Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

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. 

Huntsman's legal argument at summary judgment involved conflating tithing with other forms of income.  Your "indirect use of tithing" / infinite regression (where did the money for City Creek "ultimately" come from) is just a variation on Huntsman's argument.

Judge Wilson rejected Huntsman's argument, and you "strenuously disagree" with Judge Wilson because, it seems, you keep wanting to advance the "indirect use of tithing" / infinite regression line of reasoning, because doing so would allow Huntsman to proceed with his lawsuit.

Apart from your persistent mischaracterization of statements/positions about the funding of City Creek as expressed by a handful of Latter-day Saints in 2012 or 2015, I don't really care about these statements.  They have no real bearing on the Huntsman lawsuit.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

Poppycock.  I have quoted these Latter-day Saints verbatim.  Many times over.  I have provided links to their comments, several times over.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

I don't care if Pahoran's particularized speculation about ZCMI is correct or not.  He, like pretty much all the Latter-day Saints involved in the 2012/2015 discussions, differentiated between tithing and other sources of income.  The presence of that differentiation is why Judge Wilson found Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement to be true, and therefore also found Huntsman to have not presented a viable claim for fraud.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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."

The Latter-day Saints in 2012/2015 were discussing the financing of City Creek, and they understood that the Church was differentiating the funding in that tithing would not be used, and earnings on invested reserves would.  Judge Wilson reached the same conclusion in 2023, and declared Pres. Hinckley's statement to be "true" and "exactly what happened."

You have repeatedly attempted to argue that the Latter-day Saints were saying things incompatible with or contradicting the foregoing. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But you won’t offer another explanation.

Ever.

I have repeatedly quoted, verbatim, the 2012/2015 statements.

Apart from disputing these distortions and mischaracterizations, though, I don't really care about these old conversations, including proffering some sort of speculative mindreading "explanation" about them.  I think these statements stand pretty well on their own.  And in any event, they have no real relevance to the Huntsman lawsuit.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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

No, they are not relevant at all, let alone "eminently" so.

You continue to not understand the "reasonable juror" issue addressed by the Courts.  You are treating it as a question of fact, when it is, instead, a question of law.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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

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

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...I don't care about this topic.  It has no relevance to the Huntsman lawsuit....

I just had an epiphany. I just realized that your interest in this topic and my interest in this topic don’t really overlap.

You care about the lawsuit. You are infatuated with how Judge Wilson interpreted Hinckley’s remarks. You are dedicated to framing the issue as being about whether interest is tithing in some metaphysical way.

In contrast, I don’t care about the lawsuit. But I am interested in how Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley’s remarks before the IRS complaint. And I am interested in the relationship between the contemporaneous record of how Latter-day Saints interpreted Hinckley’s remarks, and how James Huntsman claims he interpreted them.

In 2012, JAHS started a thread about whether "in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money.” That is a direct quote about the explicit topic of that thread. And we now know the answer. Yes, in an indirect ay the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money.

And we now know that despite his confidence, Pahoran was wrong when he 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."

Which raises the question, what was the source of his confidence? The answer to that question is obvious, which is why you won’t address it. Not everything that is true is useful, right?

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

...I don't care about this topic.  It has no relevance to the Huntsman lawsuit....

I just had an epiphany. I just realized that your interest in this topic and my interest in this topic don’t really overlap.

"This topic" being the Huntsman lawsuit?

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You care about the lawsuit.

Well, it is the topic of this thread, after all.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are infatuated with how Judge Wilson interpreted Hinckley’s remarks.

Interested, yes.  "Infatuated" (as in "filled with or marked by a foolish or extravagant love or admiration"), no.

I am interested in the entirety of Huntsman's lawsuit, including the en banc review by the Ninth Circuit. 

Judge Wilson's ruling is, or ought to be, central to any discussion of the topic.  He, and not the Ninth Circuit, examined the evidence presented by the parties.  That evidence was filtered through the Federal Rules of Evidence and found admissible, competent and probative.  These rules were not made up on the fly, but are instead a carefully-crafted and -vetted and -refined gauntlet intended to differentiate less reliable/admissible evidence from more reliable/admissible evidence.   

The Ninth Circuit, then, will likely be bound by Judge Wilson's factual findings.  In federal court, appellate courts generally give deference to the trial court’s factual findings derived from the submitted evidence. This principle is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), which states that appellate courts must not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless they are "clearly erroneous."  Huntsman appears to be arguing almost purely legal issues, not factual ones.

Judge Wilson's assessment of Pres. Hinckley's remarks was pretty well-reasoned (I differ with him, but only as a matter of degree, on his application of the Church Autonomy Doctrine).  I say this as an attorney with pretty extensive experience in litigating civil fraud claims.  Any attorney examining the Huntsman lawsuit would focus on the trial court's decision.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are dedicated to framing the issue as being about whether interest is tithing in some metaphysical way.

Nothing of the sort.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, I don’t care about the lawsuit.

All evidence to the contrary.  

If you don't care about the Huntsman lawsuit, why are you writing dozens and dozens of posts about the Huntsman lawsuit in a thread about the Huntsman lawsuit?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 9/12/2024 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

Here are links to the three briefs referenced above which were filed this week, along with an outline of each motion's "Argument" section:

Doc. 79: MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, A UTAH CORPORATION SOLE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Doc. 80: MOTION TO DISMISS OF ENSIGN PEAK ADVISORS, INC. AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Doc. 81: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

The foregoing motions were filed on September 10.  On September 26, Judge Shelby authorized the following parties to file amicus brief in relation to the foregoing motions:

• Amicus Brief of Ayuda Incorporated, CharityVision, Five.12 Foundation, and Thanksgiving Point, In Support of Motion to Dismiss of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints BRIEF (Amicus) In Support of Motion to Dismiss (79 in 2:24-md-03102-RJS-DAO) filed by Amicus Parties Ayuda Incorporated, CharityVision, Five.12 Foundation, Thanksgiving Point Institute. (Taylor, John)
• Amici Curiae BRIEF in Support of Defendants filed by Amicus Parties The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Association of Evangelicals, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Association of Evangelicals, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Association of Evangelicals, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Association of Evangelicals, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Association of Evangelicals, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Association of Evangelicals. (Schaerr, Gene)
• AMICUS BRIEF filed by Amicus J. Reuben Clark Law Society. (Evanson, Blaine)

Also, the Church had previously filed a "Motion to Stay" on August 9, in which the Church asked Judge Shelby to put discovery in the lawsuit on hold.  From the docket:

Quote

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting Motion to Stay and Memorandum in Support / Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. (68) in case 2:24-md-03102-RJS-DAO, (77) in case 2:23-cv-00794-RJS-DAO, (43) in case 2:24-cv-00268-RJS-DAO, (61) in case 2:24-cv-00269-RJS-DAO, (54) in case 2:24-cv-00277-RJS-DAO, (52) in case 2:24-cv-00296-RJS-DAO).

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. Save for matters specifically addressed in the court's Case Management Order, all case management-related requirements and deadlines applicable to this matter under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Civil Practice for the District of Utah remain stayed until the court resolves Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, or the court orders otherwise. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 9/30/2024. (jwt)

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And we now know that despite his confidence, Pahoran was wrong when he 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."

Despite your confidence in the error of his statement, a reasonable reading of what Pahoran said could be seen as being spot on.  As I recall, GBH said there were at least two major sources of funds, one of which was the Church’s for profit endeavors…Pahoran used the analogy of one’s pedigree…one’s pedigree, of course, includes many ancestors.  Pahoran merely pointed out that the original ZCMI was one of the progenitors of those funds.

You are, of course, free to quibble with that reading.  What strikes me as so unusual is that your self professed interest in this topic is to parse the statements of a few people regarding a single statement made by GBH and somehow distill from that some consensus about how the general membership, (the vast majority of which, of course, never saw the statement), understood the statement.  As an actuary I would think you’d agree that there is far too little information available to you to draw any well-founded conclusions.

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Despite your confidence in the error of his statement, a reasonable reading of what Pahoran said could be seen as being spot on.  As I recall, GBH said there were at least two major sources of funds, one of which was the Church’s for profit endeavors…Pahoran used the analogy of one’s pedigree…one’s pedigree, of course, includes many ancestors.  Pahoran merely pointed out that the original ZCMI was one of the progenitors of those funds.

You are, of course, free to quibble with that reading....

Thank you. I will. The fatal problem with that reading is that it is ignoring half of what he said. Pahoran said that if you trace the genealogy of mall, it goes back to the Church’s pioneer-era legacy businesses and does not go back to tithing.

The not to tithing is an explicit part of what he said.

His position was further clarified when he responded to [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] with the words:

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

Despite @smac97 insisting otherwise, at the time Pahoran did not believe what Judge Wilson thought was so patently obvious. Pahoran was confident tithing money was not used, neither directly nor indirectly. Why? because President Hinckley said so.

But having said that, I thank you for actually answering the question.

6 hours ago, let’s roll said:

What strikes me as so unusual is that your self professed interest in this topic is to parse the statements of a few people regarding a single statement made by GBH and somehow distill from that some consensus about how the general membership, (the vast majority of which, of course, never saw the statement), understood the statement.  As an actuary I would think you’d agree that there is far too little information available to you to draw any well-founded conclusions.

As we say, there are two kinds of actuaries: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...

Anyway, the first time I brought this up was August 23, 2023, when I said, 

"My recollection is that before the IRS report, a lot of members had the impression that there was an important wall that separated the Church's for-profit businesses from its religious operations, and that revenue from the religious operations didn't fund the for-profit businesses."

If I overestimated or exaggerated how many people viewed this issue the way Pahoran did, my apologies. 

Edited October 3, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huntsman's legal argument at summary judgment involved conflating tithing with other forms of income.  Your "indirect use of tithing" / infinite regression (where did the money for City Creek "ultimately" come from) is just a variation on Huntsman's argument.

It's true that this way of looking at things is a variation of Huntsman’s argument, but it is not my argument. The explicit topic of the 2012 conversation was this:

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....How does one respond to this?

Did you catch it? “Where do you think the Church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?” Is one of the questions from the OP. Analyzing the assertion it came from tithing “in an indirect way” is the explicit point of the conversation. These are not my arguments. It just so happens that many of the Latter-day Saints on that thread happened to interpreted Hinckley’s comments the way that James Huntsman did.

This shouldn’t be surprising. They were all faithful Latter-day Saints at the time.

Pahoran’s argument was that we could be confident that “in an indirect way” we could be confident that the mall was not “made possible by sacred tithing money” because Hinckley said so. 

That is Pahoran’s argument, not mine.

We have clear, contemporaneous evidence that at least some smart, informed Latter-day Saints contemporaneously interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way Huntsman did. If this evidence would have been introduced in the trial, would it have legal ramifications to boost Huntsman’s case?  

Since March 23, 2012, my argument has always been this:

In one form or another, the capital to build the mall must have come from the time, energy, talents, and money that members have consecrated to the church over the years, and the church's diligent management and reinvestment of those assets. Those consecrated assets are a class much bigger than "tithing" receipts. So while it's simplistic to claim that "tithing money" provided the capital that grew into the funds that were used for the commercial City Creek project, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that there is a clear line between the Chruch's sacred tithing-generated assets and the other billions of non-sacred assets it generates from its commercial endeavors.

This has always been obvious to me, and I stand by it. That is why I have so little sympathy for Huntsman’s lawsuit. The truth is obvious.

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Poppycock.  I have quoted these Latter-day Saints verbatim.  Many times over.  I have provided links to their comments, several times over.

I've been quoting them and linking to them way more than you, and whenever I ask for one specific example of somebody who, in 2012 or 2015 interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way that Judge Wilson did rather than the way James Huntsman did, you cop-out with, "I don't care about this issue."

You claim that you read these comments verbatim, but you don’t recognize that the “in an indirect way” argument is a direct quote and is the main topic of the 2012 thread. 

You insist I'm misrepresenting what everybody said in these old threads in a malicious way for my own nefarious purposes. I try to ignore your personal attacks on me and consider that maybe I’m missing something, so I read the old comments over and over, trying to figure out what you see that I don’t. And when I give you an opportunity to show that I’m wrong and disabuse me of misunderstanding, you say you aren’t interested.

So go ahead and cue the cop-out, because I’m going to give you another opportunity to explain why I’m wrong in my claim that Pahoran, as a representative example of plurality of posters in 2012/2015, interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way Huntsman did:

The context is a question about critics asking where the church got the money to buy the businesses that funded the mall in the first place, "and concluding it must have started with tithing money...so in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money...how dos one respond to this?"

Responding directly to that question, Pahoran expressed confidence that the money would be traced back to the Church’s legacy pioneer era businesses and not to tithing. 

What is the basis of his confidence?

Edited October 3, 2024 by Analytics

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thank you. I will. The fatal problem with that reading is that it is ignoring half of what he said. Pahoran said that if you trace the genealogy of mall, it goes back to the Church’s pioneer-era legacy businesses and does not go back to tithing.

The not to tithing is an explicit part of what he said.

His position was further clarified when he responded to [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] with the words:

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

Despite @smac97 insisting otherwise, at the time Pahoran did not believe what Judge Wilson thought was so patently obvious. Pahoran was confident tithing money was not used, neither directly nor indirectly. Why? because President Hinckley said so.

But having said that, I thank you for actually answering the question.

As we say, there are two kinds of actuaries: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...

Anyway, the first time I brought this up was August 23, 2023, when I said, 

"My recollection is that before the IRS report, a lot of members had the impression that there was an important wall that separated the Church's for-profit businesses from its religious operations, and that revenue from the religious operations didn't fund the for-profit businesses."

If I overestimated or exaggerated how many people viewed this issue the way Pahoran did, my apologies. 

Thanks for your response.  I am sorry you didn’t understand my point.  I too struggle with nuance when I’m too sure of myself.  I describe it as being “blinded by my insistence.”  Godspeed to you.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

It's true that this way of looking at things is a variation of Huntsman’s argument, but it is not my argument. The explicit topic of the 2012 conversation was this:

I don't care about the 2012 conversation, except to dispute your mischaracterizations of what the Latter-day Saints said in it about the Church's funding of City Creek.

This thread is about the Huntsman lawsuit, not the 2012 thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 3, 2024 by smac97

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

It's true that this way of looking at things is a variation of Huntsman’s argument, but it is not my argument. The explicit topic of the 2012 conversation was this:

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....How does one respond to this?

Did you catch it? “Where do you think the Church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?” Is one of the questions from the OP. Analyzing the assertion it came from tithing “in an indirect way” is the explicit point of the conversation. These are not my arguments. It just so happens that many of the Latter-day Saints on that thread happened to interpreted Hinckley’s comments the way that James Huntsman did.

This shouldn’t be surprising. They were all faithful Latter-day Saints at the time.

Pahoran’s argument was that we could be confident that “in an indirect way” we could be confident that the mall was not “made possible by sacred tithing money” because Hinckley said so. 

That is Pahoran’s argument, not mine.

We have clear, contemporaneous evidence that at least some smart, informed Latter-day Saints contemporaneously interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way Huntsman did. If this evidence would have been introduced in the trial, would it have legal ramifications to boost Huntsman’s case?  

Since March 23, 2012, my argument has always been this:

In one form or another, the capital to build the mall must have come from the time, energy, talents, and money that members have consecrated to the church over the years, and the church's diligent management and reinvestment of those assets. Those consecrated assets are a class much bigger than "tithing" receipts. So while it's simplistic to claim that "tithing money" provided the capital that grew into the funds that were used for the commercial City Creek project, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that there is a clear line between the Chruch's sacred tithing-generated assets and the other billions of non-sacred assets it generates from its commercial endeavors.

This has always been obvious to me, and I stand by it. That is why I have so little sympathy for Huntsman’s lawsuit. The truth is obvious.

I've been quoting them and linking to them way more than you, and whenever I ask for one specific example of somebody who, in 2012 or 2015 interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way that Judge Wilson did rather than the way James Huntsman did, you cop-out with, "I don't care about this issue."

You claim that you read these comments verbatim, but you don’t recognize that the “in an indirect way” argument is a direct quote and is the main topic of the 2012 thread. 

You insist I'm misrepresenting what everybody said in these old threads in a malicious way for my own nefarious purposes. I try to ignore your personal attacks on me and consider that maybe I’m missing something, so I read the old comments over and over, trying to figure out what you see that I don’t. And when I give you an opportunity to show that I’m wrong and disabuse me of misunderstanding, you say you aren’t interested.

So go ahead and cue the cop-out, because I’m going to give you another opportunity to explain why I’m wrong in my claim that Pahoran, as a representative example of plurality of posters in 2012/2015, interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way Huntsman did:

The context is a question about critics asking where the church got the money to buy the businesses that funded the mall in the first place, "and concluding it must have started with tithing money...so in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money...how dos one respond to this?"

Responding directly to that question, Pahoran expressed confidence that the money would be traced back to the Church’s legacy pioneer era businesses and not to tithing. 

What is the basis of his confidence?

I'm not sure how anyone can know the basis of Pahoran's confidence so many years ago.  Why is this question important (it's been repeated)?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure how anyone can know the basis of Pahoran's confidence so many years ago.  Why is this question important (it's been repeated)?

lt's neither important nor relevant to the Huntsman lawsuit, which is the topic of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Responding directly to that question, Pahoran expressed confidence that the money would be traced back to the Church’s legacy pioneer era businesses and not to tithing. 

What is the basis of his confidence?

I don't feel like digging through all the old posts on this topic, so this is based solely on my (admittedly, potentially faulty) memory, but I seem to recall that there was a poster around that time who claimed rather authoritatively that this was the case.

I seem to remember that being in connection with his rebutting the idea that the Church was being a bad actor - whether that was the thread that you and @Calm were talking about or a different one, I can't recall. I then seem to remember that several other LDS posters locked onto that statement as being authoritative and ended up repeating it when other, similar criticisms about the Church were bandied about in other threads, both then and in the future.

The problem of course is that original poster turned out to be wrong. But he was defending the Church from wrongdoing and was making a plausible claim, so I can understand how that fiscal folk doctrine came into being here on this message board. It's hard to say whether or not such a belief was held by Latter-day Saints more generally though.

With respect to the case, I watched the oral arguments and thought Paul Clement put on a masterclass in his defense of the Church - unsurprising, given that he's arguably the most talented appellate lawyer in our generation. It looks as though the Church is preparing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, which might really be for the best since they seem to have a winning case here (note: I'm not saying that there is no case in which a fraud claim couldn't be successfully argued against a religious organization, but I'm quite confident this particular case is well on the other side of the line).

 

Edited October 3, 2024 by Amulek

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

With respect to the case, I watched the oral arguments and thought Paul Clement put on a masterclass in his defense of the Church - unsurprising, given that he's arguably the most talented appellate lawyer in our generation.

It was exhilarating to watch.

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It looks as though the Church is preparing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, which might really be for the best since they seem to have a winning case here

If the Ninth Circuit finds in favor of the Church (by affirming the trial court's dismissal), I think either A) Huntsman will not seek an appeal to SCOTUS, or B) if Huntsman appeals the matter to SCOTUS, SCOTUS will not grant cert. 

Would the Church seek SCOTUS review if the trial court's decision is affirmed?  I doubt it.  I think they would take the Ninth Circuit decision as a win and go home.  This even though Judge Wilson did not fully apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  

Alternatively, if the Ninth Circuit reverses the trial court, then you are correct that the Church will seek cert.  

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

(note: I'm not saying that there is no case in which a fraud claim couldn't be successfully argued against a religious organization, but I'm quite confident this particular case is well on the other side of the line).

Sure.  "Purely secular" disputes are not barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

lt's neither important nor relevant to the Huntsman lawsuit, which is the topic of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

You might want to start a new thread if you want it refocused on just the lawsuit the derail has gone on long enough narrowing it now is problematic especially since I believe Analytics sees it at least relevant.  That way you can be very specific in your instruction to discuss lawsuit only and not the peripherals.

Edited October 3, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

but I seem to recall that there was a poster around that time who claimed rather authoritatively that this was the case.

Maybe Kim Pearson?

 

Edited October 3, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You might want to start a new thread if you want it refocused on just the lawsuit the derail has gone on long enough narrowing it now is problematic especially since I believe Analytics sees it at least relevant.  That way you can be very specific in your instruction to discuss lawsuit only and not the peripherals.

Or the off-topic comments could be taken elsewhere.  From the Board Rules:

Quote

BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:
...
• Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or the off-topic comments could be taken elsewhere.  From the Board Rules:

Thanks,

-Smac

I just meant it has gone on for so many pages to try and rein it in now probably won’t work because people will read the older posts and response before they read the topic restriction. 

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

On 10/3/2024 at 6:29 AM, Analytics said:

Pahoran’s argument was that we could be confident that “in an indirect way” we could be confident that the mall was not “made possible by sacred tithing money” because Hinckley said so. 

That is Pahoran’s argument, not mine.

I don't care about the 2012 conversation, except to dispute your mischaracterizations of what the Latter-day Saints said in it about the Church's funding of City Creek.

Since you are no longer disputing how I characterized Pahoran’s argument, it looks like you are conceding my point; Pahoran was confident that “in an indirect way” (as defined by by JAHS), the mall was not made possible by sacred tithing money.

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure how anyone can know the basis of Pahoran's confidence so many years ago.  Why is this question important (it's been repeated)?

In the context of the assurances that had been made, the Chruch’s total lack of transparency, and the context of the questions by JAHS that Pahoran was responding to, I can think of only one answer: he was confident that interest on unspent tithing was not used to fund the mall because of the Church’s assurances:

1. Logically, using interest earned on unspent tithing to fund the mall would be using tithing to fund the mall; indirectly using something is still using it
2. The Church had made five statements that said tithing wouldn’t be used to fund the mall

That is how I interpret Pahoran’s remarks. If I am right, then it makes James Huntsman’s declarations of how he interpreted Hinckley’s remarks exceedingly plausible; Huntsman  interpreted the Church’s five assurances in the same way the contemporaneous record indicates that Pahoran and others did.

Looking at what Saints said about this issue from before the IRS whistleblower complaint proves that Judge Wilson’s interpretation of the comments relies on 20/20 hindsight.

Smac has said I’m wrong about how I interpret Pahoran. If I’m wrong, I want to know. But apparently Smac cares about this issue enough to tell me I’m wrong, but not enough to explain why. Asking for the basis of Pahoran’s confident that tithing wouldn’t be used “in an indirect way” is a clean invitation for Smac to disabuse me of my alleged misconceptions about why Pahoran came to the beliefs that he did.

There are about 10 valid reasons why Huntsman’s lawsuit should be dismissed. Those 10 reasons do not include the assertion that the Church told the truth about how the mall would be funded. To be clear I am not accusing the Church of lying, either. The Church’s assurances were so vague and confusing they shouldn’t have been relied on for anything and didn’t constitute a clear enough statement to be either true or false.

[Analytics]

And by the way, my life is getting extremely busy and this is my last post on this thread for a while.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since you are no longer disputing how I characterized Pahoran’s argument, it looks like you are conceding my point; Pahoran was confident that “in an indirect way” (as defined by by JAHS), the mall was not made possible by sacred tithing money.

In the context of the assurances that had been made, the Chruch’s total lack of transparency, and the context of the questions by JAHS that Pahoran was responding to, I can think of only one answer: he was confident that interest on unspent tithing was not used to fund the mall because of the Church’s assurances:

1. Logically, using interest earned on unspent tithing to fund the mall would be using tithing to fund the mall; indirectly using something is still using it
2. The Church had made five statements that said tithing wouldn’t be used to fund the mall

That is how I interpret Pahoran’s remarks. If I am right, then it makes James Huntsman’s declarations of how he interpreted Hinckley’s remarks exceedingly plausible; Huntsman  interpreted the Church’s five assurances in the same way the contemporaneous record indicates that Pahoran and others did.

Looking at what Saints said about this issue from before the IRS whistleblower complaint proves that Judge Wilson’s interpretation of the comments relies on 20/20 hindsight.

Smac has said I’m wrong about how I interpret Pahoran. If I’m wrong, I want to know. But apparently Smac cares about this issue enough to tell me I’m wrong, but not enough to explain why. Asking for the basis of Pahoran’s confident that tithing wouldn’t be used “in an indirect way” is a clean invitation for Smac to disabuse me of my alleged misconceptions about why Pahoran came to the beliefs that he did.

There are about 10 valid reasons why Huntsman’s lawsuit should be dismissed. Those 10 reasons do not include the assertion that the Church told the truth about how the mall would be funded. To be clear I am not accusing the Church of lying, either. The Church’s assurances were so vague and confusing they shouldn’t have been relied on for anything and didn’t constitute a clear enough statement to be either true or false.

Please stop the off topic stuff.  This thread is about the Huntsman lawsuit.

[Analytics]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please stop the off topic stuff.  This thread is about the Huntsman lawsuit.

Whether Judge Wilson’s interpretation of the Church’s five assurances is only possible with 20/20 hindsight is on topic, and whether smart, informed people contemporaneously viewed the statements the way Huntsman did is on topic as well. 

Finally, if somebody asks me a question, I have the right to answer it.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Whether Judge Wilson’s interpretation of the Church’s five assurances is only possible with 20/20 hindsight is on topic, and whether smart, informed people contemporaneously viewed the statements the way Huntsman did is on topic as well. 

Finally, if somebody asks me a question, I have the right to answer it.

The 2012/2015 comments by some Latter-day Saints on this board have essentially nothing to do with the Huntsman lawsuit.

But okay.  As you are insisting on persisting with the off-topic stuff, I've reported you to the mods.  I'll let them decide.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2024 by smac97

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

And by the way, my life is getting extremely busy and this is my last post on this thread for a while.

I know how that is. I'm just coming out of one of those phases myself. Best of luck with everything - it will settle back down eventually.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Logically, using interest earned on unspent tithing to fund the mall would be using tithing to fund the mall; indirectly using something is still using it

I really wish you would stop stating this as an absolute, a fact.  I have already challenged this idea multiple ways by logic and by analogy imo.  I have no problem with you or others seeing it this way. I can even understand the why you do it, treating money like it’s got DNA it can pass on to any interest earned off of it.  I and others here don’t see the connection like you do, I see it as the same thing as the money a bank gave us in a loan to buy a house does not mean the bank is indirectly responsible for me posting here because we paid for the tablet I am posting on from the same account the loan went into.

It is your insistence by the way you write the above that it is the only way to see it that sets off my need to refute this absolute.  If you didn’t write it as an absolute, as if it could be written in a valid logic equation where everyone agrees with your premises when we don’t, I could think to myself ‘I can see that point of view’ and move on to reading your other points.  Iow, I am not saying it’s not logical as an absolute, I am saying it’s not logical if one disagrees with your premises and many here do not.

Based on your response “I feel understood!” to CV’s analysis, I am guessing you will understand the above and may or may not change your method, but at least you will get why you are getting some of the pushback.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75459-update-on-huntsman-lawsuit-ninth-circuit-reverses-trial-court/?do=findComment&comment=1210198033

Quote

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

Besides doing the above, this happens to me also when someone makes a claim that something is logical. My mind goes “but is it really?”   It becomes a puzzle that must be taken apart and solved.  I might be able to avoid responding if it only happens once or is a minor point, but if repeated it becomes inevitable that I will respond if I see it fails the logic test.
 

Smac, I will try to say no more on this…can’t guarantee it unless it doesn’t come up again though.  Just to be honest, not being rebellious to your request.  Chances are I will be able to stop myself even if only by deleting a response I have written out, but I feel awkward making a promise I won’t when I know I might slip up.

Edited October 4, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I really wish you would stop stating this as an absolute, a fact.  I have already challenged this idea multiple ways by logic and by analogy imo.  

Quoted for truth.

Analytics conclusions may be reasonable from some points of view, but that doesn't make them fact.  Because tithing has a religious definition, interest on tithing is by definition, not tithing.