craig asked why they were upset with him for saying that investment income on unspent tithing was used
• The faithful explained why they were upset. For example, "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,” and, "Because the First Presidency has said they weren't and you are calling them liars." 

By looking at those old threads in detail, we can see how people interpreted Hinckley’s remark without the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight that Judge Wilson enjoyed. It turns out that the plurality of Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley’s words in exactly the same way that Huntsman claims he did.

As the 9th Circuit panel noted, "In each of these five statements, a church official or a church publication represented that no tithing funds were used to develop the City Creek Mall project. Four of the five statements were unqualified. Only President Hinckley’s 2003 statement was arguably hedged. He first stated that “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property.” He then went on to state that Church funds for the project would come from “earnings of invested reserve funds.” However, President Hinckley nowhere explained that, as he was using the terms, “reserve funds” were “tithing funds.”" 

While Judge Wilson was able to find a couple of statements from 1991 and 1995 that explained that “reserve funds” were really “tithing funds”, I couldn’t find a single person on these various threads that made that connection. 

And that is my answer to all of your subsequent questions; Judge Wilson doesn’t understand how Saints at the time interpreted Hinckley’s remarks; his interpretation of the remarks are based on 20/20 hindsight. That is why I disagree with him and am more inclined to agree with the two judges on the panel who concluded:

Quote

A reasonable juror could rely on the following evidence to conclude that the Church fraudulently misrepresented that neither tithing principal nor earnings on tithing principal would be or were being used to develop the City Creek Mall project: (1) the four unqualified statements by church officials and in church publications that tithing funds were not used to finance the City Creek Mall project; (2) the statement by President Hinckley, in which he denied that “tithing funds” would be used to develop the City Creek Mall project and in which he failed to tell his listeners that, as he was using the terms, “reserve funds” were “tithing funds”; (3) common usage in the Church under which the term “tithing funds” includes both tithing principal and earnings on tithing principal; and (4) Clarke’s statement that money was transferred from Ensign Peak to Property Reserve in order to conceal the source of the funds used to develop the City Creek Mall project.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2024 by Analytics

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Judge Wilson said the following, which I agree with: "The Court concludes that the instant case presents a purely secular dispute. To resolve the dispute, no analysis of church policy or doctrines is necessary. Nor must a court or jury determine whether those policies or doctrines allow Defendant to spend tithing funds on the City Creek project."

The area where Judge Wilson diverged from the appeals court is when Judge Wilson summarized Hinckley’s comment thusly: "Specifically, Hinckley did not just state that tithing funds would not be used. Rather, he also explained that earnings from invested reserve tithing funds would be used.” A few points, Hinckley said “earnings of invested reserve funds,” not “earnings from invested reserve tithing funds.” I completely understand how, with 20/20 hindsight and the careful guidance of some attorneys, one could come to the conclusion that Hinckley unambiguously said that earnings of invested unspent tithing would be used. However, if one does not have this 20/20 hindsight, coming to the conclusion that Hinckley’s statement was true is a lot harder.

To see how these words were contemporaneously interpreted by Latter-day Saints, you have to look back to discussions that we had on this very issue.

In 2012, JAHS asked the following:

Exactly zero Latter-day Saints responded by saying, “no reasonable person could disagree with the critics on this issue; President Hinckley clearly explained that earnings from invested reserve tithing funds would be used to build the mall."

However, a critic, Craig Paxton, did say that the mall must have been funded in part by investment income on unspent tithing.

• Several Saints got upset with him for saying this
• Craig asked why they were upset with him for saying that investment income on unspent tithing was used
• The faithful explained why they were upset. For example, "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,” and, "Because the First Presidency has said they weren't and you are calling them liars." 

By looking at those old threads in detail, we can see how people interpreted Hinckley’s remark without the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight that Judge Wilson enjoyed. It turns out that the plurality of Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley’s words in exactly the same way that Huntsman claims he did.

As the 9th Circuit panel noted, "In each of these five statements, a church official or a church publication represented that no tithing funds were used to develop the City Creek Mall project. Four of the five statements were unqualified. Only President Hinckley’s 2003 statement was arguably hedged. He first stated that “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property.” He then went on to state that Church funds for the project would come from “earnings of invested reserve funds.” However, President Hinckley nowhere explained that, as he was using the terms, “reserve funds” were “tithing funds.”" 

