Third "Tithing" Lawsuit Under Way

smac97 · February 14, 2024

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think you are wrong on the facts because you are equivocating the word “tithing.”

No, I'm not. "Tithing" is front and center in this case. And I'm not equivocating about the meaning of the word. Rather, I am noting that the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine bars secular courts from adjudicating things like the definition of "tithing" as used by Pres. Hinckley.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Religious points of doctrine aren’t used to build malls; dollars in a bank account are.

Pres. Hinckley did not say "dollars in a bank account will not be used to fund City Creek." He spoke of tithing

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This isn’t a question of religious doctrine--it is a question of accounting.

It's a matter of religious doctrine, governance (including financial expenditures), and a variety of other things with which secular courts cannot meddle.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

People make donations to the church that are explicitly categorized as “tithing,”

Right. And secular courts cannot re-define "tithing" to include stuff like "income earned on reserved principal." But that is precisely what Huntsman et al are asking secular courts to do.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and the church has an explicit revenue account in its accounting system called “tithing revenue.” When Hinckley said “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property” he was making a factual statement about accounting. He wasn’t talking about doctrine.

Yeah, good luck with that. A secular court can't come along and say "Hey, when this religious leader talks about the religious concept of 'tithing,' he was not talking about it as a doctrinal concept, but rather as a matter of accounting."

Superimposing how "tithing" may be defined in some quarters as an accounting concept in place of "tithing" as a religious concept is precisely the sort of thing that the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine prohibits.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Arguing that in this context tithing is an esoteric religious concept

I'm not saying it is "esoteric." But the only way to have these cases proceed is to have secular courts adjudicate what does, and does not, constitute "tithing" according to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and not an accounting one sounds like a rationalization that was made up by attorneys after the fact and is not something that Hinckley was actually saying at the time.

Says the guy who is suggesting that Pres. Hinckley, a religious leader talking to religious adherents about a religious concept, was really talking about "accounting."

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the context of this dispute, the term “tithing" is defined in the Church’s accounting system.

Malarky. I think you want to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning because otherwise your various "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" bloviations fall flat on their face.

I provided extensive citations to various legal authorities that stay well clear of splitting legal hairs in this way. I encourage you to read them.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Is the Church really arguing that in terms of its accounting system, “tithing funds” refer to something other than the funds in its accounting system that are labeled “tithing funds”? If they are making that argument, I find it weak.

I think you are incorrect in trying to characterize "tithing" as having no religious/doctrinal meaning or significance, and that it is instead just an "accounting" thingamabob.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Again, “tithing funds” is an accounting term that is well-defined in the Church’s accounting system. It has nothing to do with doctrine.

Tithing "has nothing to do with doctrine."

This is patently specious statement.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

In the current spate of lawsuits, various courts are being asked to adjudicate both the meaning of "tithing" and whether the monies used to fund City Creek qualify under the Court-imposed definition. That has "Ecclesiastical Abstention" written all over it. See, e.g., Hawthorne v. Couch, 911 So.2d 907, 910 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (“The issue of tithing is at its core a purely ecclesiastical matter.”)

That is a totally different situation.

Did you even read Hawthorne? For pete's sake, here is the first sentence in the "Facts" section of the decision:

"This case is solely one regarding tithes paid by Hawthorne to the Apostolic Tabernacle, Inc."

More:

"In his petition, Hawthorne sought repayment to him of tithes he paid the church."

That is what Huntsman et al are asking in their respective lawsuits.

More:

Quote

In particular, Hawthorne alleged that Couch told him and Noble that they had to increase their tithes, and that Couch convinced them to pay tithes on the gross income of Healthworks. ... Hawthorne indicated that he always intended to tithe on his income, as opposed to the gross receipts of Healthworks, that Hawthorne gave money to the appellees under duress, and that Hawthorne felt he did not have free will. ...

