Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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 City Creek 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.

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

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. 

RE: 1st paragraph: yes, semantics are crucial to understanding what is going on.

RE: 2nd paragraph, yes, people interpreted his meaning differently.

RE:  3rd & 4th paragraphs: has John Huntsman changed his understanding over the years? I don’t think rewriting history in one’s own mind and pretending otherwise are lacking empathy for another who doesn’t; those are personal foibles. They can still have empathy for those who leave the Church over such misunderstandings, even while taking and discussing sides in public cases. I think it important to also recognize other common responses to a misunderstanding, such as thinking President Hinckley might have been waffling but staying in the Church anyway.

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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? 

I strenuously disagree with this portion of Judge Wilson’s decision. Huntsman isn’t asking anybody to redefine anything.

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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")?

Hinckley did not say, expressly or otherwise, that earnings on invested “tithings" would be used to pay for the City Creek Project. Judge Wilson is expressly wrong about that. And this quote is ignoring the four other alleged lies from the lawsuit.

After analyzing all five of the alleged lies, the 9th Circuit panel correctly 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. 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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)?

A couple of points. Like most other words, “tithing” has multiple definitions, which can vary by the context. Somebody making a good-faith effort to understand what is implied, meant to be implied, and what would reasonably be inferred from a word in a secular context doesn’t imply that they want to redefine that same word in a religious context.

Huntsman isn’t arguing that the word “tithing” should be redefined. He is arguing that on five different occasions, the Church lied about where the funds for the mall would come from.  

After analyzing all five of the alleged lies, the 9th Circuit panel correctly 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. 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 disagree with the Sutherland Institute here. The trial judge came to the conclusion that "President Hinckley’s statement accurately described the source of the funds used in City Creek,” but only with 20/20 hindsight and the help of some attorneys. But when we had discussions about it and critics accurately described the funding for City Creek, nobody said “exactly! That is in fact what Hinckley disclosed.” Nobody said that, because at the time, nobody other than a few critics understood Hinckley to mean what the judge now thinks he meant.

Huntsman just isn’t arguing that the courts should redefine the religious definition of tithing so that Hinckley’s words change to mean what Huntsman needs them to mean in order to win the case. He just isn’t.

Huntsman isn’t arguing that the word “tithing” should be redefined. He is arguing that on five different occasions, the Church lied about where the funds for the mall would come from.  

"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. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I think Huntsman's "underlying grievance" is that he is angry at the Church and wants to embarrass it and, possibly, use the power of the courts to delve into its finances.  But If I'm right, then Huntsman would have every incentive to obscure his motives and grievances, as federal courts don't like lawfare.

However, if we take Huntsman's Complaint at face value, he would have no reason to obscure an "underlying grievance."  He wouldn't have one.  He filed a fraud-based lawsuit in federal court to pursue a fraud claim, not as a pretext for a religious dispute (which your comments below seem to concede).  He has presumably paid lawyers a lot of money to be as specific and precise and clear as possible in the pleadings, since fraud claims are held to a higher pleading standard. So it's sort of odd that you have to parse out what his "underlying grievance" is. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

If you are correct, I sure hope Judge Wilson doesn't find out.

I have, until now, construed your position as giving Huntsman the benefit of the doubt.  That you think he is pursuing a fraud claim in good faith, and that this amounts to a purely secular inquiry.  Now you are characterizing Huntsman as having unstated "real grievance{s}," and his lawsuit being pretextual.

More to the point, these supposed "real grievance{s}" are about matters of church governance that are barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

So, pretty revealing stuff, this.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

However, they do have a case about what was said about City Creek.

So Huntsman is using "what was said about City Creek" as a fabricated pretext to hide from Judge Wilson what his "real grievance{s}" are.  

Do you see any problem with that?  Or are you okay with it?  Or are you acknowledging that Huntsman's "real grievance{s}" amount to a religious - not secular - dispute with the Church after all?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

And all of this is entirely legal, right?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The overwhelming majority of funds in Ensign Peaks consists of tithing money that was sent from the Church, which has grown with interest.

It seems like the majority of the money held by EPA comes from returns on investments, rather than the principal.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Judge Wilson disagrees with you.

So do, I think, the vast majority of the Latter-day Saints.  "Tithing" is what the Latter-day Saints donate to the Church.  Everything else is the Church's post-donation use of the money.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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

I think most Latter-day Saints didn't really care about or pay much attention to the funding of City Creek.  I don't even think Huntsman did (because, as you note above, his "real grievance{s}" are not about Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement).

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I agree, but not in the way you imply.  I think Huntsman understood that Pres. Hinckley differentiated between tithing and earnings on invested reserves (Judge Wilson adjudicated as much).  I think most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue had a similar understanding.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I don't think you are accurately characterizing the Latter-day Saints here.  Nearly a year ago I went through the 2012 posts about this topic and quoted the Latter-day Saints verbatim.  I summed them up as follows:

Quote

Oi.  That was a slog.  But perhaps it was useful.  To sum up what the Latter-day Saints were saying back in 2012 and 2015:

• "Tithing and other consecrated funds"
• "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing"
• "if they say tithing money is not used for the building of things like the mall I can believe them"
• "{tithing} slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings"
• "Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used"
• "I will continue to give whatever excess funds I can, apart from tithing, for the fast offering, for the Church Humanitarian fund, for the Perpetual Education Fund..."
• "The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate."
• "{'not tithing' funds are} income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose."
• "There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds..."
• "The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds."
• "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true."
• "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available..."
• "Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds."
• "I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek."
• "When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used."
• "All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund."
• "If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case."