While Judge Wilson was able to find a couple of statements from 1991 and 1995 that explained that “reserve funds” were really “tithing funds”, I couldn’t find a single person on these various threads that made that connection. 

And that is my answer to all of your subsequent questions; Judge Wilson doesn’t understand how Saints at the time interpreted Hinckley’s remarks; his interpretation of the remarks are based on 20/20 hindsight. That is why I disagree with him and am more inclined to agree with the two judges on the panel who concluded:

 

 

I mentioned this before but I think this is why the appeal decision was vacated.  How do you determine what a reasonable member understood without delving into religion?  For instance, JAHS said (from your quote of him):

Quote

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

Notice how he uses "sacred" or "God's church".

In Nielsen's affidavit for Huntsman, he says

Quote

Every penny was referred to as the “widow’s mite.”

Notice the usage of "widow's mite" which has an extremely strong religious association (I'm surprised that Huntsman's lawyers allowed that term in the affidavit).

How is it possible to separate the religious meaning of tithing and the secular meaning of tithing in a reasonable member's understanding?  The full appeals court asked that multiple times to Huntsman's lawyers.  I'm really curious on what they will rule because I don't think Huntsman's lawyers were able to articulate how.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Not exactly.

A: I believe the courts who have rejected the Church Autonomy motions to dismiss made the right call.

B: The definition of all words used in this case are relevant. I believe the word “tithing” has multiple definitions, some of which are religious, and some of which are secular. I believe the religious definitions are irrelevant to this case.

C : Correct; he isn’t asking the courts to redefine tithing. The members on this board who interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the same way Huntsman did are using the same definition of tithing that Huntsman used.

D : On this issue of church autonomy, with the exception of what one judge has said on one narrow issue, my understanding is that every judge has rejected the Church’s motions to dismiss, because they all decided this case is in fact secular. I believe my reasoning on this is a reflection of their combined reasoning. Am I wrong about this? Who has granted a motion to dismiss based on church autonomy?

E: I wouldn’t say his remarks were "clear deception," but I would say members of the Church thought they raised more questions than they answered. Although there were some exceptions, critics came to the conclusion that investment earnings on unspent tithing were used, and faithful Saints generally had false beliefs like Pahoran, who said, "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...but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution."

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Judge Wilson said the following, which I agree with: "The Court concludes that the instant case presents a purely secular dispute. To resolve the dispute, no analysis of church policy or doctrines is necessary. Nor must a court or jury determine whether those policies or doctrines allow Defendant to spend tithing funds on the City Creek project."

The area where Judge Wilson diverged from the appeals court is when Judge Wilson summarized Hinckley’s comment thusly: "Specifically, Hinckley did not just state that tithing funds would not be used. Rather, he also explained that earnings from invested reserve tithing funds would be used.” A few points, Hinckley said “earnings of invested reserve funds,” not “earnings from invested reserve tithing funds.” I completely understand how, with 20/20 hindsight and the careful guidance of some attorneys, one could come to the conclusion that Hinckley unambiguously said that earnings of invested unspent tithing would be used. However, if one does not have this 20/20 hindsight, coming to the conclusion that Hinckley’s statement was true is a lot harder.

To see how these words were contemporaneously interpreted by Latter-day Saints, you have to look back to discussions that we had on this very issue.

In 2012, JAHS asked the following:

Exactly zero Latter-day Saints responded by saying, “no reasonable person could disagree with the critics on this issue; President Hinckley clearly explained that earnings from invested reserve tithing funds would be used to build the mall."

However, a critic, Craig Paxton, did say that the mall must have been funded in part by investment income on unspent tithing.

• Several Saints got upset with him for saying this
• Craig asked why they were upset with him for saying that investment income on unspent tithing was used
• The faithful explained why they were upset. For example, "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,” and, "Because the First Presidency has said they weren't and you are calling them liars." 

By looking at those old threads in detail, we can see how people interpreted Hinckley’s remark without the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight that Judge Wilson enjoyed. It turns out that the plurality of Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley’s words in exactly the same way that Huntsman claims he did.