Not all church disputes necessarily involve purely ecclesiastical matters. For instance, a civil trial court may have subject matter jurisdiction when a petition alleges that a pastor has been dismissed by his church members but has refused to leave, and the church members ask the court to decide whether an injunction is warranted. ... In resolving these sorts of disputes, Louisiana courts have relied on the "neutral principles of law" approach set forth in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979) and adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Fluker, supra. This approach is not without difficulty, because it requires a civil court to examine certain religious documents, such as a church constitution, with an attitude of neutrality and non-entanglement. Glass, supra.

However, where the "dispute is rooted in an ecclesial tenet" of the church, the trial court will not have subject matter jurisdiction of the matter. In the instant case, the testimony on the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction focused almost exclusively on Couch's teachings regarding tithing. Without question, any legal analysis that would require the trial court to analyze and pass judgment upon such teachings would violate the "neutral principles of law" approach discussed above. The issue of tithing is at its core a purely ecclesiastical matter. In fact, in a letter to Couch, Hawthorne's counsel characterized the issue as "this religious problem," which Hawthorne preferred to deal with in a "religious forum." Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Likewise, to the extent that Hawthorne had marital difficulties springing from conflicting opinions between himself and his wife concerning Couch's biblical teachings, such difficulties and conflicts are beyond the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
...
Any consideration of Hawthorne's claims would require a court to examine the interpretation of the Bible on the subject of tithing which was applied by Couch and then make a determination of whether that interpretation was or was not fraudulent. A civil court is in no position to make a judicial determination of what is and what is not a correct biblical interpretation.
...
As stated, this litigation involves tithing, which, no matter how a claim might be worded, is based on the Bible and its interpretation. The trial court was correct in not allowing Hawthorne an opportunity to amend his petition.

Once more, with feeling:

"However, where the 'dispute is rooted in an ecclesial tenet' of the church, the trial court will not have subject matter jurisdiction of the matter."

If you are familiar with tennis, the foregoing language is the legal equivalent of "Game, Set, Match."

"In the instant case, the testimony on the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction focused almost exclusively on Couch's teachings regarding tithing."
"Without question, any legal analysis that would require the trial court to analyze and pass judgment upon such teachings would violate the 'neutral principles of law' approach discussed above."

"Without question."

"Any legal analysis..."

"Any consideration of Hawthorne's claims would require a court to examine the interpretation of the Bible on the subject of tithing which was applied by Couch and then make a determination of whether that interpretation was or was not fraudulent."

"Any consideration..."

"A civil court is in no position to make a judicial determination of what is and what is not a correct biblical interpretation."
"{T}his litigation involves tithing, which, no matter how a claim might be worded, is based on the Bible and its interpretation."

Roger, you just can't sidestep principles of law which are inconvenient to your point of view. That is what you are doing here. Over and over.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"Tithing" is plainly a religious/doctrinal/theological concept.

It depends on the context. “Tithing” can also be a well-defined account in an accounting system.

You just upended your argument.

The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine does not allow secular courts to wade into religious disputes and say "Hey, we're going to disregard the religious aspects of 'tithing' and infer that Gordon B. Hinckley, a religious leader speaking about a religious concept to religious adherents, was nevertheless using the word to refer to 'a well-defined account in an accounting system.'"

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Its meaning, particularly when that term was used by Pres. Hinckley et al., is disputed by Huntsman and those that have followed him. That sure sounds like a "theological controversy."

I don’t see how.

Sure you do. You lay out one side of the "controversy" in your next statement:

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The plaintiffs are arguing (or at least should be arguing) that “tithing funds” refer to the funds in the Church’s accounting system that are labeled “tithing.” The Church’s attorney trying to turn that into a theological controversy sounds like lawyers making things up after the fact to win a case.

"The plaintiffs are arguing" X about "tithing," and the Church's attorneys are arguing Y. This is necessarily a "theological controversy," a "dispute is rooted in an ecclesial tenet." Your argument to the contrary - that Gordon B. Hinckley, a religious leader, speaking of church funds to (primarily) church members - was not speaking about a topic "rooted in an ecclesial tenet,' and instead was just throwing around "tithing" as a term of art used by accountants, is simply untenable, even absurd.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Can civil courts identify and utilize "neutral principles of law to non-ecclesiastical issues" when defining "tithing" and ascertaining Pres. Hinckley's intent when he used that word? I don't think so.