That sure sounds like what Latter-day Saints are saying now, in 2023, in this thread.  If the Latter-day Saints believe that A) the Church stated that the funds for City Creek did not come from tithing, and also B) the Church actually used from for City Creek, then those funds, ipso facto, are not "tithing funds," and the Latter-day Saints are not treating "tithing" as being synonymous with all other sources of Church income.  So it won't do for you to cram into our mouths and minds the notion that "tithing" includes monies that are not tithes.  You are just making that up.

Observant and conversant Latter-day Saints understand what "tithing" is, and what it means, and what it is not and what it does not mean.  (For that matter, I think the overwhelming majority of all people familiar with a dictionary would not subscribe to your tortured re-definition of "tithing.")

Latter-day Saints understand that the Church receives "tithes" from members (a tenth of their income), but also has other sources of income.  Fast offerings.  Charitable donations (such as to LDS Philanthropies), earnings on investments, for-profit ventures, and so on.

Latter-day Saints do not, per your suggestion, conflate these various sources of income as all falling under the rubric of "tithing."  Tithing has an actual and fairly specific definition and meaning.

A tithe is a donation by a member of the Church amounting to a tenth of his income.

A fast offering is a numerically distinct and separate and additional donation by a member of the Church, generally equivalent to the money that would have been spent on two meals (some members give more, some give less).  A fast offering is money that belongs to the Church, but it is not a "tithe," and tithing is not a fast offering.  The two are not synonymous.

A profit generated by EPA investing money in stocks, bonds, etc. is money that belongs to the Church, but such earnings on EPA's investments is not a "tithe" and tithing is not money generated by the EPA's investment efforts.  The two are not synonymous.

And so on.

Though derived from different sources, all of the monies held by the Church are held in trust.  All of these monies belong to the Lord.  All of these monies are, therefore, "sacred funds."  But not all "sacred funds" are "tithing."  Latter-day Saints, as shown above, do not believe that.  Nor does the Church teach that.

I am content to let readers review my previous post and come to their own conclusions.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.”

I think 'the critics" included in their commentary conclusory accusations that the Church lied about the funding of City Creek.  Much as you have done throughout this thread, they went out of their way to provoke and offend and denigrate, and to some extent succeeded in provoking and offending some Latter-day Saints.  C'est la vie.

Nevertheless, the Latter-day Saints appeared to have had a pretty solid grasp of the differentiation between tithes donated to the Church and its other sources of income, such as returns on invested reserves.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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. 

I think we are better off reading the comments of the Latter-day Saints rather than listen to you speaking on their behalf.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It's a question about how the Church promised that real-world dollars would be spent, and how they really were spent.

Well, no.  Again, from Judge Wilson:

Quote

{T}ithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two. Second, because Plaintiff’s argument effectively asks this Court to define the term “tithing funds,” the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s argument.  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.
...
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.
...
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.

• "Neilsen conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested funds."
• "{Huntsman} simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds."
• "{T}ithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are not two sides of the same coin because [President] Hinckley expressly distinguished between the two."
• "Hinckley distinguished between tithing funds and the earnings on invested reserve tithing funds."
• "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project - both the acquisition of property and the development of that property.  And, as discussed above, that is exactly what happened.  Accordingly ... the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true."

The foregoing findings in 2023 substantially confirm and vindicate the cumulative remarks of the Latter-day Saints who commented on this in 2012:

• "Tithing and other consecrated funds"
• "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing"
• "Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used"
• "The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate."
• "{'not tithing' funds are} income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose."
• "There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds..."
• "The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds."
• "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true."
• "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available..."
• "Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds."
• "I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek."
• "When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used."
• "All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund."
• "If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case."

It is the Latter-day Saints, not their critics, who had a correct understanding of the funding of City Creek.

And by even your estimation, Huntsman's lawsuit isn't even about City Creek, and is instead about his other (and unstated) "real grievance{s}."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Those issues can be evaluated by a secular court and without infringing on religion.

They can only do so by refusing to listen to Huntsman.  From Judge Wilson:

Quote

{Huntsman} argues that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are "two sides of the same financial coin."  {}  This argument is unavailing 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. 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.

Huntsman presented fraud claims in his Complaint to Judge Wilson.

Judge Wilson said he could adjudicate these claims in ways which do not run afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the First Amendment.

When arguing against the Church's Motion for Summary Judgment, Huntsman "effectively" asked Judge Wilson to "define the term 'tithing funds.'"

Judge Wilson refused to do so because complying with Huntsman's request would "entangle this Court ... in an interpretation of 'ecclesiastical rule, custom or law,'" and that "{t}he First Amendment bars such an inquiry."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That’s all there is to it.

The Ninth Circuit seems to have thought otherwise.

So too did Judge Wilson.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 30, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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? 

I strenuously disagree with this portion of Judge Wilson’s decision. Huntsman isn’t asking anybody to redefine anything.

Could you elaborate?  Where did Judge Wilson err in his assessment?

Judge Wilson, who reviewed the summary judgment filings, found that "{Huntsman} simply argues that there is no distinction between tithing funds and and earnings on invested tithing funds."  Are you saying that Huntsman did not argue this?  If so, please explain how you are arriving at this conclusion.

Judge Wilson also found that "{Huntsman} argues that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin'" despite Pres. Hinckley expressly differentiating between the two, and that by this argument Huntsman "effectively asks this Court to define the term 'tithing funds,'" and that the inquiry being requested here by Huntsman is barred by the First Amendment." 

Judge Wilson here uses the term "effectively" to mean "actually but not officially or explicitly."  So your rote assertion that "Huntsman isn’t asking anybody to redefine anything" doesn't really work.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hinckley did not say, expressly or otherwise, that earnings on invested “tithings" would be used to pay for the City Creek Project.

I believe Judge Wilson was incorporating the Rytting affidavit into his analysis. 

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Judge Wilson is expressly wrong about that.  