As the 9th Circuit panel noted, "In each of these five statements, a church official or a church publication represented that no tithing funds were used to develop the City Creek Mall project. Four of the five statements were unqualified. Only President Hinckley’s 2003 statement was arguably hedged. He first stated that “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property.” He then went on to state that Church funds for the project would come from “earnings of invested reserve funds.” However, President Hinckley nowhere explained that, as he was using the terms, “reserve funds” were “tithing funds.”" 

While Judge Wilson was able to find a couple of statements from 1991 and 1995 that explained that “reserve funds” were really “tithing funds”, I couldn’t find a single person on these various threads that made that connection. 

And that is my answer to all of your subsequent questions; Judge Wilson doesn’t understand how Saints at the time interpreted Hinckley’s remarks; his interpretation of the remarks are based on 20/20 hindsight. That is why I disagree with him and am more inclined to agree with the two judges on the panel who concluded:

 

 

RE: "By looking at those old threads in detail," My contribution was essentially the same is it was in the link you provided: Posted May 10

  On 5/10/2024 at 12:57 PM, Analytics said:

To me, “for-profit ventures” refers to Deseret Management Corp, its subsidiaries, and related for-profit entities. The Church did in fact use perhaps 50-70% of funds from that side of the house.

The remaining 30-50% came from Ensign Peak Advisors, which is a non-profit venture.

  On 5/10/2024 at 2:45 PM, CV75 said:

Thank you, I see the difference between for-profit and non-profit. While both of entities are affiliates or integrated auxiliaries (as the case may be) of the Church, how is either the recipient of tithing funds? How are their activities using tithing funds -- maybe that's all been hashed out in this thread

It may not be relevant, but when I heard President Hinckley talk about the mall in General Conference, I took "no tithing" to mean its funding came from any other source but tithing, whether personal (unrestricted gifts and bequests, for example), or the Church's affiliates or integrated auxiliaries. I don't recall distinguishing between for-profit and nonprofit in my mind, and while and organization's "money is money" to me no matter where it comes from, I sensed a distinction that tithe, once it is used up for immediate needs, it is no longer available as a funding type (obviously), and if any surplus is invested, a new funding type is created. I did not consider at that point that the principal would continue as a tithing fund (figured that designation was over) while the interest would not be, but it makes sense. I assume it's legal!  

_Back to the present: But I'd had my MPA since the early 1980s, so by the time Hinckley spoke in 2003/04, I had that lens/hearing aid.

Are you trying to demonstrate that some who posted further back in 2012 were simply mistaken in their understanding that people's tithing, once fully meeting the ecclesiastical needs under an operational funding designation (creating a reserve) are not converted into an investment funding designation? What is your objective for doing that?

Edited September 29, 2024 by CV75

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I mentioned this before but I think this is why the appeal decision was vacated.  How do you determine what a reasonable member understood without delving into religion?  For instance, JAHS said (from your quote of him):

Quote

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

Notice how he uses "sacred" or "God's church".

When I asked this question originally, I was asking it in regards on how to respond to the critics who say this, not that I agreed with them. My opinion is the same as Longview's when he said earlier:
"I think the first and primary consideration of the Church was to help reverse "urban decay" along Main Street south of Temple Square in order to safeguard and maintain the beauty of Temple Square. To hold it sacred."
Even if it was considered sacred tithing money that was used  I believe it was going towards this worthy purpose and I think the earlier saints would have agreed with it as well.
 

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

When I asked this question originally, I was asking it in regards on how to respond to the critics who say this, not that I agreed with them. My opinion is the same as Longview's when he said earlier:
"I think the first and primary consideration of the Church was to help reverse "urban decay" along Main Street south of Temple Square in order to safeguard and maintain the beauty of Temple Square. To hold it sacred."
Even if it was considered sacred tithing money that was used  I believe it was going towards this worthy purpose and I think the earlier saints would have agreed with it as well.
 

Hi JAHS,

I know you’ve explained this to me before, and I think I understand your point a little better now. I originally thought your question was just about where the money for the mall came from; if not from tithing, at least indirectly, where did it come from? But it looks like there was a second part--if it did come from tithing, is that okay?

For the record, if the Church is going to use its reserves to capitalize for-profit companies, it makes more sense to use it to capitalize City Creek than use it to capitalize Apple and Nvidia.