"Necessarily, the determination of whether the financial expenditures were proper would have required an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified by the church's religious doctrine and practices. Accordingly, the court lacked any jurisdiction to hear the fraud claim upon which the challenged expenditures was based."

I think this is how things will eventually turn out in the Huntsman case and its progeny.

This case isn’t about whether the way the Church uses its resources is “proper”.

Um, what? Huntsman's claim of fraud is not about the Church's supposed improper use of funds? Then why on earth are he and others filing lawsuits? The dispute centers on whether the Church used - or did not use - one of its resources - "tithing" - in a "proper" way (that is, in accordance with the public assurances from several ecclesiastical leaders).

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is about whether they committed fraud by explicitly lying about how its resources would be deployed.

Which is a dispute about proper use of resources.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2024 by smac97

Analytics · February 14, 2024

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not. "Tithing" is front and center in this case. And I'm not equivocating about the meaning of the word. Rather, I am noting that the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine bars secular courts from adjudicating things like the definition of "tithing" as used by Pres. Hinckley.

Serious question. Is anybody asking the courts to adjudicate the definition of tithing as used by Hinckley? I don’t think the definition of “tithing funds” in this context is under dispute.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right. And secular courts cannot re-define "tithing" to include stuff like "income earned on reserved principal." But that is precisely what Huntsman et al are asking secular courts to do.

Please quote where they are “precisely” asking the court to redefine anything. My understanding is that both parties agree that “tithing” in this context unambiguously refers to donations that are explicitly categorized as “tithing” by both the donors and the church. The actual issue is whether using tithing to buy stocks and bonds to generate investment income to build a mall is using tithing to build a mall. Is indirectly using something for a purpose still using it for that purpose?

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, good luck with that. A secular court can't come along and say "Hey, when this religious leader talks about the religious concept of 'tithing,' he was not talking about it as a doctrinal concept, but rather as a matter of accounting."

Nobody is asking the church to redefine tithing. The definition of tithing isn’t in dispute.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not saying it is "esoteric." But the only way to have these cases proceed is to have secular courts adjudicate what does, and does not, constitute "tithing" according to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The religious doctrines around tithing are esoteric. For example, explain to me why it’s problematic to invest tithing money in a Salt Lake City mall and the Saints need reassuring that it won’t be deployed that way, but that it’s perfectly fine to invest tithing in California tech stocks.

But again, there isn’t an actual dispute about what does or does not constitute tithing. The dispute is about whether using tithing to generate investment income to build a mall is using it to build a mall.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Malarky.

That is in response to me saying "In the context of this dispute, the term “tithing" is defined in the Church’s accounting system."

Do you actually disagree with what I said? If President Nelson asked the Church’s controller how much tithing revenue the Church received last month, do you really think the controller would say, “I have no idea. Tithing is a religious concept and isn’t defined in our accounting system.” Do you really think he’d say that?

Your refusal to engage with what I’m saying here makes your point look weaker and weaker, and makes me question why I should take you seriously.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you want to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning....

I'm not stripping “tithing” of its religious and doctrinal meaning. I merely saying that to answer questions like, “How much tithing revenue did the church receive last month?” can be objectively, unambiguously, and uncontroversially answered by accountants regardless of whatever religious and doctrinal meaning the concept of “tithing” also has in a religious context.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Tithing "has nothing to do with doctrine."

I never said “Tithing has nothing to do with doctrine.” As you know, I said "tithing funds” have nothing to do with doctrine. The phrase “tithing funds” is the specific phrase that Hinckley used in his assurance. In context of what he said, he used the word “tithing” as an adjective and “funds” as a noun. The thing we are talking about here are funds. Taking my words out of context to make them look like I’m saying something I’m not is dishonest.

Edited February 14, 2024 by Analytics

Analytics · February 14, 2024

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you want to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning because otherwise your various "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" bloviations fall flat on their face.