Have you reviewed the Rytting affidavit?  For that matter, have you reviewed the summary judgment filings?  I'm reasonably confident that Judge Wilson did, and that he based his conclusions on those materials.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And this quote is ignoring the four other alleged lies from the lawsuit.

Judge Wilson did not ignore the other four statements.  He instead directly addressed them (see pp. 10-11).

It is statements like this that makes me think you have not actually read these materials, or else that you have not read them very carefully.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A couple of points. Like most other words, “tithing” has multiple definitions, which can vary by the context.

If true, then asking a federal court to pick and choose which of these "multiple definitions" to use when interpreting Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement would almost certainly violate the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

If Judge Wilson had been asked to interpret a statement by Pres. Hinckley about hiccups, or Canada, or baseball, then a federal judge parsing out one secular definition from another could well take place.  As it is, though, Pres. Hinckley was speaking about tithing, which as one of the Ninth Circuit judges observed, is "a quintessential religious issue."  As another asked: “How can a church have a secular definition of a religious obligation?”

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Somebody making a good-faith effort to understand what is implied, meant to be implied, and what would reasonably be inferred from a word in a secular context doesn’t imply that they want to redefine that same word in a religious context.

I think you do not understand the Church Autonomy Doctrine very well.  I encourage you to review Harmston, In re Godwin and Ferrero.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Huntsman isn’t arguing that the word “tithing” should be redefined.

Judge Wilson found that "{Huntsman} argues that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin'" despite Pres. Hinckley expressly differentiating between the two, and that by this argument Huntsman "effectively asks this Court to define the term 'tithing funds,'" and that the inquiry being requested here by Huntsman is barred by the First Amendment." 

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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 disagree with the Sutherland Institute here. The trial judge came to the conclusion that "President Hinckley’s statement accurately described the source of the funds used in City Creek,” but only with 20/20 hindsight and the help of some attorneys.

A judge is always going to make factual findings in "hindsight."

And the help came through the adversarial process, where one set of attorneys heavily critiqued the factual and legal arguments of the other side and vice versa.

So what are you saying here?  That Judge Wilson got it wrong?  

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But when we had discussions about it and critics accurately described the funding for City Creek, nobody said “exactly! That is in fact what Hinckley disclosed.” Nobody said that, because at the time, nobody other than a few critics understood Hinckley to mean what the judge now thinks he meant.

I think this is quite incorrect.  Many Latter-day Saints in 2012 had and expressed pretty solid understanding of the conceptual differentiation between tithes and other sources of income.  For pete's sake, Pres. Hinckley had made his remarks nine years prior.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Huntsman just isn’t arguing that the courts should redefine the religious definition of tithing so that Hinckley’s words change to mean what Huntsman needs them to mean in order to win the case. He just isn’t.

Huntsman isn’t arguing that the word “tithing” should be redefined.

Yes, he is.

Judge Wilson found that "{Huntsman} argues that tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin'" despite Pres. Hinckley expressly differentiating between the two, and that by this argument Huntsman "effectively asks this Court to define the term 'tithing funds,'" and that the inquiry being requested here by Huntsman is barred by the First Amendment." 

Judge Wilson here uses the term "effectively" to mean "actually but not officially or explicitly."  That is, "{Huntsman actually, but not officially or explicitly,} asks this Court to define the term 'tithing funds.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 30, 2024 by smac97

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members.

Interesting how members see things like this differently. For me:

1. Don't care because it was never any member's money in the first place

2. Don't care how big it is because it was never any member's money in the first place.

It all belonged to God before it was ever given to the church. If church leaders use it unwisely then that is on their heads and God will hold them accountable.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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

Thank you for taking a positive perspective on the reasons for supporting the City Creek endeavor. Too many critics were trying to paint a lurid picture of this effort. You may have been playing up this aspect to add grounds for condemning the Church. It is strange how you change your posturing. You have been accused by others of trying shift the goal post around.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

than use it to capitalize Apple and Nvidia.

I think the use of the word "capitalize" is correct in the case of City Creek. The funds were used to hire companies to start the work and the indirect employment of managers and laborers. However, this word does NOT apply to buying shares of companies that are listed in the stock market. Buying shares is merely the means for owning a fraction of a company. Also buying shares means you bought them from other share holders where the money (transaction) does NOT go directly to the company, just the share-holder.

Companies are capitalized when they make a "initial public offering" (called an IPO). Then they receive direct cash. Then all who bought shares become owners of the company.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

Diverting is NOT what happened. The point is that previous investments in secular for-profit companies was sufficient to provide funding for City Creek.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

1- according to what moral authority? You? James Huntsman? The communists? If the Church is going to have major plans in the future, it is supernally wise to build up reserves.

2- sez who? You? Huntsman?

Now you are changing your position again, making City Creek a negative. Pres. Hinckley was VERY straightforward in stating that NO funding was taken out of tithing. There was plenty of interests and dividends from for-profit enterprises (a very successful bucket) to fund City Creek. This secular bucket will ALSO be beneficial for supporting even more charitable works now and in the future. The LORD continues to guide and direct the prophet of HIS Church.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ensign Peak Advisors are the direct recipient of tithing funds.

No. There are numerous requirements for the "disposition" of funds that the Church has to care for maintenance of ward and stake houses, supporting missions, building temples, Bishop's Storehouses, Welfare Squares, and on and on. The Church also sends money "out of house" to other organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Red Cross, and numerous other aid societies. Even Stakes and Wards will send out support to local entities and non-members. EPA has NO role in any of that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Every year, about $1 billion of “tithing funds” that were collected that year are sent from the Church’s treasury to Ensign Peak Advisors,

Why did you use the word "treasury" ? To make the Church sound bad? Why demonize EPA for helping the Church act as wise stewards for building reserves?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

where they are invested fairly aggressively.