And I’m pretty confident that the real underlying grievance of Huntsman et. al. is not that the Church diverted some of its investments away from Amazon and Microsoft and towards City Creek and Beneficial Life. The real grievance consists of two parts: 1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members. The problem is they don’t have a legal basis to sue on those grounds. However, they do have a case about what was said about City Creek.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE: "By looking at those old threads in detail," My contribution was essentially the same is it was in the link you provided: Posted May 10

  On 5/10/2024 at 12:57 PM, Analytics said:

To me, “for-profit ventures” refers to Deseret Management Corp, its subsidiaries, and related for-profit entities. The Church did in fact use perhaps 50-70% of funds from that side of the house.

The remaining 30-50% came from Ensign Peak Advisors, which is a non-profit venture.

  On 5/10/2024 at 2:45 PM, CV75 said:

Thank you, I see the difference between for-profit and non-profit. While both of entities are affiliates or integrated auxiliaries (as the case may be) of the Church, how is either the recipient of tithing funds? How are their activities using tithing funds -- maybe that's all been hashed out in this thread

Ensign Peak Advisors are the direct recipient of tithing funds. Every year, about $1 billion of “tithing funds” that were collected that year are sent from the Church’s treasury to Ensign Peak Advisors, where they are invested fairly aggressively. The overwhelming majority of funds in Ensign Peaks consists of tithing money that was sent from the Church, which has grown with interest. Whether we call all or part of the funds in City Creek “tithing”, “tithing that has grown with interest”, “reserves”, “principal”, “interest”, “rainy day fund,” “reserves on the reserves,” or anything else is really just semantics.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

It may not be relevant, but when I heard President Hinckley talk about the mall in General Conference, I took "no tithing" to mean its funding came from any other source but tithing, whether personal (unrestricted gifts and bequests, for example), or the Church's affiliates or integrated auxiliaries. I don't recall distinguishing between for-profit and nonprofit in my mind, and while and organization's "money is money" to me no matter where it comes from, I sensed a distinction that tithe, once it is used up for immediate needs, it is no longer available as a funding type (obviously), and if any surplus is invested, a new funding type is created. I did not consider at that point that the principal would continue as a tithing fund (figured that designation was over) while the interest would not be, but it makes sense. I assume it's legal!  

That very well may be the way Hinckley looked at it but if so, I don’t think very many understood the message.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Are you trying to demonstrate that some who posted further back in 2012 were simply mistaken in their understanding that people's tithing, once fully meeting the ecclesiastical needs under an operational funding designation (creating a reserve) are not converted into an investment funding designation? What is your objective for doing that?

The reason this issue is interesting to me is because I have some empathy for James Huntsman--he interpreted Hinckley’s comments the same way many Saints here interpreted Hinckley’s comments. When new information came out that showed that James Huntsman, Pahoran, @thesometimesaint, @Mola Ram Suda Ram, Kim Pearson, etc. were all wrong, John Huntsman and a few others left the Church, and the others all stayed. What’s interesting is that the ones who stayed generally didn’t say, “Wow, the critics turned out to be right on this issue; touché.” Rather, to varying degrees they rewrote history in their own minds and now pretend they understood the details of this all along.

My main objectives are to help the apologists have a bit of empathy for James Huntsman et. al., and to keep the record straight about the fact that the contemporaneous record on this forum indicates that for the most part the apologists used to interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the same way Huntsman claimed he did. 

16 hours ago, webbles said:

I mentioned this before but I think this is why the appeal decision was vacated.  How do you determine what a reasonable member understood without delving into religion?  For instance, JAHS said (from your quote of him):

Notice how he uses "sacred" or "God's church".

In Nielsen's affidavit for Huntsman, he says

Notice the usage of "widow's mite" which has an extremely strong religious association (I'm surprised that Huntsman's lawyers allowed that term in the affidavit).

How is it possible to separate the religious meaning of tithing and the secular meaning of tithing in a reasonable member's understanding?  The full appeals court asked that multiple times to Huntsman's lawyers.  I'm really curious on what they will rule because I don't think Huntsman's lawyers were able to articulate how.

It's a question about how the Church promised that real-world dollars would be spent, and how they really were spent. Those issues can be evaluated by a secular court and without infringing on religion. That’s all there is to it.

