Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR. 

For your reference, here is the question that establishes the context of that conversation:

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?

CFR: Show me the one example of somebody correctly answering that question before the IRS complaint, or show me the post where you already provided an example.

For your reference, here is the link with the responses to that question:

 

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.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I'm not looking for an excerpt from the 2012 and 2015 threads. I’m looking for a contemporaneous response that directly and correctly answers the questions that were asked in the OPs of those threads.

The specific topic you claim you want to talk about is Judge Wilson’s opinion. Judge Wilson claims "Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project."

If Judge Wilson is correct and this was common knowledge to anyone who was paying attention, then definitive answers to the questions posed in the beginning of those threads should be easy to find. 

This CFR is still open. You claimed that you have provided me with a single answer to JAHS’s question. I somehow missed it and want to see it. Either answer the CFR or retract your claim that you answered my question.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm asking for one thing: don’t gaslight us and pretend that "Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project” (quote from Judge Wilson’s opinion). He did not say that.

I acknowledge that Wilson was able to parse together talks from the 1990’s and 2000’s to make it seem that he said that.

But most Saints didn’t interpret Hinkley in the way Wilson did. We know this because nobody answered the 2012 question by saying, “The correct way to answer the critics is to tell them they are right; we know they are right because Hinckley expressly stated that earnings on invested tithings would be used to pay for the City Creek Project."

I don't think you are going to get what you're asking for by asking that way, especially given that most interested parties' understanding of what Hinckley meant has become clearer and more aligned over the last 20 years, and generally comport with Wilson's version, and some (many? few? doesn't matter now) understood it that way all along.

With whom do you take umbrage for telling you that you misunderstood Hinckley x-number of years ago (what is your reference point -- 2003, 2012?), then finally came around to sharing your understanding, but today pretend they always held that understanding?

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Go to that link and show me one example of somebody who correctly explained how you should respond to critics when the critics correctly conclude that “it must have started with tithing money."

Umm, Cobalt-70 basically says what happened at

and

 

and

 

Mark Beesley says a similar thing at

 

Now, maybe both of those are considered critics but it didn't look like to me in that one thread.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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

I'm not looking for an excerpt from the 2012 and 2015 threads. I’m looking for a contemporaneous response that directly and correctly answers the questions that were asked in the OPs of those threads.

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.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The specific topic you claim you want to talk about is Judge Wilson’s opinion.  Judge Wilson claims "Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project."

I believe that was part of his decision, yes.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If Judge Wilson is correct and this was common knowledge to anyone who was paying attention, then definitive answers to the questions posed in the beginning of those threads should be easy to find. 

Have fun!

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

This CFR is still open. You claimed that you have provided me with a single answer to JAHS’s question. I somehow missed it and want to see it. Either answer the CFR or retract your claim that you answered my question.

Asked and answered.  I have previously posted excerpts from the 2012 and 2015 threads about this topic.  Many times over.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Asked and answered.  I have previously posted excerpts from the 2012 and 2015 threads about this topic.  Many times over.

Right. Many things have been said many times over for this OP. When the courts come up with something new then maybe we could talk about it some more.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This is offensive as it takes intentionally misleading to a malicious level. I could say the same thing about you if I assumed when you have misrepresented my own or smac or others’ comments it was intentional and an attempt to deceive. I don’t believe that. 

I wish the moderators would ban the use of “gaslight” on this board.  It is so insulting  

Smac, your accusations of fabrication out of thin air get close to this, imo.

Except that Roger is making things up as he goes along.  He's not citing anything, and has even admitted that he is making stuff up (e.g., his "secular" definitions of tithing).

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing.

You seem to be just making this up as you go along.  If this was the "real issue," then where and when did Huntsman advance it?  And where/when did the courts address it?

And here:

Quote

Quote

The issue is whether Hinckley promised the Church wouldn't indirectly use tithing.

Respectfully, you're just pulling this out of your ear.  You are making this up as you go along.  

Pres. Hinckley never used the word "indirectly" (or "indirectly").  Your proposal here is not a fraud claim, but a fraudulent nondisclosure claim.  But Huntsman did not advance such a claim, and such a claim would likely be barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine as happened in Gaddy (which decision Judge Wilson expressly relied on when describing the ambit of the doctrine).

Your "direct v. indirect" argument is just a variation on Huntsman's "tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds are 'two sides of the same financial coin'" argument.  It doesn't work.

And here:

Quote

Quote

The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing. 

Just a page or two back you were saying that Huntsman's "real grievances" were about "1- the reserve funds are obscenely too big, and 2- the size of the reserve funds should have been disclosed to the members" and not about how the Church used "some of its investments" to fund City Creek.

Now you are saying "the real issue" is about the Church "indirectly using tithing" to fund City Creek (which is just a variation on Huntsman's abortive attempt to conflate tithing with earnings on invested reserve funds). 

You also seem to be fabricating this "indirectly using tithing" thing about of thin air.

Roger keeps talking about what the "real issue{s}" is/are in the Huntsman lawsuit.  If he can pull up the Complaint, the motions, etc. and point to where these "real issues" are identified, I will happily retract my observation and apologize.  Otherwise, though, he seems to be making stuff up as he goes along, fabricating stuff out of thin air, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2 by smac97

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

am not accusing him of lying.

I understand…I think.  You see him as taking a pile of sticks and constructing a house by supplying all the bricks and mortar himself and then presenting the house as a preexisting structure?  But he sees the pile of sticks that way even if it’s really a pile of sticks?

Edited October 2 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I understand…I think.  You see him as filling in the gaps in ways he thinks is right, only more so and he isn’t actually guessing correctly?  

He is saying things about the Huntsman lawsuit that just ain't so.  If he is correct about the "real issues" in the lawsuit, he should be able to point to them in Huntsman's Complaint, in his pleadings, etc.

And he's saying this to argue why Judge Wilson's decision was wrong.

I am fine with him critiquing Judge Wilson's reasoning and analysis, but just fabricating stuff out of thin air is not the way to do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Saints who got mad at Craig Paxton’s assertion (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) were mad for basically the same reason that James Huntsman was mad

I don’t think this is accurate. I dislike what he said because he was saying the Church was money laundering.   The fact that he started from that position in his very first post on the thread tainted everything else he said in my view.  Everything he said is seen by me as supporting that conclusion and so I would, if I responded to him, be rejecting of his comments. 

I don’t treat posts or comments of posts individually but as part of the whole…the whole of Craig Paxton’s post is “Church money launders” imo.
 

I also think he was wrong in his indirect tithing claim, but I am guessing if some posters didn’t explicitly reject that as it is rejected now, it was because they were focused on “money laundering” and were denying anything that Paxton labeled with that criminal accusation.

Edited October 2 by Calm

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

The Saints who got mad at Craig Paxton’s assertion (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) were mad for basically the same reason that James Huntsman was mad

I don’t think this is accurate.

Well, the quote of Mr. Paxton by Analytics is notably (and, it appears, deliberately) incomplete.

Let's take a look at the selective bits of Craig's comment that Roger posted:

Quote

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

Looks harmless, right?  Who could argue with it, particularly in 2024?

Well, let's now look at what Paxton said in context (Analytics deliberately omitted the italicized parts) (emphases added) :

Quote

It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall. 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…. Classic Money Laundering...So can the Church really claim that they didn’t use tithing funds to fund the City Creek mall? Ummm I suppose so…but is it really an honest statement to claim such or is the church just being disingenuous?

I am really curious why Analytics cut these portions of Paxton's comments out.  I have my suspicions, but I would like to hear Analytics explain himself.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I dislike what he said because he was saying the Church was money laundering.  The fact that he started from that position in his very first post on the thread tainted everything else he said in my view.  

Not only did Paxton begin with accusations, they were in the middle and end as well.  It's almost chiastic!

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Everything he said is seen by me as supporting that conclusion and so I would, if I responded to him, be rejecting of his comments.   I don’t treat posts or comments of posts individually but as part of the whole…the whole of Craig Paxton’s post is “Church money launders” imo.

Yep.  And the responses to him were, I think, calculated to counter his accusations of criminality/dishonesty, and/or to address Pres. Hinckley's statement without the accusatory gloss Paxton had put on it:

• "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."

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I also think he was wrong in his indirect tithing claim, but I am guessing if some posters didn’t explicitly reject that as it is rejected now, it was because they were focused on “money laundering” and were denying anything that Paxton labeled with that criminal accusation.

In 2012 and 2015, we did not have as much information about the particulars of EPA (heck, was its actual existence even on our radar?).  Instead, we were commenting in broad terms about Pres. Hinckley differentiating between tithing and other forms of income.  Since then, we have learned more of the particulars about how the Church goes about divvying up and spending its money, but the same basic concept - that the Church differentiates between its various sources of income - remains.  

City Creek was fairly unique because the Church was a bit more specific - or "transparent" - about how the project would be funded.  And in response, the critics of the Church have sued the Church or else are cheering on those who have done so.  

The next time Analytics trots out his lecture hectoring the Church because it is not "transparent" enough with its finances, I hope readers will remember this thread, and remember how hard he is working to bolster and defend James Hunstman's lawsuit about City Creek.  Huntsman and Analytics et al. are teaching the Church a lesson: Transparency is bad.  Transparency not only gets you sued, it gets you slandered some more (think of how many times Analytics has quoted Craig Paxton, how many times he himself has disparaged the Church in this thread, etc.).   Pres. Hinckley's 2003 remarks included a very quick peek under the lid, a moment of elevated candor and disclosure about the Church's finances.  About expenditures that are utterly legal in every sense.  And the result?  Lawsuits.  Millions in legal fees.  Public slanders galore.

One more time:

I am willing to listen to what critics of the Church have to say, but I give essentially no prima facie credence to their pronouncements which are facially intended to give the Church advice on how to improve itself.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2 by smac97

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Calm:  the whole of Craig Paxton’s post is “Church money launders” imo.

I should have written that as “ the whole of everything that Craig Paxton posted in that thread is “church money launders“ in my opinion, everything said is to support that claim.  I would naturally interpret all his later thread posts in that context unless he had come out and stated he changed his mind. 

 Since he had only the chance to post once more, not much of an impact, but my mind being my mind, I would have and will remember his posting history, especially given the extremeness (imo) of that claim.  I likely assumed then as I assume now he had (has? has he said he’s changed his mind anywhere?) a strong bias to interpret church actions as criminal and that would lead me to interpreting his later posts in the context of that same attitude, so even if there isn’t anything obviously negative about the Church, unless he specifies in that instance he isn’t interpreting the Church as willing to act criminally, I will see that bias in his posts outside that thread as well.

Edited October 2 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

Now, maybe both of those are considered critics but it didn't look like to me in that one thread.

I looked at Cobalt-70s’ posts, he seems a more progressive, more academically minded poster member (pointing out the inequalities of treatment of women in regard to the Priesthood and making very strong points) for the dozen or so posts I read.  Added:  I just got to a post where he calls the BoM fiction, so I shift Cobalt to likely highly informed and well spoken nonbeliever, treating the texts and doctrines quite seriously and not going for the inflammatory route.  The only thing that signal possible critic to me before I hit the “fiction” comment was his use of “Smith” and honestly I have had to edit my own remarks not to use “Smith” because of the usual connotations attached to that, I think it comes across to many like when his first name is shortened to “Joe”.. I have used “Young” more often.  I had vaguely remembered him as critic. I think I will read more of his posts later to further refresh my memory. I like his style of writing.  For example, this post was well thought out and well stated, imo:

I am positive without reading his posts that Mark Beesley was of last time he posted a believer, but my memory being my memory, I will check.    Added:  Mark posted not long ago, still not a critic

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/2238-mark-beesley/

Edited October 2 by Calm

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

Umm, Cobalt-70 basically says what happened at

and

 

and

 

Mark Beesley says a similar thing at

 

Now, maybe both of those are considered critics but it didn't look like to me in that one thread.

Hey Webbles,

First of all, thank you for taking up the challenge here.

Let me be as clear as I can be about the point. Judge Wilson said:

Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project.

According to Judge Wilson, this was common knowledge if you happened to listen and pay attention to conference talks. The key elements of what Wilson said are:

1. There was something called “invested reserve tithing funds” that the Saints were aware of
2. The "invested reserve tithing funds” are not commingled with the investment income they earn
3. Hinckley clearly and correctly said that the “earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” would be used, and not the actual “invested reserve tithing funds" themselves.

If all that was really clear because Hinckley really said it, then when somebody asks, "So, what are these mysterious 'not tithing' funds?” then the correct answer that everyone would be racing to say is, “they are the "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds,” just as Hinckley said.  Duh."

But very, very few people said anything even close to that. Which raises the question, if nobody got the message, was the message really sent?

That’s my point. Having said that, here is how I interpret the two responses you came up with:

Cobolt-70 has the same basic sensibilities as anyone who understands the basics of Finance 101--if the Church is saving tithing money, then it must be investing that money into something. He recognized that tithing was in fact being saved, and speculated that the mechanics were that saved tithings had to have been used for something, so why not for City Creek, even indirectly? In his words, "It's possible that the church buys shares in the stock of companies like Property Reserve, Inc. That way, tithing funds are not directly used to finance investments like City Creek."

While I agreed with his basic point then as I still do now, there is a crucial piece of this that’s missing. Cobolt-70 is talking about tithing funding the mall indirectly, which is different than "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” being used. In Cobolt-70’s model, principal and interest are both being used indirectly, not interest only.

Mark Beesley’s sheepish question gets closer to Judge Wilson’s theory. Mark asked, "If the Church receives 10 dollars in tithing, puts that money in a bank and receives interest, is the interest also considered to be tithing, or could the Church use the interest for "non-tithing" purposes?"

Note that in Mark’s mind, whether it is “considered tithing” is a function of how it can be used, not where it comes from. The fact that he asks this proves that the question of whether interest on tithing is tithing is a valid question that doesn’t encroach on doctrine the way that Smac pretends.

That gets to the heart of the issue--the alleged difference between “tithing” being sacred that can only be used for certain purposes like buying shares of Apple, and “interest” is something less sacred that can be used for less sacred things, like financing City Creek.

In any case, as you looked for these answers, did you notice that there weren’t very many people who were saying anything very close to what Judge Wilson was imagining was clearly stated by Hinckley? Few people were saying “Hinckley clearly explained that the mull was funded with 'earnings on invested reserve tithing funds’.”

Edited October 2 by Analytics

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Note that in Mark’s mind, whether it is “considered tithing” is a function of how it can be used, not where it comes from. 

How do you get to the above because I am not seeing that at all, quite the reverse. I am quite lost here.

Quote

 

factthat he asks this proves that the question of whether interest on tithing is tithing is a valid question that doesn’t encroach on doctrine the way that Smac pretends.

Again, not following your logic at all.

And why in the world do you call Mark’s post “sheepish”?  He just simplified the task at hand, making it easy to understand.  Perhaps you ought to consider your bias is influencing you interpretation of at least tone.   Mark Beasley does not appear to be very sheepish at all in my view, both in my memory and in my review of his posts, including that thread. 

Edited October 2 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

He is saying things about the Huntsman lawsuit that just ain't so.  If he is correct about the "real issues" in the lawsuit, he should be able to point to them in Huntsman's Complaint, in his pleadings, etc.

And he's saying this to argue why Judge Wilson's decision was wrong.

I am fine with him critiquing Judge Wilson's reasoning and analysis, but just fabricating stuff out of thin air is not the way to do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

For those who are confused, smac must have seen my post almost immediately and quoted me because as soon as I posted it, I thought of an analogy that would explain what I was thinking better. My post didn’t disappear, just got edited very significantly.   

Edited October 2 by Calm

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hey Webbles,

First of all, thank you for taking up the challenge here.

Let me be as clear as I can be about the point. Judge Wilson said:

Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project.

According to Judge Wilson, this was common knowledge if you happened to listen and pay attention to conference talks. The key elements of what Wilson said are:

1. There was something called “invested reserve tithing funds” that the Saints were aware of
2. The "invested reserve tithing funds” are not commingled with the investment income they earn
3. Hinckley clearly and correctly said that the “earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” would be used, and not the actual “invested reserve tithing funds" themselves.

If all that was really clear because Hinckley really said it, then when somebody asks, "So, what are these mysterious 'not tithing' funds?” then the correct answer that everyone would be racing to say is, “they are the "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds,” just as Hinckley said.  Duh."

But very, very few people said anything even close to that. Which raises the question, if nobody got the message, was the message really sent?

That’s my point. Having said that, here is how I interpret the two responses you came up with:

Cobolt-70 has the same basic sensibilities as anyone who understands the basics of Finance 101--if the Church is saving tithing money, then it must be investing that money into something. He recognized that tithing was in fact being saved, and speculated that the mechanics were that saved tithings had to have been used for something, so why not for City Creek, even indirectly? In his words, "It's possible that the church buys shares in the stock of companies like Property Reserve, Inc. That way, tithing funds are not directly used to finance investments like City Creek."

While I agreed with his basic point then as I still do now, there is a crucial piece of this that’s missing. Cobolt-70 is talking about tithing funding the mall indirectly, which is different than "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” being used. In Cobolt-70’s model, principal and interest are both being used indirectly, not interest only.

Mark Beesley’s sheepish question gets closer to Judge Wilson’s theory. Mark asked, "If the Church receives 10 dollars in tithing, puts that money in a bank and receives interest, is the interest also considered to be tithing, or could the Church use the interest for "non-tithing" purposes?"

Note that in Mark’s mind, whether it is “considered tithing” is a function of how it can be used, not where it comes from. The fact that he asks this proves that the question of whether interest on tithing is tithing is a valid question that doesn’t encroach on doctrine the way that Smac pretends.

That gets to the heart of the issue--the alleged difference between “tithing” being sacred that can only be used for certain purposes like buying shares of Apple, and “interest” is something less sacred that can be used for less sacred things, like financing City Creek.

I'm really having a hard time figuring out what your are arguing.  Both Cobalt-70 and Mark Beesley both explained what "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds" meant.  Sure, they didn't use those exact words but the idea is the same.  Cobalt-70 even pointed to the earlier talks where President Hinckley said the church was creating a reserve fund from tithing.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

In any case, as you looked for these answers, did you notice that there weren’t very many people who were saying anything very close to what Judge Wilson was imagining was clearly stated by Hinckley? Few people were saying “Hinckley clearly explained that the mull was funded with 'earnings on invested reserve tithing funds’.”

I noticed that most people were taking issue with complaints of money laundering and misuse of tithing.  The few times that people discussed what "earnings on invested reserve funds" possibly could mean, there was either little to no push back (so either people were fine with the knowledge that it talked about "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds") or there was a ton of pushback because the person (such as Craig Paxton) included a lot of negative connotation and so people were pushing back on the connotation.

Honestly, if you ignore any discussion around sacredness of the funds and any discussion around money laundering or similar negative statements, I see the people on the thread understood what President Hinckley said.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hey Webbles,

First of all, thank you for taking up the challenge here.

Let me be as clear as I can be about the point. Judge Wilson said:

Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project.

<snip>

[Your question] But very, very few people said anything even close to that. Which raises the question, if nobody got the message, was the message really sent?

Yes, of course the message was sent (as documented in the general conference publications). A more relevant form of your question is whether those posting in these particular MDDB threads listened and paid attention to conference talks. A more complete form of the question would also consider whether they were around for, put together, understood, remembered, or relied on (etc.) all those talks. There is another cohort that correctly intuited/figured it out with minimal information. Which cohort did you fall into?

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hey Webbles,

First of all, thank you for taking up the challenge here.

Let me be as clear as I can be about the point. Judge Wilson said:

Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project.

According to Judge Wilson, this was common knowledge if you happened to listen and pay attention to conference talks. The key elements of what Wilson said are:

1. There was something called “invested reserve tithing funds” that the Saints were aware of
2. The "invested reserve tithing funds” are not commingled with the investment income they earn
3. Hinckley clearly and correctly said that the “earnings on invested reserve tithing funds” would be used, and not the actual “invested reserve tithing funds" themselves.

If all that was really clear because Hinckley really said it, then when somebody asks, "So, what are these mysterious 'not tithing' funds?” then the correct answer that everyone would be racing to say is, “they are the "earnings on invested reserve tithing funds,” just as Hinckley said.  Duh."

But very, very few people said anything even close to that.

Actually, quite a few people said something almost exactly like that.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Which raises the question, if nobody got the message, was the message really sent?

First, most people who were interested in the topic "got the message."

Second, in a lawsuit about a fraudulent statement, the plaintiff must allege that a representation about a then-existing material fact was made.  There is no dispute that Pres. Hinckley made a statement in April 2003 about the funding City Creek.  

Third, even you (!) don't believe that Huntsman's fraud claims reflect his - in your words - "real grievance{s}."  I agree.  I think this lawsuit is pretextual and pretty silly.  So debating about whether "the message {was} really sent" seems pretty far afield.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

That gets to the heart of the issue--the alleged difference between “tithing” being sacred that can only be used for certain purposes like buying shares of Apple, and “interest” is something less sacred that can be used for less sacred things, like financing City Creek.

What?  How is the sacredness of donations to the Church "the heart of the issue" in the Huntsman lawsuit?

The material difference between tithing being used to fund City Creek and tithing being used to buy shares of Apple is that Pres. Hinckley told us that the former would not happen.  I think the Latter-day Saints are, in the main, quite on board with the Church being a wise steward of its funds, which wise stewardship will entail investing a portion of tithes and such in "shares of Apple" and other worthwhile things.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

In any case, as you looked for these answers, did you notice that there weren’t very many people who were saying anything very close to what Judge Wilson was imagining was clearly stated by Hinckley?

Yes.  I see many people in 2012 and 2015 differentiating between tithes and other sources of income, which is what Pres. Hinckley said.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Few people were saying “Hinckley clearly explained that the mull was funded with 'earnings on invested reserve tithing funds’.”

Lots of people were expressing no confusion about or objection to Pres. Hinckley's differentiation between tithes and other sources of income, or his explanation that the latter would be used to fund City Creek, not the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, of course the message was sent (as documented in the general conference publications). A more relevant form of your question is whether those posting in these particular MDDB threads listened and paid attention to conference talks. A more complete form of the question would also consider whether they were around for, put together, understood, remembered, or relied on (etc.) all those talks. There is another cohort that correctly intuited/figured it out with minimal information. Which cohort did you fall into?

I’m in the cohort that heard all these talks, but never believed Hinckley’s assurance made sense. 

To me, the most logical division of the Church’s assets isn’t tithing vs. non-tithing, but rather between the for-profit side and the nonprofit side. I knew the nonprofit side was saving money, and like Cobalt-70, I assumed they invested their savings in the for-profit side. That being the case, assuring us that tithing wasn’t used for the mall made no sense—that was in fact the ultimate source of the for-profit side’s capital, so how could they deploy that capital for anything without it ultimately being based on tithing?

I assumed that in Hinckley’s talk, “tithing” was shorthand for “the sacred money in the nonprofit side of the house,” and that his assurance meant the mall would be totally funded from the for-profit side. I assumed that is where the “reserve fund” that Hinckley was talking about was located.

It never occurred to me that they’d commercially invest a hundred billion in the non-profit side without first shifting it over to the for-profit side.

They are now arguing that it is good and proper for tithing principal to be invested in things like Nvidia, but that the Saints needed assurance that tithing principal would not be invested in City Creek. That makes no sense. The assertion that it was interest and not principal that was invested in the mall sounds like a post hoc rationalization to make Hinckley’s comments look honest. If I’m wrong, I’d love to see some documentation of how they made sure they didn’t accidentally send some principal over with the interest. And I’d love a theological explanation of why that would matter for investing in City Creek but not for investing in Nvidia.

Regarding the lawsuit, I don’t think fraud took place because the alleged lies were too vague and nonsensical to be relied on. 

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, of course the message was sent (as documented in the general conference publications). A more relevant form of your question is whether those posting in these particular MDDB threads listened and paid attention to conference talks. A more complete form of the question would also consider whether they were around for, put together, understood, remembered, or relied on (etc.) all those talks. There is another cohort that correctly intuited/figured it out with minimal information. Which cohort did you fall into?

In 2012 and 2015, most of us likely were not aware of Ensign Peak Advisors.  We did, however, know, and had known for many years, that the Church lives within its means, that it sets aside a portion of it income, that it wisely invests that income, that these investments are intended to generate revenue, and so on.  We also inferred that the Church, in its stewardship of sacred funds, would operate within the confines of the law. 

These are all "from 10,000 feet up"-style perceptions and perspectives on the Church.  We had and have generalized understandings of the Church's management of its funds, but not really a particularized and specific and "soup to nuts" grasp of the details.  

Anyhoo, back to Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement.  Was it "fraudulent" in any respect?  I don't think so.  Here are the main beats:

• In 2003 Pres. Hinckley said X (tithing) would not be used to fund City Creek, and that instead Y (earnings on invested reserves) would be used. 
• Huntsman filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that Pres. Hinckley committed fraud in his 2003 statement.
• The Church, in a summary judgment context, submitted evidence to that Court that Y, and not X, was spent to fund City Creek. 
• The Court, Judge Wilson, found this evidence sufficient and granted summary judgment in favor of the Church (while at the same time finding that the Church Autonomy Doctrine did not bar the Plaintiff's claims as pleaded).
• Huntsman, trying to avoid summary judgment, argued that "X" can and should be interpreted/defined to include both X and Y, and therefore that Huntsman's lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.
• The federal judge did not accept this argument, both because he found that what Pres. Hinckley had represented to the Church was "exactly what happened," and also because Huntsman's argument about conflating X and Y would, if allowed, violate the First Amendment / Church Autonomy Doctrine.
• On appeal, a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Wilson's decision, holding that a "reasonable juror" might be able to find a basis for a fraud claim.
• The Church sought en banc review of the three-judge panel's decision.  Such a review is a very rare occurrence in the Ninth Circuit.  Around 1% of such requests are granted.  The Church's request was one of those 1%.  The Ninth Circuit vacated the three-judge panel's decision, thus reinstating Judge Wilson's decision as the one to be reviewed by the entire Ninth Circuit.
• The parties both submitted briefs, and then last week participated in a hearing where the en banc judges asked questions heavily centering on the Church Autonomy Doctrine and on the apparent absence of a false statement.  The questioning went pretty hard against Huntsman's position (considerably harder, I think, than against the Church's position).
• We are now in a holding pattern, waiting for the Ninth Circuit to publish its decision, which will be in the next few months.

I can't help but wonder if the Ninth Circuit will punt on the substantive issues, and instead either remand the case back to Judge Wilson to address the jurisdictional question, or else dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, or else perhaps transfer the case to the U.S. District Court in Utah (perhaps even to be folded into the MDL lawsuit?).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, quite a few people said something almost exactly like that.

You’ve told me that over and over and over again, but you refuse to provide a single good example. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

To me, the most logical division of the Church’s assets isn’t tithing vs. non-tithing, but rather between the for-profit side and the nonprofit side. I knew the nonprofit side was saving money, and like Cobalt-70, I assumed they invested their savings in the for-profit side. That being the case, assuring us that tithing wasn’t used for the mall made no sense—that was in fact the ultimate source of the for-profit side’s capital, so how could they deploy that capital for anything without it ultimately being based on tithing?

I assumed that in Hinckley’s talk, “tithing” was shorthand for “the sacred money in the nonprofit side of the house,” and that his assurance meant the mall would be totally funded from the for-profit side. I assumed that is where the “reserve fund” that Hinckley was talking about was located.

It never occurred to me that they’d commercially invest a hundred billion in the non-profit side without first shifting it over to the for-profit side.

It seems like you are projecting your understanding on the majority of others when I am not seeing evidence for that in the earlier thread.  It’s not unusual, there is probably some of that being done by those of us who see it differently, but it still seems odd to me that you don’t see similarities where there are some.  

Edited October 2 by Calm

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’m in the cohort that heard all these talks, but never believed Hinckley’s assurance made sense.

What does "made sense" mean in the context of a fraud claim?

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

To me, the most logical division of the Church’s assets isn’t tithing vs. non-tithing, but rather between the for-profit side and the nonprofit side. I knew the nonprofit side was saving money, and like Cobalt-70, I assumed they invested their savings in the for-profit side. That being the case, assuring us that tithing wasn’t used for the mall made no sense—that was in fact the ultimate source of the for-profit side’s capital, so how could they deploy that capital for anything without it ultimately being based on tithing?

I think few Latter-day Saints took such suspicious/skeptical perspective on Pres. Hinckley's statement.  

I also think few Latter-day Saints looked at his statement through an infinitely regressive lens. 

A few weeks back I helped one of my kids by paying part of his tuition tuition, and he the thanked me. 

He knows that my money comes from my law firm, but he thanked me, not my law firm.

He knows that my law firm gets its money by being paid by my clients, but he thanked me, not my clients.

He likely surmises that my clients in turn get their money from their employers, businesses, investments, savings, etc., and so on, but he thanked me, not my clients' employers, businesses, etc.

Now, I suppose my son could have taken a position like "Hey, Dad, thanks for nothing.  The money which paid for my tuition 'ultimately' came from other people.  So it makes 'no sense' for me to think that you paid for my tuition."

He could have said such things based on an "infinite regression" rationale, but he didn't.  

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I assumed that in Hinckley’s talk, “tithing” was shorthand for “the sacred money in the nonprofit side of the house,” and that his assurance meant the mall would be totally funded from the for-profit side  .I assumed that is where the “reserve fund” that Hinckley was talking about was located.

"I assumed" being the operative wording here.

Meanwhile, Judge Wilson, as an Article III judge, is tasked with evaluating what Pres. Hinckley actually said, not what you "assumed" in response to what Pres. Hinckley said.

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It never occurred to me that they’d commercially invest a hundred billion in the non-profit side without first shifting it over to the for-profit side.

None of this is particularly relevant to Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement, or to Judge Wilson's adjudication of Huntsman's fraud claim.

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They are now arguing that it is good and proper for tithing principal to be invested in things like Nvidia,

Actually, the Brethren have been saying this (though in not so many words) for many decades now.  The earliest quote relied on by Judge Wilson was from 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 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.'"

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

but that the Saints needed assurance that tithing principal would not be invested in City Creek.

Yes.

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense to, I think, most Latter-day Saints.

In any event, what you subjectively find to not make sense has no relevance to Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement or to Judge Wilson's adjudication of Huntsman's fraud claim.

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The assertion that it was interest and not principal that was invested in the mall sounds like a post hoc rationalization to make Hinckley’s comments look honest.

Pres. Hinckley differentiated between tithing funds and earnings on invested reserves, and stated that the latter, and not the former, would be used to fund City Creek.

And Judge Wilson found that this is "exactly what happened," and that Pres. Hinckley's statement was "true."

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If I’m wrong, I’d love to see some documentation of how they made sure they didn’t accidentally send some principal over with the interest.

Oh, brother.

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And I’d love a theological explanation of why that would matter for investing in City Creek but not for investing in Nvidia.

I think any such explanation would be just conjecture, and have no relevance to the veracity of Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement or to Judge Wilson's adjudication of Huntsman's fraud claim.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You’ve told me that over and over and over again, but you refuse to provide a single good example. 

I have provided numerous examples.  Many times over.

Cue the No True Scotsman fallacy in 3...2...

 

Thanks,

-Smac