That's good, isn't it?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The overwhelming majority of funds in Ensign Peaks consists of tithing money that was sent from the Church, which has grown with interest.

Are you implying that too little money was used for Church dispositions? What do you think the ratio is between tithing used and tithing left over per year?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Did you read my previous post about the history of economic activities in Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, and the great settlement/development of State of Deseret? Why argue about terminologies of various buckets managed by EPA? I will say it again: "The point is that previous investments in secular for-profit companies was sufficient to provide funding for City Creek." People KNEW that the Church was making investments in for-profit companies such as Proctor and Gamble and Bank of America, etc as well as many other endeavors. Most could easily accept that funding was sufficient in the for-profit bucket and did NOT need to know the minute details of accounting systems at EPA.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Quote

1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members.

Interesting how members see things like this differently.

Yes.  It's almost as if these issues are deeply rooted in religious sentiment and belief, such that asking a federal judge to adjudicate a hokey fraud claim - which by now even @Analytics (!) is admitting to be pretextual - would, as Judge Wilson put it, "entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of 'ecclesiastical rule, custom or law'" in violation of the First Amendment.

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For me:

1. Don't care because it was never any member's money in the first place

2. Don't care how big it is because it was never any member's money in the first place.

It all belonged to God before it was ever given to the church. If church leaders use it unwisely then that is on their heads and God will hold them accountable.

What you are saying here is religious declaration, not a secular one.  I entirely agree with it.  All the more reason for secular judges to not touch Huntsman's case with a ten-foot pole.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

But to determine that question, you have to ask what a reasonable member would have thought, correct?  I think, based on all the discussions that you and smac have had, and based on that really old thread and the recent conversations around it, it sounds like a reasonable member would have a really hard time separating out this secular definition of tithing from the religious definition of tithing.  Even Nielson put a religious meaning behind the money at EPA in his affidavit.  The appeals court asked this multiple times.

If we are just talking about the actual dollars that Huntsman donated, then I think everyone can agree that those specific dollars never went to City Creek.  If we take about just the actual dollars that people donated to the church as tithing, then I think everyone can agree that those specific dollars never went to City Creek.  But once you start talking about the definition of "using", or if tithing funds means just tithing dollars or tithing plus interest or co-mingled money, I think you are going to have a hard time finding a reasonable member that doesn't cross into religious matters.  I think the appeals court realizes that and that is the reason why it vacated the ruling.  I do think that the court can rule on this without going into religious matters, but there is a line on how far it can go.  The trial judge saw that he could make the ruling easily without crossing the line and so didn't feel the need to deal with the religious question.  The 3 appeal judges felt like they could also make a ruling without crossing the line but I think the full court saw them cross the line.

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

Quote

Ensign Peak Advisors are the direct recipient of tithing funds.

No. There are numerous requirements for the "disposition" of funds that the Church has to care for maintenance of ward and stake houses, supporting missions, building temples, Bishop's Storehouses, Welfare Squares, and on and on. The Church also sends money "out of house" to other organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Red Cross, and numerous other aid societies. Even Stakes and Wards will send out support to local entities and non-members. EPA has NO role in any of that.

@Analytics is correct here.  From Judge Wilson's decision in Huntsman (which included factual findings based on submissions from the Church) :

Quote

In 1991, {Pres. Hinckley} explained that Defendant would set aside a portion of tithing funds paid to the Church as a rainy day fund: "In the financial operations of the Church, we have observed two fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means.  It will not spend more than it receives.  Two, a fixed percentage of income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible 'rainy day.'"

Hinckley reiterated this principle in 1995: "Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget ... Should there come a time of economic distress, we would hope to have the means to weather the storm."

In 1997, Defendant incorporated Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc. ("EPA") to bet the Defendant's primary investment vehicle for the Defendant's reserve tithing funds.  The reserve tithing funds would be invested in stocks, bonds and securities.  Defendant provided EPA with an initial grant of {REDACTED} of reserve tithing funds in late 1997.  By 2003, EPA's net assets had grown to over {REDACTED}.  In 2003 alone, the investments of the reserve tithing funds generated more than {REDACTED} in earnings.

The instant dispute stems from the earnings on those investments...

You are correct that "EPA has no role in" the Church's own expenditures of tithes to fund its operations and religious/charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic pursuits.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Quote

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.

But to determine that question, you have to ask what a reasonable member would have thought, correct? 

I think this is where the three-judge panel got things a bit wrong.  Their analysis centered on what a reasonable juror would think of Pres. Hinckley's remarks.  A reasonable juror would, I suppose, try to step into the shoes of a Latter-day Saint, but asking jurors to do this would seem to get into First Amendment territory in a hurry.

Imaging being called as a juror in a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, and you - a Latter-day Saint with no appreciable experience with Catholic belief, practice, theology, day-to-day living, whatever - would nevertheless be called upon to interpret a 20-year-old statement from the Pope about how the Catholic Church manages donated funds as opposed to investments on those funds.

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think, based on all the discussions that you and smac have had, and based on that really old thread and the recent conversations around it, it sounds like a reasonable member would have a really hard time separating out this secular definition of tithing from the religious definition of tithing.  Even Nielson put a religious meaning behind the money at EPA in his affidavit.  The appeals court asked this multiple times.

I think the Ninth Circuit read the decision of the three-judge panel and realized that its "reasonable juror" inquiry would require those jurors to delve into disputed religious questions (what is "tithing," were the authorities running the Church correct to fund City Creek, etc.), and that this would violate the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  This is why they asked so many questions about that topic.

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

If we are just talking about the actual dollars that Huntsman donated, then I think everyone can agree that those specific dollars never went to City Creek. 

Yes.  