Edited September 30, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

4. In the Church's Motion to Dismiss, the following excerpt from the trial court's decision is quoted verbatim, as follows:

The primary dispute in Huntsman, where these same allegations were advanced, was over the meaning of “tithing.” After the Church submitted evidence that it used “earnings on invested reserves” to pay for City Creek, Huntsman argued that these funds were “tithing,” because tithing and earnings on invested reserves are “two sides of the same financial coin.” Huntsman, 2021 WL 4296208, *6 n.4. The court rejected that argument for two reasons:
 

First, for the purposes of this case, tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two. Second, because Plaintiff’s argument effectively asks this Court to define the term “tithing funds,” the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s argument.  {EDIT TO ADD} Specifically, determining whether the term "tithing funds" encompasses earnings on invested tithing funds would require an analysis of the Church doctrines and teachings.  Such an inquiry would entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of "ecclesiastical rule, custom or law." {} The First Amendment bars such an inquiry.

Id. Here, by asserting that “tithing” was used without saying what they mean, Plaintiffs fail to plead with sufficient specificity that the statements at issue were false. Falsity must be pled with particularity, meaning the plaintiff must “explain why the statement was misleading, and allege with particularity his basis for believing the statement was false.” Nakkhumpun v. Taylor, 782 F.3d 1142, 1147 (10th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs fail to do that. Huntsman also demonstrates that courts cannot resolve a dispute over what “tithing” means, which is an ecclesiastical question.
...

5. I am trying to understand your position on the Huntsman case given the foregoing quote.

 

Question #5: How do you square the assertions recited in item 1(A)-(E) above with the above excerpt from the trial court's decision in Huntsman (that Huntsman "effectively asks" the court to "define the term 'tithing funds,'" and that "the First Amendment {that is, the Church Autonomy Doctrine} bars such an inquiry")?

Judge Wilson said the following, which I agree with: "The Court concludes that the instant case presents a purely secular dispute. To resolve the dispute, no analysis of church policy or doctrines is necessary. Nor must a court or jury determine whether those policies or doctrines allow Defendant to spend tithing funds on the City Creek project."

Yes, I understand that part.  What I do not understand is your position given his (Judge Wilson's) statements that Huntsman "effectively asks" the court to "define the term 'tithing funds,'" and that "the First Amendment {that is, the Church Autonomy Doctrine} bars such an inquiry."

Do you agree or disagree with this portion of Judge Wilson's decision?

Here are the remainder of my questions, which you did not answer:

6. Following is another excerpt from the Huntsman decision (from pp. 8-9) :

Neilsen conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds. ... It is on this basis that he then asserts that EPA directed approximately $1.4 billion in tithing funds to pay for {City Creek}. However, Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project - both the acquisition of property and the development of that property.  And, as discussed above, that is exactly what happened.  Accordingly ... the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true.

Question #6: How do you square the assertions recited in item 1(A)-(E) above with the above excerpt from the trial court's decision in Huntsman (that Neilen "conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds," that this is the "basis" for his allegations about City Creek, that Pres. Hinckley "expressly" differentiated between tithing and earnings on invested tithings, that this "is exactly what happened," and that therefore Pres. Hinckley's statement was "true")?

7. Following is another excerpt from the Huntsman decision (from pp. 9-10) :

Plaintiff offers no evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact.  Plaintiff does not argue that earnings on invested tithing funds were not actually used{.} ... Instead, Plaintiff simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds.  {} However, Hinckley's statement is what creates a distinction between the two.  Specifically, Hinckley distinguished between tithing funds and the earnings on invested reserve tithing funds.  Hinckley's statement forms the basis for the fraud claim, and on reasonable juror could ignore the distinction within this statement.

Question #7: How do you square the assertions recited in item 1(A)-(E) above with the above excerpt from the trial court's decision in Huntsman (that Huntsman "simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds," but that Pres. Hinckley did, in fact, distinguish between the two)?

8. Following is an excerpt from an article published by The Sutherland Institute about the Huntsman lawsuit: 
 

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.”

Question #8: Do you disagree with the Sutherland Institute's comment above?  If so, what is your reasoning?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac