Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

This is the one point that I semi agree with you on, but I don’t see any difference in the way you are discussing them myself between those two situations and putting the money in a bank since you get dividends from a bank because the bank invests them in the same sorts of things.  Makes more sense to me to invest it yourself if you have the ability to do so and make more profit.

The only significant difference is the risk level, imo, meaning how likely is it that the funds will go down the drain rather than at least staying the same and preferably growing.  Since you can’t pull the money out of the mall if the mall starts to tank and therefore funds could be lost and not regained if the mall never bounces back, that would likely be perceived as a bigger risk by many and that is why, imo, it makes sense to me Pres Hinckley reassured members that tithing wasn’t used for the mall.  Instead they are in a relatively safe fund that even if it loses money over the short run such as likely happened with Covid (which wouldn’t have happened with a bank) because of their ability to adapt to the economy and the significance of the fund they can wait out the low times and recover.  Probably the only time it will tank imo—if they stay conservative enough—without the ability to recover (unless there is major mismanagement) is when the economy goes nuclear…and then banks would be failing as well.

And maybe Pres Hinckley was aware at the time that there were members who for some reason did see a difference between investing in a fund and getting dividends while others did the work and investing in something in a way that gave actual ownership in the sense of oversight***, but did not see it as an appropriate time for a finance lesson and instead simply reassured them the principal would not be used for such things, which was true even if technically not significant in my view, without being dismissive about their concerns by adding something like ‘not that it really matters’.

***It is like imo those members who see themselves as not imposing on anyone because they stay home on Sunday who don’t realize that there are still plenty of people who are working for them to be comfortable with electricity, safety (police) etc.  If it’s not the time to get into a discussion on the way things work, what is wrong with approaching it on the simplified level?

Edited October 2, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 10/1/2024 at 1:25 PM, Calm said:

Quote

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

But I don’t see using invested income as indirectly using tithing because the funds are no longer tithing once they are received by the Church. Maybe I am unusual in this. If I understand correctly, CV sees it the same way.  So maybe there are a few others and maybe there are a lot.  

I think the Church differentiates its income based on its source, and continues to do so post-donation.  This is required for tax and other legal purposes, but I'm sure there are practical and "religious" reasons as well. 

For example, It appears that the Church estimates its tithing income for the next fiscal year, and then sets for itself a budget based on approximately 6/7 of that amount.  The remaining 1/7 is given to EPA, which invests that money - which was originally tithed to the Church - in various endeavors. 

This is an entirely legal exercise.  The Church apparently started its efforts and financial solvency and stability back around 1900, only to fall back into debt in the late 1950s and start its effort again in the early 1960s.  This renewed effort succeeded, so much so that by the late 1990s the Church needed to create an entity to handle investments of the Church's reserves, thus leading to the creation of Ensign Peak Advisors in 1997.  EPA has, ever since, been doing a pretty solid job of building the wealth of the Church.

By way of broad historical context, see this 2017 article by Peggy Fletcher Stack is about Quinn's then-recently-published book: Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances, shows how church went from losing money to making money — lots of it

Some excerpts:

Quote

Most believers had paid tithing, but they did so in an uneven and unpredictable fashion until about 1900, when then-church President Lorenzo Snow asked members to pay on a “regular and consistent basis,” Quinn says. Tithing became a requirement for admittance to LDS temples, where Mormons take part in their faith’s highest ordinances.

That mandate had a clear and immediate impact.

At that time, the church was $2.5 million in debt, he says, but because of the tithing push, Snow’s successor Joseph F. Smith could announce in 1907 that the institution was debt-free.

Within a couple of decades, though, the red ink again began to flow.

From 1933 to 1950, the church saved about 72 percent of its annual income, creating a large reserve. But a building program from 1958 to 1963 blotted out all the reserve funds, and the church didn’t have enough liquid assets to meet all its obligations.

Starting in 1959, the faith began deficit spending, Quinn says, and thus stopped reporting its expenditures in General Conferences, hoping to keep that fact from the members.

By December 1962, the deficit had ballooned to nearly $33 million (or about $236 million in 2010 dollars) and, in 1963, the historian says, LDS headquarters “didn’t think it could meet its payroll.”

Such anxiety led leaders to take steps to ensure that would never happen again.

They brought Canadian N. Eldon Tanner on board as an apostle. Tapping his enormous financial know-how, the church began to rebuild its nest egg, cutting back on building projects and overseeing investments until it could get back in the black.

Tanner was “methodically rescuing the church from the brink,” Quinn writes. “By 1964, commercial income accounted for about 40 to 45 percent of its total income.”

Step by step, the historian writes, Tanner introduced the church to “corporate financing.”

It never looked back.

There are some critics who apparently think all this is a terrible, terrible thing.  This is a fundamentally philosophical disconnect and debate, so there's little chance of either side changing the other's mind.  We're left, then, with diatribes and denunciations on the one side, and shrugs on the other.

Alternatively, there are some critics who think that this is fine in the abstract, but that the Church has taken things too far, and that it should be spending more of its wealth.  This is, I think, less a philosophical disconnect and more of a power struggle.  Kathleen Flake called it:

Quote

Pondering the merit of added transparency for the church’s finances, Flake asks why the church doesn’t simply open up its records.

Her answer: The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, “it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

“In other words,” Flake concludes, “this is a power struggle ... and one that we’ve seen before from those who don’t understand Mormonism and how it handles its money.”

Yep.

Now, if the Church were in dire financial straits, and if people like Analytics were coming along and making recommendations about how the Church could extricate itself from those circumstances, then I would give their input some real credence.  I would even appreciate their efforts.

As it is, though, the Church's finances are in really good shape.  As Analytics has noted (correctly, in my view), Huntsman has "real grievance{s}" against the Church, which are more akin to the "power struggle" issue above than to an real-world claims of actual fraud (which at this point even Analytics (!) isn't accepting as being presented in good faith).  Huntsman is therefore using this lawsuit as a pretext.Huntsman is - in my view - out to punish and embarrass the Church, not help it.  He wants to carve out a pound of flesh, not help it improve itself. 

On 10/1/2024 at 1:25 PM, Calm said:

The problem is even if I don’t see it as “tithing” I use that term when I should be using “the funds formerly known as tithing”.  You might see this as a distinction without a difference, but it is a major difference to me because there is a disconnection at the point of reception of my tithing.  The funds no longer have any connection to me, they are not mine, so how can my tithing be indirectly used when it no longer exists?

I think Analytics' "indirectly used" concept is infinitely regressive and unworkable.  See my previous post about me paying my son's tuition.  The money I used "ultimately" came from other sources, but no serious-minded person would view that money in the infinitely regressive way Analytics proposes that we view the Church's money.  

You reach the same conclusion in your next comment:

On 10/1/2024 at 1:25 PM, Calm said:

This belief that tithing once it leaves my hands and is received no longer is mine at all is a religious belief in part because of the reason I pay tithing, but I see the same thing with any service or product I pay for. Someone using the salary I gave them is not me indirectly paying for their purchases even if I am the only one paying them.  That money is all theirs. I have no control over it and therefore it is not indirectly connected to me in the sense of using me or mine.  If I have some sort of influence over how a gift or payment is being used, then I might say “indirectly using something I once possessed”, but otherwise it has no connection to me.

Yep.  The "indirectly used" line is, in my view, a red herring.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 24, 2024 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

@smac97 @Analytics 

Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters if some Church members could possibly have misunderstood the meaning of President Hinckley's statements. I think it is pretty safe to say that most members of the Church have numerous mistaken assumptions about the Church and its teachings (that is just the nature of communication channels between all large institutions who have members from all walks of life and backgrounds). So it seems like the key issue is whether any misunderstanding was (1) nearly inevitable because there was essentially only one clear and obvious way to interpret President Hinckley's statements and (2) there is evidence that his statements were intentionally deceptive. Neither of these criteria are met. 

Outside of that, the case for fraud just doesn't seem to work. All we are left with is one side arguing that President Hinckley could have been more clear, while others can point to instances where the Church and President Hinckley openly and publicly clarified the nature of the reserve funds in past statements (i.e., that they came from tithing). In other words, it seems like it ends up just being a simple misunderstanding where both parties possibly could have done things to improve either the clarity of message or to be more careful and prudent about their interpretation of the message (i.e., not relying heavily on assumptions if one is mostly ignorant about the issue and cares a lot about how tithing funds are used).

Edited October 2, 2024 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And maybe Pres Hinckley was aware at the time that there were members who for some reason did see a difference between investing in a fund and getting dividends while others did the work and investing in something in a way that gave actual ownership in the sense of oversight***, but did not see it as an appropriate time for a finance lesson and instead simply reassured them the principal would not be used for such things without being dismissive about their concerns by adding something like ‘not that it really matters’.

My speculation is that the Brethren had been generally fully supportive of the Church investing its reserves in for-profit endeavors, since those investments help the entire Church to become financially stable and strong.  However, City Creek represented a massive investment of the Church's money on a for-profit project located in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.  Perhaps they were concerned that some members would be concerned that such an investment would primarily benefit the Utah Saints who would patronize the mall, unlike the Saints in, say, Japan or Zimbabwe, most of whom would never go there.

A few  years ago a friend ("Bob") told me about a conversation he had recently had with a wealthy member of the Church ("John").  John had more or less bragged that he was trying to pull some strings to persuade the Church to let him pay for a stained glass feature to be installed in a newly-built stake center (where John attended weekly church meetings).  Bob expressed some discomfort with the idea of rich Latter-day Saints doing this sort of thing, as it would result in some buildings being markedly different - that is, nicer - than others, with the difference arising from the presence of the rich guy in the pews.  Bob compared this to the bygone practice in some other churches of wealthy congregants literally buying or renting a front-row pew in the church building.

I spent my mission in Taiwan.  The buildings there were generally smaller than the chapels where I now live in Utah, but that was more a matter of practicality, and not a matter of smaller buildings intended to signal some sort of lesser social status in the Church.  I know that some people dislike the Church's repetitive architectural aesthetic in its buildings, but I think the Church does this both to save costs (since the same design plans can be used over and over, construction can be systematized and streamlined, etc.) and perhaps also to signal to the Saints that we are all on equal footing with each other.  Notably, the Church really goes out of its way to design and build beautiful and ornate temples.  This is because these buildings are the "House of the Lord," and because the design is intended to elevate the Saints and encourage us to ponder divine things.  And this is so with all of the Church's temples throughout the world, likely for the same reason that the chapels are kept fairly simple in their design: The Church wants the members to feel that we are all children of God, with our current circumstances being irrelevant to our worth in His eyes.  

City Creek was a commercial endeavor that would be seen and enjoyed mostly by the Latter-day Saints in Utah.  Perhaps the Brethren felt that this particular commercial project entailed a risk of creating confusion or concern that the Church was spending money to benefit this particular cluster of members of the Church, rather than the Church as a whole, such that the Church should take specific and unique steps in its investment strategy to mitigate those concerns.  Perhaps they settled on a mitigation strategy that involved public statements clarifying the specific source of funding for City Creek, and that this source was not tithes from members, but from earnings on invested reserves.  Perhaps they hoped this would assuage potential concerns of members throughout the Church about this particular project.  And perhaps this particularized and unique concern is why the Church treated the funding of City Creek somewhat differently than it treats its other investment efforts.

I have no idea how much of the foregoing is accurate, but the foregoing jibes with my overall experience in the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

@smac97 @Analytics 

Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters if some Church members could possibly have misunderstood the meaning of President Hinckley's statements.

Candidly, I don't think such a misunderstanding really happened.  Even Analytics seems to concede this, as he has elsewhere talked about Huntsman having "real grievances" separate and distinct from City Creek, but that he realized he could not sue based on those grievances, and so filed his lawsuit as a pretextual alternative.

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think it is pretty safe to say that most members of the Church have numerous mistaken assumptions about the Church and its teachings (that is just the nature of communication channels between all large institutions who have members from all walks of life and backgrounds). So it seems like the key issue is whether any misunderstanding was (1) nearly inevitable because there was essentially only one clear and obvious way to interpret President Hinckley's statements and (2) there is evidence that his statements were intentionally deceptive. Neither of these criteria are met. 

Outside of that, the case for fraud just doesn't seem to work. All we are left with is one side arguing that President Hinckley could have been more clear, while others can't point to instances where the Church and President Hinckley openly and publicly clarified the nature of the reserve funds in past statements (i.e., that they came from tithing). In other words, it seems like it ends up just being a simple misunderstanding where both parties possibly could have done things to improve either the clarity of message or to be more careful and prudent about their interpretation of the message (i.e., not relying heavily on assumptions if one is mostly ignorant about the issue and cares a lot about how tithing funds are used).

Or these lawsuits could just be pretextual excuses for former members of the Church to use lawfare to attempt to punish the Church, embarrass the Church, damage its name and reputation, force it to open its finances, etc.

Ulterior motives, all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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. 

Your understanding of Hinckley’s assurance did not make sense to you based on your logic and assumptions at the time. Which logic and assumptions have changed over the last 20 years? Some of these assumptions have to do with why he made the statements he did.

I think the details of investing what / when / by whom / in what / how have to do with a larger strategy, and Hinckley’s explanation was a distilled response to an immediate concern that had been expressed about the “what” and "in what": whether “my tithing donation” is being sent to City Creek.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church differentiate its income based on its source, and continues to do so post-donation.  This is required for tax and other legal purposes, but I'm sure there are practical and "religious" reasons as well. 

Income and assets are two categorically different things. All entities that perform basic accounting differentiate income based on source. However, according to basic accounting principles, you don’t spend “income.” Rather, you spend assets. When you  commendably wrote a check for your son’s tuition, you spent money out of your checking account, not out of your salary, bonus, investment income, or any other source of income.

That is why spending or not spending “tithing” is confusing, because “tithing” is generally thought of as a source of revenue, not an asset. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think Analytics' "indirectly used" concept is infinitely regressive and unworkable.  See my previous post about me paying my son's tuition.  The money I used "ultimately" came from other sources, but no serious-minded person would view that money in the infinitely regressive way Analytics proposes that we view the Church's money.

I don’t have an “indirectly used” concept. Rather, I pointed to an old thread where several Latter-day Saints argued that there are three ultimate sources of assets the Church has:

• Tithing donations
• Non-tithing donations
• Legacy businesses from pioneer day

According to them, when they heard “tithing money won’t be used”, they thought that meant it wouldn’t be used directly or indirectly (the concept of “indirectly” comes from the OP of that thread, not from me). These Saints thought that when Hinckley said tithing money wouldn’t be used, he meant that the “ultimate” source of income was non-tithing donations and legacy businesses from pioneer days.

My only point is that this is how they interpreted Hinckley’s remarks. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You reach the same conclusion in your next comment:

Yep.  The "indirectly used" line is, in my view, a red herring.

It isn’t a red herring. It is the explicit topic of that thread.

 

[Analytics]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your understanding of Hinckley’s assurance did not make sense to you based on your logic and assumptions at the time. Which logic and assumptions have changed over the last 20 years? Some of these assumptions have to do with why he made the statements he did.

The main thing that has changed is my understanding that on the nonprofit side of the Church, the Church invests well over $100 billion in stocks, bonds, and other securities. This trading activity all happens tax free, and takes place in a “charity” that never actually spends any of its resources on charitable things. I knew the Church had commercial savings, but I thought it was all in for-profit activities that were on the for-profit side of the house.

What hasn’t changed is that I still think Hinckley’s comments don’t make sense.

I work at an insurance company with several hundred million dollars of assets. If you look at our accounting records, this pile of money accumulated through issuing stock, premium income, and investment income. Those additions to the pot have been offset by paying claims, operating expenses, taxes, commissions, dividends, etc.

However, if we cut a check to somebody for $1,000 for something, it would be nonsensical to say, “I want to assure you that this $1,000 check came from investment income and not from premium or issuance of stock.” This is nonsensical for two reasons:

First, it doesn’t matter “where it came from.” Every dollar on our balance sheet is just as valuable as every other dollar. None are qualitatively different in any way. 

Second, there is no way in a standard accounting system to track where a dollar came from. That is because there is no need to--a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

With that as my background, can you see why Hinckley’s assurance doesn’t make sense? First, why would it matter if an investment “came from tithing” or not? Second, how could you even tell if it did or not?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is required for tax and other legal purposes, but I'm sure there are practical and "religious" reasons as well. 

I hadn’t thought of that…good point.

Quote

My speculation is that the Brethren had been generally fully supportive of the Church investing its reserves in for-profit endeavors, since those investments help the entire Church to become financially stable and strong.  However, City Creek represented a massive investment of the Church's money on a for-profit project located in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.  Perhaps they were concerned that some members would be concerned that such an investment would primarily benefit the Utah Saints who would patronize the mall, unlike the Saints in, say, Japan or Zimbabwe, most of whom would never go there.

Another very good point as I remember criticisms at that time for that reason…not about patronizing the mall, but rather benefiting Salt Lake City where the top leaders lived rather than treating them the same as the lay members.

Edited October 2, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 10/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, Analytics said:

Income and assets are two categorically different things. All entities that perform basic accounting differentiate income based on source. However, according to basic accounting principles, you don’t spend “income.” Rather, you spend assets. 

You sort of prove the point, then, that non-accountants might not understanding the particular and technical usages of words under GAAP.

On 10/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, Analytics said:

When you commendably wrote a check for your son’s tuition, you spent money out of your checking account, not out of your salary, bonus, investment income, or any other source of income.

Right.  And the infinite regression argument you keep presenting doesn't work either as a generalization understood by Regular Joes or under formal GAAP conditions.

On 10/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, Analytics said:

That is why spending or not spending “tithing” is confusing, because “tithing” is generally thought of as a source of revenue, not an asset. 

A distinction that I think is immaterial to Pres. Hinckley's 2003 comments, which I think were tailored to a non-familiar-with-GAAP audience.

As an attorney, I regularly deal with lawsuits centering on residential funding disputes, most of which involve a "security interest" in the form of a promissory note secured by a "deed of trust" recorded in the "county recorder's office."  However, most people, even well-educated ones, are not immediately familiar with these terms, and instead often use the term "mortgage."  A mortgage materially differs, in both form and legal effect, from a deed of trust.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

A mortgage and a trust deed (also known as a deed of trust) are both instruments used to secure loans in real estate transactions, but they have key differences in their structure and how foreclosure is handled. Below are the primary distinctions between the two:

1. Parties Involved:

• Mortgage: In a mortgage, there are two parties involved:
  • The borrower (mortgagor) and
  • The lender (mortgagee).
• Trust Deed: In a trust deed, there are three parties:
  • The borrower (trustor),
  • The lender (beneficiary), and
  • A neutral third party called the trustee.

2. Title Ownership:

• Mortgage: The borrower holds the legal title to the property, while the lender has a lien on the property.
• Trust Deed: The borrower grants the legal title of the property to the trustee as security for the loan, while the borrower retains equitable ownership.

3. Foreclosure Process:

• Mortgage: If the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender must go through a judicial foreclosure, meaning the lender must file a lawsuit in court to foreclose on the property.
• Trust Deed: In most cases, the foreclosure is conducted through a non-judicial foreclosure, which is faster and less costly than judicial foreclosure. The trustee can sell the property without court involvement after following statutory procedures.

4. State Preferences:

• Mortgage: Mortgages are commonly used in states like New York, Florida, and New Jersey where judicial foreclosure is required.
• Trust Deed: Trust deeds are more commonly used in states like California, Texas, and Arizona, where non-judicial foreclosures are preferred due to the efficiency of the process.

5. Power of Sale:

• Mortgage: A mortgage usually requires the lender to obtain a court order to foreclose, unless the mortgage has a power of sale clause, which allows non-judicial foreclosure.
• Trust Deed: A trust deed typically contains a power of sale clause, giving the trustee the right to sell the property without court approval if the borrower defaults.

6. Loan Satisfaction:

• Mortgage: Once the loan is repaid, the lender provides a satisfaction of mortgage, which releases the mortgage lien on the property.
• Trust Deed: Once the loan is repaid, the trustee issues a deed of reconveyance, which transfers the legal title back to the borrower, fully releasing the lien.

Summary of Key Differences:

Feature	Mortgage	Trust Deed
Number of Parties	Two (Borrower and Lender)	Three (Borrower, Lender, Trustee)
Foreclosure Process	Judicial foreclosure (usually)	Non-judicial foreclosure (typically)
Title Ownership	Borrower holds legal title	Trustee holds legal title
Power of Sale Clause	May or may not be included	Typically included
Loan Release Document	Satisfaction of mortgage	Deed of reconveyance

Sources:

• Nolo: Provides comprehensive legal explanations on the differences between mortgages and trust deeds(
  Wikipedia
  ).
• Investopedia: Offers a detailed comparison of mortgages and trust deeds, especially focusing on the foreclosure process(
  Wikipedia
  ).

Notwithstanding these material differences, both lawyers and judges frequently use the term "mortgage" in their discussions of these issues involving deeds of trust, particularly where such discussions are less formal, and/or where legal precision gets in the way of clarity due to the litigant being familiar with one term ("mortgage") but not the other ("deed of trust").

No serious-minded person would look at judges and use "mortgage" to informally reference "deeds of trust" and say "Fraud!" 

On 10/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, Analytics said:

I don’t have an “indirectly used” concept.

Sure you do.  You've been using that concept and its corollary infinite regression thing for the last several pages of this thread:

• There could also be debates about whether the phrase “tithing will not be used“ implies that tithing means tithing won’t be used directly or indirectly.
• It is beyond dispute that the contemporaneous record indicates that Pahoran was confident that tithing money wasn’t used, neither directly nor indirectly. 
• In my view, Pahoran and Kim Pearson know exactly what “tithing” means. They just thought that assurances that tithing wouldn’t be used means that it wouldn’t be used directly and wouldn’t be used indirectly. 
• Using tithing to generate investment income which is then used to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall.
• Nobody is changing the definition of “tithing.” Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them.
• If they see it that way, they’ll infer that “no tithing will be used” should be interpreted broadly and that tithing won’t be used directly or indirectly.
• If “interest on unspent tithing” was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly.
• “Indirect” has everything to do with it because it is something we’ve been discussing on this board for about 12 years now. Based on the responses of faithful Saints to these topics, a plurality of Latter-day Saints thought when Hinckley said “no tithing would be used” he meant no tithing would be used directly, and no tithing would be used indirectly. 
• I just posed the following question to ChatGPT: Is using something indirectly still using it? For example, if a Church uses tithing revenue to generate investment income, and then uses that investment income to fund the purchase item “x”, is it accurate to say the Church used tithing revenue to fund the purchase of “x”?
• Hammers are one of many tools used to make houses. Houses are used for shelter. Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course.
• I know you’ve explained this to me before, and I think I understand your point a little better now. I originally thought your question was just about where the money for the mall came from; if not from tithing, at least indirectly, where did it come from?
• 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."
• The underlying question was what it means to use tithing; is using tithing indirectly still using tithing? 
• Critics argued that tithing was used indirectly (i.e. 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)
• The majority of Latter-day Saints were bothered by this assertion because to them, assurance that tithing wouldn’t be used meant that it would be used neither directly nor indirectly
• The real issue is whether indirectly using tithing should be considered using tithing. Back then, most Saints thought the Church didn’t indirectly use tithing because as they understood him, Hinckley said they didn’t use tithing, which implies they didn’t use it directly and didn’t use it indirectly.
• The issue is whether Hinckley promised the Church wouldn't indirectly use tithing. Critics were accusing the Church of indirectly using tithing, and the apologists were generally saying no, the Church didn’t indirectly using tithing because Hinckley said it didn’t. 
• Like Huntsman, they understood Hinckley as promising that tithing wouldn’t be used, and like Huntsman, they inferred that not using tithing meant tithing wouldn’t be used indirectly.
• This indicates that saying funds were indirectly used to fund the mall is implying that funds were used to fund the mall. It’s basic logic, and that is in fact how people talked about it then. This quote proves it.
• That is why they were offended; saying tithing was indirectly used to fund the mall implies that tithing was used to fund the mall, and implying that tithing was used to fund the mall is calling the First Presidency liars.

And so it goes...

On 10/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, Analytics said:

Rather, I pointed to an old thread where several Latter-day Saints argued that there are three ultimate sources of assets the Church has:

• Tithing donations
• Non-tithing donations
• Legacy businesses from pioneer day

According to them, when they heard “tithing money won’t be used”, they thought that meant it wouldn’t be used directly or indirectly (the concept of “indirectly” comes from the OP of that thread, not from me). These Saints thought that when Hinckley said tithing money wouldn’t be used, he meant that the “ultimate” source of income was non-tithing donations and legacy businesses from pioneer days.

You are not accurately or fairly characterizing what Latter-day Saints thought and said.

And none of this is relevant to Huntsman's lawsuit.

On 10/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, Analytics said:

My only point is that this is how they interpreted Hinckley’s remarks. 

It isn’t a red herring. It is the explicit topic of that thread.

Huntsman's lawsuit is trying to do what you are doing here: re-define "tithing" so as to be able to point to Pres. Hinckley's statement as being fraudulent.  

It's not working.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 24, 2024 by smac97

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The main thing that has changed is my understanding that on the nonprofit side of the Church, the Church invests well over $100 billion in stocks, bonds, and other securities. This trading activity all happens tax free, and takes place in a “charity” that never actually spends any of its resources on charitable things. I knew the Church had commercial savings, but I thought it was all in for-profit activities that were on the for-profit side of the house.

What hasn’t changed is that I still think Hinckley’s comments don’t make sense.

I work at an insurance company with several hundred million dollars of assets. If you look at our accounting records, this pile of money accumulated through issuing stock, premium income, and investment income. Those additions to the pot have been offset by paying claims, operating expenses, taxes, commissions, dividends, etc.

However, if we cut a check to somebody for $1,000 for something, it would be nonsensical to say, “I want to assure you that this $1,000 check came from investment income and not from premium or issuance of stock.” This is nonsensical for two reasons:

First, it doesn’t matter “where it came from.” Every dollar on our balance sheet is just as valuable as every other dollar. None are qualitatively different in any way. 

Second, there is no way in a standard accounting system to track where a dollar came from. That is because there is no need to--a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

With that as my background, can you see why Hinckley’s assurance doesn’t make sense? First, why would it matter if an investment “came from tithing” or not? Second, how could you even tell if it did or not?

I can see how using your background as your primary frame of reference, and the semantics you choose to use, affect how go about trying / failing to make sense of Hinckley's assurance. Plus, it does not matter to you whether an investment in City Creek "comes from" "tithing", and knowing whether it did doesn't matter.

You'll have to remind me what does matter to you in this discussion (someone suggesting you try another lens? someone suggesting you try another lens and not admitting they did/pretending they didn't need to?  someone suggesting you try another lens and not admitting they did/pretending they didn't need to, and with an attitude of defending the Church and her leaders? someone suggesting you try another lens and not admitting they did/pretending they didn't need to, and with an attitude of defending the Church and her leaders whether they misread your attitude or not?  someone suggesting you try another lens and not admitting they did/pretending they didn't need to, and with an attitude of defending the Church and her leaders, whether they misread your attitude or not and/or whether they express empathy or come cross as empathetic or not?)

Edited October 2, 2024 by CV75

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What hasn’t changed is that I still think Hinckley’s comments don’t make sense.

I work at an insurance company with several hundred million dollars of assets. If you look at our accounting records, this pile of money accumulated through issuing stock, premium income, and investment income. Those additions to the pot have been offset by paying claims, operating expenses, taxes, commissions, dividends, etc.

However, if we cut a check to somebody for $1,000 for something, it would be nonsensical to say, “I want to assure you that this $1,000 check came from investment income and not from premium or issuance of stock.” This is nonsensical for two reasons:

First, it doesn’t matter “where it came from.” Every dollar on our balance sheet is just as valuable as every other dollar. None are qualitatively different in any way. 

I quite agree.  Where the money comes from in a commercial context generally doesn't really matter.

But in a religious context, the source of funds may matter quite a bit.  Taxable v. nontaxable.  Earmarked donations v. restricted gifts.  Earnings on investments v. unrelated business income. 

Moreover, I think you are so far removed from the worldview of a Latter-day Saint that you can no longer conceptualize that some Latter-day Saints might differentiate between their tithes and the other sources of the Church's income.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, there is no way in a standard accounting system to track where a dollar came from. That is because there is no need to--a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

There are all sorts of ways that a dollar is not a dollar.  Taxable v. non-taxable.  Earned fees v. fees held in trust.

Judge Wilson addressed this:

Quote

A financial statement for EPA shows that, in 1997, EPA was granted {REDACTED} in reserve tithing funds.  Rytting Decl., Ex. 3.  By 2003, EPA's asset had grown to {REDACTED}.  Id., Ex. 5.  In 2003 alone, EPA's earnings on invested reserve funds amounted to {REDACTED}.  Id.

On January 1, 2004, EPA withdrew {REDACTED} from "EP-ALL" fund (i.e., a fund for the City Creek project) and was sourced from earnings on Defendant's invested reserve tithing funds.  Id.  This is confirmed by the fact, in 2003 alone, EPA's earnings on invested reserve tithing funds amounted to {REDACTED}.  Id.

The {REDACTED} in the EP-SDR fund was itself invested and generated earnings, and the assets in that fund were used between 2007 and and 2012 on the City Creek project.  Id. ¶¶  15-23, Exs. 7, 8.  EPA also allocated {REDACTED} and {REDACTED} to the City Creek project in 2007 and 2009, respectively.  Id. ¶ 24, Exs. 9, 10.  Those grants came from earnings on Defendant's invested reserve tithing funds.  Id.

Based on the foregoing, no reasonable juror could conclude that Hinckley's statement was false.  This is because a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used "the earnings of invested reserve funds" to fund the City Creek project -- i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do.

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln...

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

With that as my background, can you see why Hinckley’s assurance doesn’t make sense?

Yes.  You are so far removed from the worldview of faithful Latter-day Saints that you have lost track of their presuppositions and posture toward the Church.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

First, why would it matter if an investment “came from tithing” or not?

Any answer would be speculative, but I gave it a shot above.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, how could you even tell if it did or not?

See Judge Wilson's decision.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2, 2024 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, there is no way in a standard accounting system to track where a dollar came from. That is because there is no need to--a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

Easy. As long as the total invested amount doesn't dip below the amount of tithing funds deposited into it, anything in excess of that amount is easily described as "interest earned on reserve funds." What else COULD it be?

You keep pretending that Fund Accounting isn't a thing; that the way you do things in the for-profit world is the way that things are done even outside of that context.  Fund accounting exists precisely because some organizations are required to keep track of which dollars carry specific restrictions on their expenditure.       

 

Edited October 2, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You'll have to remind me what does matter to you in this discussion...

That's a funny question, and you are going to die and how this has exploded.

First, let me tell you a little bit more about my frame of reference.

As an actuary, one of my primary jobs is to “price” long-term care insurance. What that means is that for any issue age and benefit selections, I need to calculate what the premium should be so that the insurance company has enough money to pay benefits, commissions, expenses, and still has enough left over for some profit. When we do these calculations, we typically account for interest in terms of discounting the various cash flows back to the time of issue. The end result is a handful of ratios. The most important one is the loss ratio, which is the present value of paid benefits divided by the present value of premiums. There is also the expense ratio, (PV of expenses/PV premium), the commission ratio (PV of commissions/PV premium), and profit ratio (PV of profits/PV premium). If you add up all those ratios, you get to 100%. So, if somebody were to say that the loss ratio of a given pricing cell is 70%, that means that 70% of the premium goes towards claims. However, in this context, the present-value calculations cause investment income to be intertwined with actual cash flows at the cellular level.

The reason this all came to mind is that a few years ago, two of my friends were both called to testify at a Congressional hearing. For both personal and professional reasons, I watched the hearing closely. A congressman asked one of the people a question about what percentage of premium goes to pay claims. The congressman was a layman, and I thought about his question exactly as asked--should you divide total claims by total premiums without discounting for interest? If you did, you might find that 175% of premiums are used to pay claims. But the idea he was really groping for is the loss ratio, where premiums and claims are both discounted for interest.

This all just stuff that bounces around in my head. In the summer of 2023, I was casually browsing this thread in its infancy, and I read this quote by Sam Brunson, who as I recall is a law professor in Chicago:

It basically turns on whether a reasonable person would believe that “tithing” included not just the church’s tithing revenue, but income earned on that tithing revenue.[fn1] And honestly, that’s a pretty absurd assertion; every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two. 

Whenever I read an absolute claim like “every”, “none”, “always”, and “never”, my mind races to find an exception to prove them wrong. When I read what Sam Brunson wrote about “every financial endeavor”, it was easy for me to find an exception--every day I do calculations that blur principle and interest, because in my world, the value of a dollar is a function of time, and I’m interested in the time value of money and what a dollar is worth at different moments in time. Interest payments are the mechanics of what cause this to happen, but actuaries typically don’t look at it that way--they just blend principle and interest and look at the time value of money.

So, I was excited to give an interesting counter example to prove Sam Brunson was wrong about “every financial endeavor.” So I provided a quote from the congressional hearing I remembered so well, because I thought that would be an interesting way to make the point. And while I was at it, I also mentioned that I could see how somebody could think of these things the way Huntsman claimed he did. After all, if you believe in logic then logically, indirectly using something is still using it. If you happened to look at the world this way, then logically, using tithing income to generate investment income to buy a mall is indirectly using tithing to buy a mall. That is logical, and that logic is the reason why some members of this board used to believe, based on Hinckley’s assurances, that if you traced the funding of the mall back to the beginning, it would go back to the original ZCMI, not to tithing dollars.

None of this has much to do with the lawsuits in question, of course. But I thought it would be interesting to show a different point of view--I like exploring different ways of seeing things, and I thought others might as well.

I was expecting that one post to be my last post on this thread. I imagining telling Sam Brunson what I said and hearing him reply, “That’s a good counterexample--I never thought of it like that. I better understand why somebody might think Huntsman’s position was reasonable.” I thought somebody might say something like that, or more likely my post would just be ignored.

But Smac, of course, went to war over my comment and was going to die on the hill that law professor Sam Brunson is the world’s ultimate authority on principal and interest and that I everything I said about my field was both wrong and irrelevant. 

And that is when I got sucked into debating this with him. It’s been a surreal experience. I’m merely arguing that somebody could reasonably see things in the way that James Huntsman, Pahoran, Jeff K, Kim Pearson, et. al. said they did, but smac insists that by doing so, I’m viciously attacking the Church.

It’s weird, and the weirdness of it makes it hard to stop thinking about and simply walk away.

[rpn]

On 9/26/2024 at 6:19 PM, Analytics said:

The medical school is an example of this

The medical school is absolutely part of the church's humanitarian services.   When announced they said it would be directed at improving the lives of those who live without adequate medical services within the realms that the Church find consistent with its mission to all the world.

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Easy. As long as the total invested amount doesn't dip below the amount of tithing funds deposited into it, anything in excess of that amount is easily described as "interest earned on reserve funds." What else COULD it be?

You keep pretending that Fund Accounting isn't a thing; that the way you do things in the for-profit world is the way that things are done even outside of that context.  Fund accounting exists precisely because some organizations are required to keep track of which dollars carry specific restrictions on their expenditure.       

Does the Church use fund accounting? I heard it didn’t.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Whenever I read an absolute claim like “every”, “none”, “always”, and “never”, my mind races to find an exception to prove them wrong.

Lol, me too.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And the infinite regression argument you keep presenting does work either as a generalization understood by Regular Joes or under formal GAAP conditions.

Your “infinite regression” argument isn’t what we are talking about. JAHS wasn’t asking about where the money came from before the Church got it. He was asking about “where the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place."

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure you do.  You've been using that concept and its corollary infinite regression thing for the last several pages of this thread:

The concept of “indirectly used” is not mine. I’m merely quoting JAHS who asked:

"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..." 

That concept belongs to the people who were talking about it, not to me. I’m merely explaining to you what they said.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are not accurately or fairly characterizing what Latter-day Saints thought and said.

Okay, help me understand Latter-day Saint thought better. In the context of JAHS’s question about "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?...it must have started with tithing...so in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money” (his words and concept, not mine), Pahoran said: 

If a "genealogy" of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to [tithing], but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution.

What is the basis of Pahoran’s confidence that if you look at where the money for the mall came from “in the first place”, it was from pioneer era businesses and not from tithing? I have my theory for the basis of his confidence, but what is yours?

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Does the Church use fund accounting? I heard it didn’t.

I'd be interested where you heard this from.  I wouldn't put it past the Church to march to the beat of our own drum, but fund accounting is nigh-universal for non-profits and churches.  Some websites describing the method even go so far as to say that Fund Accounting is "required" for non profits (though I haven't been able to track down any primary sources that specifically outline that requirement).

I have not heard one way or the other if the Church uses Fund Accounting.  It's supposition on my part based on how ubiquitous the practice is for nearly every single other non-profit or Church in the United States. 

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested in reviewing it.  

Edited October 2, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

On 10/2/2024 at 4:03 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

Right.  And the infinite regression argument you keep presenting does work either as a generalization understood by Regular Joes or under formal GAAP conditions.

Your “infinite regression” argument isn’t what we are talking about.

It's not my argument.  It's yours.  You have some dozens of posts about where they money for City Creek ultimately came from, about how "indirect" use of tithing (whatever that means) is functionally equivalent to direct use of tithing, and so on.

On 10/2/2024 at 4:03 PM, Analytics said:

The concept of “indirectly used” is not mine.

You are the one advancing it.  You've said things like this: "Nobody is changing the definition of 'tithing.' Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them."

You've taken ownership of this pig-in-a-poke idea.

On 10/2/2024 at 4:03 PM, Analytics said:

Okay, help me understand Latter-day Saint thought better. In the context of JAHS’s question about "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?...it must have started with tithing...so in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money” (his words and concept, not mine), Pahoran said: 

If a "genealogy" of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to [tithing], but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution.

What is the basis of Pahoran’s confidence that if you look at where the money for the mall came from “in the first place”, it was from pioneer era businesses and not from tithing? I have my theory for the basis of his confidence, but what is yours?

Apart from disputing your mischaracterizations of what Latter-day Saints on this board said in 2012 and 2015, I don't care about this topic.  It has no relevance to the Huntsman lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 24, 2024 by smac97

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's a funny question, and you are going to die and how this has exploded.

First, let me tell you a little bit more about my frame of reference.

As an actuary, one of my primary jobs is to “price” long-term care insurance. What that means is that for any issue age and benefit selections, I need to calculate what the premium should be so that the insurance company has enough money to pay benefits, commissions, expenses, and still has enough left over for some profit. When we do these calculations, we typically account for interest in terms of discounting the various cash flows back to the time of issue. The end result is a handful of ratios. The most important one is the loss ratio, which is the present value of paid benefits divided by the present value of premiums. There is also the expense ratio, (PV of expenses/PV premium), the commission ratio (PV of commissions/PV premium), and profit ratio (PV of profits/PV premium). If you add up all those ratios, you get to 100%. So, if somebody were to say that the loss ratio of a given pricing cell is 70%, that means that 70% of the premium goes towards claims. However, in this context, the present-value calculations cause investment income to be intertwined with actual cash flows at the cellular level.

The reason this all came to mind is that a few years ago, two of my friends were both called to testify at a Congressional hearing. For both personal and professional reasons, I watched the hearing closely. A congressman asked one of the people a question about what percentage of premium goes to pay claims. The congressman was a layman, and I thought about his question exactly as asked--should you divide total claims by total premiums without discounting for interest? If you did, you might find that 175% of premiums are used to pay claims. But the idea he was really groping for is the loss ratio, where premiums and claims are both discounted for interest.

This all just stuff that bounces around in my head. In the summer of 2023, I was casually browsing this thread in its infancy, and I read this quote by Sam Brunson, who as I recall is a law professor in Chicago:

It basically turns on whether a reasonable person would believe that “tithing” included not just the church’s tithing revenue, but income earned on that tithing revenue.[fn1] And honestly, that’s a pretty absurd assertion; every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two. 

Whenever I read an absolute claim like “every”, “none”, “always”, and “never”, my mind races to find an exception to prove them wrong. When I read what Sam Brunson wrote about “every financial endeavor”, it was easy for me to find an exception--every day I do calculations that blur principle and interest, because in my world, the value of a dollar is a function of time, and I’m interested in the time value of money and what a dollar is worth at different moments in time. Interest payments are the mechanics of what cause this to happen, but actuaries typically don’t look at it that way--they just blend principle and interest and look at the time value of money.

So, I was excited to give an interesting counter example to prove Sam Brunson was wrong about “every financial endeavor.” So I provided a quote from the congressional hearing I remembered so well, because I thought that would be an interesting way to make the point. And while I was at it, I also mentioned that I could see how somebody could think of these things the way Huntsman claimed he did. After all, if you believe in logic then logically, indirectly using something is still using it. If you happened to look at the world this way, then logically, using tithing income to generate investment income to buy a mall is indirectly using tithing to buy a mall. That is logical, and that logic is the reason why some members of this board used to believe, based on Hinckley’s assurances, that if you traced the funding of the mall back to the beginning, it would go back to the original ZCMI, not to tithing dollars.

None of this has much to do with the lawsuits in question, of course. But I thought it would be interesting to show a different point of view--I like exploring different ways of seeing things, and I thought others might as well.

I was expecting that one post to be my last post on this thread. I imagining telling Sam Brunson what I said and hearing him reply, “That’s a good counterexample--I never thought of it like that. I better understand why somebody might think Huntsman’s position was reasonable.” I thought somebody might say something like that, or more likely my post would just be ignored.

But Smac, of course, went to war over my comment and was going to die on the hill that law professor Sam Brunson is the world’s ultimate authority on principal and interest and that I everything I said about my field was both wrong and irrelevant. 

And that is when I got sucked into debating this with him. It’s been a surreal experience. I’m merely arguing that somebody could reasonably see things in the way that James Huntsman, Pahoran, Jeff K, Kim Pearson, et. al. said they did, but smac insists that by doing so, I’m viciously attacking the Church.

It’s weird, and the weirdness of it makes it hard to stop thinking about and simply walk away.

I noticed the two posts you linked are over a year old! My posting only began last weekend so I missed the thread’s 13-month subtext.

It seems that countering absolutism with a different point of view matters to you on any number of unrelated topics, and suggesting that you are motivated by bias against the Church this time around invalidates this personal value and point of view.

Weirdness can be intriguing, but watch out when it becomes compelling  !!!

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'd be interested where you heard this from.

Just some guy on the Internet. That said, ChatGPT confirms what you said:

Yes, nonprofits are generally required to use fund-based accounting, also known as fund accounting. This accounting method is tailored to track the use of resources that are restricted for specific purposes, allowing nonprofits to separate their financial activities into different funds based on donor restrictions or specific program needs. Fund accounting helps ensure transparency and compliance with donor-imposed restrictions and other legal requirements.

Each fund in fund-based accounting operates like a separate entity with its own set of accounts, which helps a nonprofit track how funds are received, spent, and carried over. Most U.S.-based nonprofits are subject to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and under GAAP, fund accounting is the standard for nonprofit organizations. It enables them to provide detailed financial reporting that shows whether donations were used according to the donor’s intent.

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I wouldn't put it past the Church to march to the beat of our own drum, but fund accounting is nigh-universal for non-profits and churches. 

Touche.

Again from ChatGPT:

While there’s no direct, public evidence specifying that Ensign Peak Advisors uses fund-based accounting in the technical sense to separate tithing from investment income, it is reasonable to assume that a sophisticated financial entity like Ensign Peak Advisors would use a system to distinguish these funds internally. The general nonprofit accounting practices, along with the size and scrutiny of Ensign Peak's operations, make it likely that some form of fund segmentation or tracking is in place, though specifics remain confidential.

 

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I noticed the two posts you linked are over a year old! My posting only began last weekend so I missed the thread’s 13-month subtext.

It seems that countering absolutism with a different point of view matters to you on any number of unrelated topics, and suggesting that you are motivated by bias against the Church this time around invalidates this personal value and point of view.

Weirdness can be intriguing, but watch out when it becomes compelling  !!!

I feel understood. THANK YOU!!!

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not my argument.  It's yours.  You have some dozens of posts about where they money for City Creek ultimately came from, about how "indirect" use of tithing (whatever that means) is functionally equivalent to direct use of tithing, and so on.

It's because this is what Latter-day Saints were talking about. You keep pretending that they weren’t talking about it, so I keep quoting them and paraphrasing what they said.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are the one advancing it.  You've said things like this: "Nobody is changing the definition of 'tithing.' Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them."

From a certain point of view, this is true. But acknowledging that the people I’m quoting are saying things that are logically coherent doesn’t make the idea mine. 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apart from disputing your mischaracterizations of what Latter-day Saints on this board said in 2012 and 2015, I don't care about this topic.  It has no relevance to the Huntsman lawsuit.

You continually accuse me of misrepresenting what the Latter-day Saints were saying, and whenever I give you the opportunity to show me what Latter-day Saints really think, you decline.

Pahoran said the following:

If a "genealogy" of Church-owned businesses were to be researched, I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to [tithing], but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution.

The basis for his confidence was his belief that using tithing to generate investment income to build a mall is “indirectly” using tithing to build a mall. Hinckley assured us that tithing wasn’t used to build the mall. Modus tollens, we can be confident the “genealogy” of the mall doesn’t go back to tithing.

That is what he thought:

• It directly addresses the question (Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?...[critics say] it must have started with tithing...so in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money...how do you respond to this?”) 
• It is eminently logical
• It is the only plausible explanation of his confidence on the table

You can, and undoubtedly will, claim that this is another example of me "not accurately or fairly characterizing what Latter-day Saints thought and said."

But you won’t offer another explanation.

Ever.

And this is eminently relevant to the Huntsman lawsuit because it illustrates the reasonability of how Huntsman interpreted Hinckley’s remarks.

You can pretend you aren’t responding because you don’t care about this topic, but we all know the real reason.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

watch out when it becomes compelling  !!!

I am still debating whether mine is a obsession or an compulsion