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

If we take about just the actual dollars that people donated to the church as tithing, then I think everyone can agree that those specific dollars never went to City Creek.  But once you start talking about the definition of "using", or if tithing funds means just tithing dollars or tithing plus interest or co-mingled money, I think you are going to have a hard time finding a reasonable member that doesn't cross into religious matters.  I think the appeals court realizes that and that is the reason why it vacated the ruling.  I do think that the court can rule on this without going into religious matters, but there is a line on how far it can go.  The trial judge saw that he could make the ruling easily without crossing the line and so didn't feel the need to deal with the religious question. 

Unless, of course, he had ruled in the way Huntsman wanted him to, involving the judge defining or re-defining "tithing" so as to include both donations by members and also earnings on invested reserves," which definition/re-definition would be barred by by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It's almost as if these issues are deeply rooted in religious sentiment and belief, such that asking a federal judge to adjudicate a hokey fraud claim - which by now even @Analytics (!) is admitting to be pretextual - would, as Judge Wilson put it, "entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of 'ecclesiastical rule, custom or law'" in violation of the First Amendment.

What you are saying here is religious declaration, not a secular one.  I entirely agree with it.  All the more reason for secular judges to not touch Huntsman's case with a ten-foot pole.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, because I hope when Huntsman was an active member he regarded tithing the same way; that it all belonged to God in the first place, and gave it with that attitude. He shouldn't suddenly change his mindset about it because he has lost his faith and turned against the Church. If he were honest about it he should just cut his losses and move on like most any other wise person would do.

[Calm]

Would a “reasonable member” be assumed by the Court to only be aware of the one comment of Pres Hinckley referring to what was spent on CC for the purpose of the court or would they also be considered to be aware of the earlier comments about putting aside some tithing in a “rainy day fund” or the “reserves of the Church”?

I can see it as likely the Court could assume someone who heard the CC remark had not heard the some of the tithing is going into a reserve funds remark, but it seems highly unlikely the Court would assume Pres Hinckley was somehow unaware of it and so wasn’t referring to that fund in the CC remark, which is exactly where the funds came from….so how could that be fraud at all?  

How can someone commit fraud by telling the full truth?

I get there might be the intent to deceive by withholding some info when telling the truth, but this isn’t what happened here is you look at the history of public announcements.  How in the world would church leaders expect members to get the wrong idea in this case? 

Edited September 30, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE:  3rd & 4th paragraphs: has John Huntsman changed his understanding over the years?

My take is no, Huntsman has always understood the distinction Pres. Hinckley made in 2003 between sources of income (tithing and earnings from invested reserves).  Any person of information and reasonable intelligence and experience in business would have seen these remarks as clear and understandable.

So I don't think Huntsman's understanding/interpretation of Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement changes.  Instead, I think Huntsman changed his overall perspective on the Church, going from an observant and faithful Latter-day Saint to a disgruntled disbeliever who left the Church and then, some years later, decided to use Pres. Hinckley's comment about City Creek as a pretext for filing a federal lawsuit. 

Even @Analytics (!) seems to concede the pretextual (as in "constituting a pretext; dubious or spurious") nature of Huntsman's lawsuit, as he is now speaking at some length about what he sees as Huntsman's "real grievance{s}," (which are that "the {Church's} reserve funds are obscenely too big" and "the size of the {Church's} reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members"). 

Even Analytics (!) is acknowledging that Huntsman "{doesn't} have a legal basis to sue on those grounds," hence the pretextual fraud lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Quote

Yes.  It's almost as if these issues are deeply rooted in religious sentiment and belief, such that asking a federal judge to adjudicate a hokey fraud claim - which by now even @Analytics (!) is admitting to be pretextual - would, as Judge Wilson put it, "entangle this Court or a jury in an interpretation of 'ecclesiastical rule, custom or law'" in violation of the First Amendment.

What you are saying here is religious declaration, not a secular one.  I entirely agree with it.  All the more reason for secular judges to not touch Huntsman's case with a ten-foot pole.

Yes, because I hope when Huntsman was an active member he regarded tithing the same way; that it all belonged to God in the first place, and gave it with that attitude.

I hope so too.

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

He shouldn't suddenly change his mindset about it because he has lost his faith and turned against the Church. If he were honest about it he should just cut his losses and move on like most any other wise person would do.

I suspect Huntsman knows his lawsuit had little chance of success.  I think he filed it in anger, to spite and embarrass the Church and injure its reputation.  To some limited extend, he has succeeded, I suppose.

I also hope he can move on and find happiness in life.  The "Ex-Mormon" identity sure doesn't seem to make anyone happy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would a “reasonable member” be assumed by the Court to only be aware of the one comment of Pres Hinckley referring to what was spent on CC for the purpose of the court or would they also be considered to be aware of the earlier comments about putting aside some tithing in a “rainy day fund” or the “reserves of the Church”?

I think Judge Wilson found the subsequent four statements to be essentially irrelevant to the fraud claim:

 

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can see it as likely the Court could assume someone who heard the CC remark had not heard the some of the tithing is going into a reserve funds remark, but it seems highly unlikely the Court would assume Pres Hinckley was somehow unaware of it and so wasn’t referring to that fund in the CC remark, which is exactly where the funds came from….so how could that be fraud at all? 

It couldn't.  This is why Judge Wilson granted summary judgment in favor of the Church.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get there might be the intent to deceive by withholding some info when telling the truth, but this isn’t what happened here is you look at the history of public announcements.  

That would be "fraudulent nondisclosure," which is a somewhat different claim from positive fraud.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

How in the world would church leaders expect members to get the wrong idea in this case? 

One of the Ninth Circuit judges raised a similar concern (from my notes) :

Quote

7. A judge cuts him off: "Does it matter that the April 2003 speech came from President Hinckley in this religious context?  In other words, this wasn't just any old speech.  It was given in a broader sense of describing the Church's activities and religious mission.  Isn't there a concern that if you're asking courts to start parsing these speeches, whether it's going to chill something within religious doctrine or internal church governance.  That a church leader might have to run a speech by legal before he can deliver a sermon?"  This is a solid point.  @Analytics endlessly faults the Church for not being sufficiently "transparent."  Huntsman's lawsuit, though, would seem to justify the Church's reluctance to speak publicly about matters of church governance (because, as this judge is pointing out, doing so exposes the church to lawsuits in which secular judges are asked to "parse" what is said).

I had not previously given much consideration to the Free Speech dimensions of Huntsman's lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope so too.

I suspect Huntsman knows his lawsuit had little chance of success.  I think he filed it in anger, to spite and embarrass the Church and injure its reputation.  To some limited extend, he has succeeded, I suppose.

I also hope he can move on and find happiness in life.  The "Ex-Mormon" identity sure doesn't seem to make anyone happy.

Thanks,

-Smac

I doubt the church would do this but could it sue Huntsman for malicious prosecution?

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Quote

I hope so too.

I suspect Huntsman knows his lawsuit had little chance of success.  I think he filed it in anger, to spite and embarrass the Church and injure its reputation.  To some limited extend, he has succeeded, I suppose.

I also hope he can move on and find happiness in life.  The "Ex-Mormon" identity sure doesn't seem to make anyone happy.

I doubt the church would do this but could it sue Huntsman for malicious prosecution?

It could, but not really.  I think the claim would be for "abuse of process," which occurs when someone uses the legal system for an improper purpose, typically to achieve a goal that is not related to the purpose of the legal proceedings.  My understanding is that this type of claim is really hard to pursue, and Huntsman and his attorneys are far too sophisticated for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I doubt the church would do this but could it sue Huntsman for malicious prosecution?

If the judge thought that the lawsuit was completely without merit, he would have dismissed the case with a motion for a summary judgement, meaning there was no basis for the law suit as I understand it.  

 

While some members want to believe that the case is frivolous or even malicious, the judge seems to believe that there is enough of a reason to move the case forward.

Quote

 

When bringing a summary judgment motion, a party is arguing that there can be no real dispute about material facts, and the moving party is entitled to win the case as a matter of law.

A motion for summary judgment does not allow the court to decide issues of fact, but to examine the pleadings and proof to determine if a trial is necessary.

 

This back and forth for 43 pages is really about two opinions both of whom seem to have some merit or the case would have been dismissed. Who "wins" this thread argument is irrelevant.  What the judge actually decides is really all that matters how the case proceeds.  

Just my two cents worth.  I am not a lawyer nor do I want to pretend to be one.

[Analytics]

There is no point continuing the conversation until we get past the following disagreement we have:

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Huntsman understood that Pres. Hinckley differentiated between tithing and earnings on invested reserves (Judge Wilson adjudicated as much).  I think most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue had a similar understanding.

... the Latter-day Saints appeared to have had a pretty solid grasp of the differentiation between tithes donated to the Church and its other sources of income, such as returns on invested reserves.

For reference, here are the questions from the OP’s of those two topics:

Question 1: One frequently hears the statement that tithing funds were not used for such and such an investment. And while I like to think that is true, I have to pause and think...if not tithing then what funds were used? Surely not Fast Offerings, too many those are even more sacred as to their dedicated use, and surely not missionary funds. So, what are these mysterious "not tithing" funds?

I believe the answer to that question is along the lines this: “As President Hinckley explained in 1991 and 1995, a fixed percentage of tithing income was set aside to build reserve tithing funds. When he said that City Creek would be partially funded by “the earnings of invested reserve tithing funds”, this is what he was referring to. The “reserve funds” in question consist of unspent tithing revenue, which has been commercially invested.

Question 2: 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...How does one respond to this?

I believe the correct answer to that is along the lines of this: “As President Hinckley explained in 1991 and 1995, a fixed percentage of tithing income will be set aside to build reserve tithing funds. When he said that City Creek would be partially funded by “the earnings of invested reserve tithing funds”, this is what he was referring to. So on this point the “critics" are basically right--this part of the funding did start with tithing money. 

If the Latter-day Saints had a pretty solid grasp of these facts, can you point to answers to the OP that reflect this solid grasp of the fact?

For example, Craig Paxton’s answer was the following:

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

How many people said something to the effect of, “Yes, but that isn’t ‘classic money laundering.’ The Church has been upfront and transparent that the mall was funded with earnings on invested reserve tithing funds, and "most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue” know this. Just read what Hinckley said in 1991, 1995, and 2003."

I’m not answering any more of your questions until you address these questions of mine:

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?
2. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.
3. What is the correct answer to Stone holm’s question from five years later?
4. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.
5. Was it hard to find examples of people who gave the correct answer to those questions? Why or why not?

It seems to me that if "most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue” knew then what we know now, nobody would have bothered starting these threads. If somebody did, people would have been racing to explain how no reasonable person doubts that “earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” were used to fund the mall, just as Hinckley cleary said.

Edited September 30, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the judge thought that the lawsuit was completely without merit, he would have dismissed the case with a motion for a summary judgement, meaning there was no basis for the law suit as I understand it.  

The judge did dismiss the case via summary judgment.

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

While some members want to believe that the case is frivolous or even malicious, the judge seems to believe that there is enough of a reason to move the case forward.

Not quite.  The trial court judge dismissed the case in summary judgment.  Huntsman appealed, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court.  The entire Ninth Circuit then vacated the three-judge panel's decision and let the parties present argument to the entire court (on last Wednesday) as a review of the trial court's decision.  

In the main, though, you are correct that none of the judges has suggested that the case is "frivolous or {} malicious."  A litigant has to do some pretty bad stuff to get that far, and Huntsman and his attorneys are far too sophisticated for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think Huntsman understood that Pres. Hinckley differentiated between tithing and earnings on invested reserves (Judge Wilson adjudicated as much).  I think most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue had a similar understanding.

... the Latter-day Saints appeared to have had a pretty solid grasp of the differentiation between tithes donated to the Church and its other sources of income, such as returns on invested reserves.

There is no point continuing the conversation until we get past the following disagreement we have:

For reference, here are the questions from the OP’s of those two topics:

Question 1: One frequently hears the statement that tithing funds were not used for such and such an investment. And while I like to think that is true, I have to pause and think...if not tithing then what funds were used? Surely not Fast Offerings, too many those are even more sacred as to their dedicated use, and surely not missionary funds. So, what are these mysterious "not tithing" funds?

I believe the answer to that question is along the lines this: “As President Hinckley explained in 1991 and 1995, a fixed percentage of tithing income was set aside to build reserve tithing funds. When he said that City Creek would be partially funded by “the earnings of invested reserve tithing funds”, this is what he was referring to. The “reserve funds” in question consist of unspent tithing revenue, which has been commercially invested.

I don't frame the issues this way.  Instead, I frame the issues the way Huntsman and the courts have framed them.

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Question 2: 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...How does one respond to this?

I believe the correct answer to that is along the lines of this: “As President Hinckley explained in 1991 and 1995, a fixed percentage of tithing income will be set aside to build reserve tithing funds. When he said that City Creek would be partially funded by “the earnings of invested reserve tithing funds”, this is what he was referring to. So on this point the “critics" are basically right--this part of the funding did start with tithing money. 

If the Latter-day Saints had a pretty solid grasp of these facts, can you point to answers to the OP that reflect this solid grasp of the fact?

What "OP"?  

I have previously posted excerpts from the 2012 and 2015 threads about this topic.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about what Latter-day Saints on this board have said or thought, except to dispute your characterizations of them.  

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For example, Craig Paxton’s answer was the following:

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

How many people said something to the effect of, “Yes, but that isn’t ‘classic money laundering.’ The Church has been upfront and transparent that the mall was funded with earnings on invested reserve tithing funds, and "most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue” know this. Just read what Hinckley said in 1991, 1995, and 2003."

I’m not answering any more of your questions until you address these questions of mine:

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?

See Judge Wilson's comments (which, in turn, quotes Pres. Hinckley and explains "where the funds came from").

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

1. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.

Again, I don't recall care to argue over what a few Latter-day Saints on this board said in 2012/2015, except to dispute your characterizations of them.  That said, several seemed to be pretty spot-on:

• "The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate."
• "{'not tithing' funds are} income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose."
• "There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds..."
• "The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds.".
• "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available..."

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

1. What is the correct answer to Stone holm’s question from five years later?

He said:

Quote

Another thread got locked before I could ask a question, so will ask it now. One frequently hears the statement that tithing funds were not used for such and such an investment. And while I like to think that is true, I have to pause and think...if not tithing then what funds were used? Surely not Fast Offerings, too many those are even more sacred as to their dedicated use, and surely not missionary funds. So, what are these mysterious "not tithing" funds?

See Judge Wilson's comments (which, in turn, quotes Pres. Hinckley and explains "where the funds came from").

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

1. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.

See above.

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

1. Was it hard to find examples of people who gave the correct answer to those questions? Why or why not?

No.  Latter-day Saints seemed to be generally cognizant that the Church differentiates between tithes and other sources of income.

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It seems to me that if "most of the Latter-day Saints who were paying attention to this issue” knew then what we know now, nobody would have bothered starting these threads.

We know more now than we did in 2012 and 2015.  But it's mostly minutiae and details.

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If somebody did, people would have been racing to explain how no reasonable person doubts that “earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” were used to fund the mall, just as Hinckley cleary said.

They did say that.  Over and over and over:

Quote

Oi.  That was a slog.  But perhaps it was useful.  To sum up what the Latter-day Saints were saying back in 2012 and 2015:

• "Tithing and other consecrated funds"
• "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing"
• "if they say tithing money is not used for the building of things like the mall I can believe them"
• "{tithing} slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings"
• "Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used"
• "I will continue to give whatever excess funds I can, apart from tithing, for the fast offering, for the Church Humanitarian fund, for the Perpetual Education Fund..."
• "The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate."
• "{'not tithing' funds are} income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose."
• "There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds..."
• "The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds."
• "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true."
• "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available..."
• "Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds."
• "I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek."
• "When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used."
• "All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund."
• "If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case."

That sure sounds like what Latter-day Saints are saying now, in 2023, in this thread.  If the Latter-day Saints believe that A) the Church stated that the funds for City Creek did not come from tithing, and also B) the Church actually used from for City Creek, then those funds, ipso facto, are not "tithing funds," and the Latter-day Saints are not treating "tithing" as being synonymous with all other sources of Church income.  So it won't do for you to cram into our mouths and minds the notion that "tithing" includes monies that are not tithes.  You are just making that up.

Observant and conversant Latter-day Saints understand what "tithing" is, and what it means, and what it is not and what it does not mean.  (For that matter, I think the overwhelming majority of all people familiar with a dictionary would not subscribe to your tortured re-definition of "tithing.")

Latter-day Saints understand that the Church receives "tithes" from members (a tenth of their income), but also has other sources of income.  Fast offerings.  Charitable donations (such as to LDS Philanthropies), earnings on investments, for-profit ventures, and so on.

Latter-day Saints do not, per your suggestion, conflate these various sources of income as all falling under the rubric of "tithing."  Tithing has an actual and fairly specific definition and meaning.

A tithe is a donation by a member of the Church amounting to a tenth of his income.

A fast offering is a numerically distinct and separate and additional donation by a member of the Church, generally equivalent to the money that would have been spent on two meals (some members give more, some give less).  A fast offering is money that belongs to the Church, but it is not a "tithe," and tithing is not a fast offering.  The two are not synonymous.

A profit generated by EPA investing money in stocks, bonds, etc. is money that belongs to the Church, but such earnings on EPA's investments is not a "tithe" and tithing is not money generated by the EPA's investment efforts.  The two are not synonymous.

And so on.

Though derived from different sources, all of the monies held by the Church are held in trust.  All of these monies belong to the Lord.  All of these monies are, therefore, "sacred funds."  But not all "sacred funds" are "tithing."  Latter-day Saints, as shown above, do not believe that.  Nor does the Church teach that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "OP"?  

The opening posts of those two old threads, JAHS’s 2012 question, Stone holm’s question.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have previously posted excerpts from the 2012 and 2015 threads about this topic.

And in so doing, you completely ignored the topic of those old conversations.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about what Latter-day Saints on this board have said or thought, except to dispute your characterizations of them.  

Then this is your chance. I think the majority of the Saints who weighed in on those old questions interpreted Hinckley’s comments exactly as Huntsman claims he did. I think doing the exercise I’m now challenging you to do would prove it. I think Judge Wilson screwed up, because he is looking at the issues with 20/20 hindsight rather than the way people looked at the issues then. 

To see how he screwed up, you have to juxtapose how Judge Wilson interpreted Hinckley’s comments in 2021 to how Latter-day Saints interpreted the same comments in 2012 and 2021.

So I’ll repeat.

I’m not answering any more of your questions until you address these questions of mine:

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?
2. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.
3. What is the correct answer to Stone holm’s question from five years later?
4. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.
5. Was it hard to find examples of people who gave the correct answer to those questions? Why or why not?

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about what Latter-day Saints on this board have said or thought, except to dispute your characterizations of them.  

Then this is your chance.

Again, I'm not particularly interested in arguing about what Latter-day Saints on this board have said or thought, except to dispute your characterizations of them.  

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think the majority of the Saints who weighed in on those old questions interpreted Hinckley’s comments exactly as Huntsman claims he did.

I think the majority thought nothing of the kind.  But I've quoted them several times, and am content to let them speak for themselves.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think doing the exercise I’m now challenging you to do would prove it.

I am interested in the lawsuit, not in following you down this particular rabbit trail.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think Judge Wilson screwed up, because he is looking at the issues with 20/20 hindsight rather than the way people looked at the issues then. 

I think Judge Wilson held that the Church Autonomy Doctrine was inapplicable, but only because he refused to go along with Huntsman's arguments, which invited the court to make inquiries that would have violated the doctrine.

I also think your conclusory stuff doesn't do much.  I think Judge Wilson looked at the facts in the way judges generally do.  

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

To see how he screwed up, you have to juxtapose how Judge Wilson interpreted Hinckley’s comments in 2021 to how Latter-day Saints interpreted the same comments in 2012 and 2021.

Nope.  Judge Wilson's assessment was pretty spot-on (even, for the most part, on his assessment of the Church Autonomy Doctrine).

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So I’ll repeat.

I’m not answering any more of your questions until you address these questions of mine:

1. What is the correct answer to JAHS’s 2012 question, as it pertains to where the funds came from?
2. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.
3. What is the correct answer to Stone holm’s question from five years later?
4. Give me one example of somebody who gave the correct answer to his question. Just one.
5. Was it hard to find examples of people who gave the correct answer to those questions? Why or why not?

 

Asked and answered.

"Judge Wilson got it wrong" is a conclusory say-so from a neophyte.  There is no substance to it, so there's not much point in belaboring a response to it.

Back to my questions:

Quote

However, they do have a case about what was said about City Creek.

So Huntsman is using "what was said about City Creek" as a fabricated pretext to hide from Judge Wilson what his "real grievance{s}" are.  Do you see any problem with that?  Or are you okay with it?  Or are you acknowledging that Huntsman's "real grievance{s}" amount to a religious - not secular - dispute with the Church after all?

Quote

Quote

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? 

I strenuously disagree with this portion of Judge Wilson’s decision. Huntsman isn’t asking anybody to redefine anything.

Could you elaborate?  Where did Judge Wilson err in his assessment?

I assume you have no answer improving on "Judge Wilson got it wrong because he used 20/20 hindsight."  This is a rhetorical "because I say so" dead-end.  This is not a legal argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.”" 

Why would he explain that reserve funds were tithing funds when they weren’t?

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They did say that.  Over and over and over:

Quote

• "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing"

This quote shows the disconnect.

I acknowledge that the way you look at it, “the funds for the mall did not come from tithing” is a true statement.

However, that way of looking at it takes the conversation out of context. The conversation was not about the difference between “interest” and “principal” and redefining “tithing” to also include interest. The conversation was about where the principal came from in the first place.

Specifically, the answer above was answering this question:

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

In the context of that old thread, saying “the funds for the mall did not come from tithing” implies that while we all agree that the money to buy the mall came from Church-owned businesses, the money to buy the businesses in the first place did not come from tithing, so the critics are wrong, in an indirect way, the City Creek mall was not made possible by sacred tithing money."

Again. The conversation was about how to respond to critics that said money from the for-profit arm of the Church was used for the mall, and the money to create and grow the for-profit arm of the Church came from tithing. So in an indirect way, the money from the mall came from tithing.

Saying "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing” wasn’t meant to imply that the critics were right. In context, it was meant to imply that “the funds for the mall did not come from tithing, neither directly nor indirectly."