No, I just think that this case isn’t about the truth or falsity of the Church’s religious doctrine. I don’t think Huntsman is asking the courts to rely on or interpret the Church’s truth claims. And we aren’t talking about Huntsman’s own religious beliefs either. The question we are talking about is purely secular: were the Church’s statements about how it would use these funds honest? And did Huntsman reasonably rely on these statements? Those are the real issues here, and they are purely secular.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I provided extensive citations to various legal authorities that stay well clear of splitting legal hairs in this way. I encourage you to read them.

I browsed through them and it was clear that unlike the Huntsman case, those cases are about religious matters, not secular ones.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are incorrect in trying to characterize "tithing" as having no religious/doctrinal meaning or significance...

Please don’t misrepresent me. I’m merely stating that the issue of whether tithing funds were used the way Hinckley said they’d be used is a secular question. That doesn’t mean that “tithing” doesn’t have religious/doctrinal meanings in other contexts.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Did you even read Hawthorne?

Yes. If you compare and contrast Hawthorne with Huntsman, you’d see that Hawthorne is about religious issues while Huntsman is about secular issues.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Roger, you just can't sidestep principles of law which are inconvenient to your point of view. That is what you are doing here. Over and over.

I'm not sidestepping principles of law. I just happen to think that fundamentally, this case isn’t about religious doctrine. A court court could look at public statements and the Church’s financial records and determine what funds were actually used to finance the project. A jury could evaluate whether Huntsman was being reasonable to rely on these statements when deciding whether or not to tithe. None of this has anything to do with religious doctrine. These are secular issues. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine keeps the courts out of essentially religious controversies. But those considerations are not applicable to purely secular disputes when fraud is alleged, even if one of the parties is a religion.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then why on earth are Huntsman et al filing lawsuits? The dispute centers on whether the Church used - or did not use - one of its resources - "tithing" - in a "proper" way (that is, in accordance with the public assurances from several ecclesiastical leaders).

You are mischaracterizing the lawsuit. Huntsman acknowledges the right of the church to teach whatever it wants, believe whatever it wants, and spend its money any way it wants. It isn’t about the “proper” use of resources. It is about the church allegedly committing fraud by lying to the membership about how the mall would be funded.

Edited February 14, 2024 by Analytics

smac97 · February 14, 2024

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Serious question. Is anybody asking the courts to adjudicate the definition of tithing as used by Hinckley?

Yes. The entire dispute centers on statements (five, to be exact, with Pres. Hinckley's seeming to be one getting the most attention) about tithing as not being used to fund City Creek.

The Church said X (that no tithing funds would be used to develop City Creek).

Huntsman et al is saying Y (that tithing funds funds were, in fact, used to develop City Creek).

The difference between X and Y is . . . the meaning of "tithing" as it was used in the Church's five statements. I think it's pretty clear that none of these statements can support Huntsman's premise, namely, that "tithing funds" refers "both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal." Of the five statements, two were pretty barebones:

"Presiding Bishop H. David Burton stated: 'None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members. That is not how we use tithing funds.'"
"No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment."

A third is a paraphrase, and also pretty barebones:

“McMullin said not one penny of tithing goes to the Church's for-profit endeavors. Specifically, the church has said no tithing went toward City Creek Center.”

A fourth has a little more meat:

"Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve, Inc., the Church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

This one differentiates "tithing donations" from the money to be used for City Creek via Property Reserve, Inc., which money "comes from other real-estate ventures." Eventually, I think Huntsman will have a pretty hard time conflating what the foregoing statement differentiates.

The fifth, chronologically the earliest of the five, is from Pres. Hinckley in 2003:

"We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple ․ The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program."

Slimmed down a bit: "{T}ithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. ... Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program."

Again, Pres. Hinckley here is plainly differentiating "tithing funds" from "earnings of invested reserve funds." The latter will be used to fund City Creek, the former will not. Huntsman will, in the end, have a difficult time with this.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don’t think the definition of “tithing funds” in this context is under dispute.

I encourage you to read the original summary judgment decision. An excerpt:

Quote

"{T}he question for this Court is as follows: could a reasonable juror conclude that Hinckley made a false statement when he said that tithing funds would not be used on the City Creek project but earnings of invested tithing funds would be used?

The Circuit Court decision likewise establishes that the meaning of "tithing" is in dispute:

Quote

{T}here is evidence in the record indicating that the term “tithing funds,” in common usage within the Church, refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal.
...
Given this common usage, a reasonable juror could conclude that President Hinckley intended his audience to understand, when he said that no "tithing funds" would be used to fund the City Creek Mall project, that neither tithing funds principal nor earnings on tithing principal would be used.

Again, the Church is saying X (no "tithing" was used, and "tithing" does not include earnings on invested tithes).

Huntsman et al are saying X ("tithing" includes earnings on invested tithes, and those earnings were used to partially fund City Creek).

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Please quote where they are “precisely” asking the court to redefine anything.

It's all over in the pleadings and in the published decisions. One example is from the dissent in the Circuit Court ruling (emphases added) :

Quote

These 1991 and 1995 statements must inform our understanding of Hinckley's 2003 statement that “the earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used for the City Creek project. Indeed, they show that “reserve funds” refer to tithing funds. In other words, in his 2003 statement, Hinckley said that the Church would use earnings on tithings, not tithing principal, to fund the project. And that was true. The financial records of Ensign Peak Advisors (“Ensign Peak”), which the Church incorporated in 1997 to serve as the “primary investment vehicle for the Church's reserve funds in stocks, bonds, and securities,” confirm this fact. In 2003 alone, as the district judge noted, Ensign Peak had enough earnings on invested reserves to fund the allocation of money to the fund designated for the City Creek project. To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003. Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project. Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings.

The majority also argues that “there is evidence in the record indicating that the term ‘tithing funds,’ in common usage within the Church refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal,” and thus Hinckley intended his audience to understand that neither tithing principal nor earnings would be used. Maj. Op. at ––––.

The majority did not pull this idea - "that the term 'tithing funds' ... refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal" - out of thin air. The idea was advanced - extensively - by Huntsman.

More:

Quote

But the majority places too much weight on the declaration of David Nielsen, who worked as a Senior Portfolio Manager at Ensign Peak from 2010 until 2019, because, as the district judge pointed out, Nielsen did not work at Ensign Peak at the time that the funds were allocated for the City Creek project, and even if Nielsen's statements could establish common usage at Ensign Peak during his employment there, it is a stretch to say that he could establish the common usage throughout the Church as a whole. Moreover, even this “common usage” would not change the conclusion that “the earnings of invested reserve funds were the earnings of invested tithing funds,” and Hinckley therefore effectively clarified that the Church would use earnings from invested reserve tithing funds.

Both the majority opinion and the dissent delve rather deeply into what Pres. Hinckley meant by "tithing."

Quote

The subsequent statements made by the Church about the City Creek project also do not permit a fraud claim because they do not conflict with Hinckley's 2003 statement. The district judge rightly found that “[n]one of the four statements are inconsistent with Hinckley's statement.” Thus, they do not change the fact that Hinckley said that “earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used. Any subsequent statement would have been understood in the context of that earlier statement.

The Church therefore did not make a false representation, and our analysis of plaintiff's fraud claim should end here. Indeed, as the district judge found on these facts: “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.”

Nobody disputes that the Church said "the earnings of invested reserve funds" would be used to fund City Creek.

What is in dispute is the notion that "the earnings of invested reserve funds" are considered "tithing," whether via "common usage" in the Church (a dubious claim, to be sure) or via the intent of the sources of the Church's five statements.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

My understanding is that both parties agree that “tithing” in this context unambiguously refers to donations that are explicitly categorized as “tithing” by both the donors and the church.

Yes. But they disagree on the notion that "tithing" includes earnings on invested tithes. This is the lynchpin of Huntsman's legal theory. They quote Neilsen about it (from the Circuit Court decision) (emphases added) :

Quote

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

This is a mighty weak hook on which to hand a fraud claim.

Quote

The record includes three sworn declarations.

Huntsman put into evidence a declaration of David Nielsen, dated August 15, 2021. Nielsen had worked as a Senior Portfolio Manager at Ensign Peak from 2010 to 2019. Nielsen stated:

During my employment at EPA [Ensign Peak Advisors], EPA's senior leadership and other EPA employees referred to ․ all funds of EPA as “tithing” money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal. In addition, during my time at EPA, tithing donations from the Church's members were commingled with earnings that EPA had made.

Hunstman's lawyers want secular courts to adopt the meaning of "tithing" as supposedly used by "EPA's senior leadership and other EPA employees," namely, that "'tithing' money" refers to "principal or earnings on that principal."

Quote

The Church put into evidence two declarations. The first was a declaration by Paul Rytting. Rytting stated that he is “a Director within the Finance and Records Department of the Church,” and that he “ha[d] worked in similar or related positions for over fifteen years.” Neither Rytting's declaration nor anything else in the record shows that Rytting ever worked at or had any direct contact with Ensign Peak.

Rytting stated in his declaration that all of the $1.2 billion originally transferred from Ensign Peak to finance the City Creek Mall project “came exclusively from earnings on the Church's reserve funds invested by Ensign Peak.” Rytting also stated that additional amounts transferred from Ensign Peak to the project “came from the Church's earnings on its general reserve funds from Ensign Peak's main investment account.”

The second was a declaration by Roger Clarke, responding to Nielsen's declaration. Clarke stated that he “was the President and Managing Director of Ensign Peak from its inception in 1997 until I retired in May 2020.” Clarke stated, “I have knowledge of the Church policies and practices relating to the management of funds. I also have knowledge concerning the financing of the City Creek project. I make these statements based upon institutional and personal knowledge.” The rest of Clarke's declaration consists only of confirmations that the documents attached to Rytting's declaration are “true and correct” copies of the originals and that Rytting's descriptions of the documents are accurate.

Even though Clarke had been President and Managing Director of Ensign Peak from 1997 to 2020 and was therefore in a position to know whether Nielsen's statements were true, he nowhere contradicted the statements in Nielsen's declaration: (1) that Ensign Peak employees referred to all funds held by Ensign Peak—both principal and earnings on principal—as tithing funds; (2) that Clarke had told Nielsen that the money for the City Creek Mall project was transferred to Property Reserve so that “people would not know [Ensign Peak] was the source of this funding to City Creek”; and (3) that Clarke had told Nielsen that “it was important that people should not know [Ensign Peak's] role as the source of the funds.”

The Church's affiant "nowhere contradicted" Neilsen's claim "that Ensign Peak employees referred to all funds held by Ensign Peak—both principal and earnings on principal—as tithing funds."

The only reason why any of this is being presented to the Court is because Huntsman wants a federal secular judge to declare that when leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints referred to "tithing funds" pertaining to City Creek, their statements were "false" because "tithing funds" were used because "tithing funds" means "both principal and earnings on principal."

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The actual issue is whether using tithing to buy stocks and bonds to generate investment income to build a mall is using tithing to build a mall. Is indirectly using something for a purpose still using it for that purpose?

Slice and dice it however you like. We still end up with a dispute about what "tithing" means as that terms was used by Pres. Hinckley and other church leaders.

In the end, I think the "no reasonable juror" findings by the district court judge will prevail. Pres. Hinckley plainly differentiated what Huntsman et al want the secular courts to conflate.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Nobody is asking the church to redefine tithing. The definition of tithing isn’t in dispute.

Yes, it is.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

Arguing that in this context tithing is an esoteric religious concept

I'm not saying it is "esoteric." But the only way to have these cases proceed is to have secular courts adjudicate what does, and does not, constitute "tithing" according to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The religious doctrines around tithing are esoteric.

No, they aren't.

And regardless, neither I nor anyone ese is "arguing that ... tithing is an esoteric religious concept."

"Esoteric" means "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." Little children in the Church can explain what "tithing" is.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

But again, there isn’t an actual dispute about what does or does not constitute tithing.

Yes, there is.

The Church differentiates tithes from earnings generated from invested funds (including invested tithes).

Huntsman et al want - desperately need - the secular courts to re-define "tithing" to include "both principal {tithes} and earnings on principal."

The parties disagree on this point. It is, I think, the central dispute between the parties.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

In the context of this dispute, the term “tithing" is defined in the Church’s accounting system.

Malarky.

...

Do you actually disagree with what I said?

Yes.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

If President Nelson asked the Church’s controller how much tithing revenue the Church received last month, do you really think the controller would say, “I have no idea. Tithing is a religious concept and isn’t defined in our accounting system.” Do you really think he’d say that?

No. I think he would answer Pres. Nelson based on how 'tithing' is defined in the Church, not how it is purportedly defined in an "accounting system."

Moreover, I really doubt the "accounting system" definition conflates "tithing" with earnings generated from invested tithes.

If I tithe $1,000.00 to the Church, and if the Church takes that $1,000.00 and invests it and generates interest or additional revenue from that investment in the amount of $200.00, is my "tithe" to the Church $1,000.00 or $1,200.00?

We've been over this before:

Quote

Quote

If I were his attorneys, I would argue that "tithing" was a widely understood euphemism for "sacred funds" which includes literal tithing and investment income on unspent tithing.

This is strained silliness, so much so that I won't even both with a CFR, as we both know you wouldn't be able to substantiate this claim.

The Church has never defined tithing this way. The IRS certainly doesn't define it that way. And I think the vast majority of members don't, either.

Tithes are voluntary donations of one tenth of one's increase to the Church. This is the sine qua non of the term.

If the Church thereafter invests some portions of tithed funds and realizes a profit, that profit is not a voluntary donation of one tenth of one's increase to the Church. It is not a "tithe" by any coherent application of the term. It didn't reach the Church's coffers via voluntary donation. It is not a tenth of anyone's increase.

Now, it is quite true that tithes are considered "sacred funds." But then, so are Fast Offerings. But it would be absurd for you or anyone else to therefore suggest that because "tithes" and "fast offerings" are both "sacred funds," they are synonymous. That doesn't work at all. All tithing is "sacred funds," but not all "sacred funds" are tithing.

The same can be said about donations to the Church via LDS Philanthropies. Charitable donation? Yep. Characterized and treated as "sacred funds?" Certainly. But synonymous with "tithing," a voluntary donation of one tenth of one's increase to the Church? Nope. Nobody "tithes" to LDS Philanthropies.

The same can also be said about other sources of income the Church has. It's wonderful that the folks at EPA consider the monies they generate through investments as "sacred funds," but is that synonymous with "tithing," a voluntary donations of one tenth of one's increase to the Church? Nope.

Let's take a look at a few prominent treatments of "tithing" by the Church...

I find it interesting that last September you were arguing that the meaning of tithing is in dispute ("If I were his attorneys, I would argue that 'tithing' was a widely understood euphemism..."), but now you are claiming there is no dispute about what "tithing" means, whether it includes "literal tithing and investment income on unspent tithing," and so forth.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

In the context of this dispute, the term “tithing" is defined in the Church’s accounting system.

Malarky. I think you want to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning because otherwise your various "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" bloviations fall flat on their face.

I'm not stripping “tithing” of its religious and doctrinal meaning.

Claiming that the definition of "tithing" is to be found "in the Church's accounting system" (as opposed to, say, prophetic writings) sure comes across as an attempt to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning. As the Hawthorne court put it: "{T}his litigation involves tithing, which, no matter how a claim might be worded, is based on the Bible and its interpretation."

You want to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning because that is a necessary component of avoiding application of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

I merely saying that to answer questions like, “How much tithing revenue did the church receive last month?” can be objectively, unambiguously, and uncontroversially answered by accountants regardless of whatever religious and doctrinal meaning the concept of “tithing” also has in a religious context.

Well, no. This assertion actually undermines your argument.

Let's tweak your previous hypothetical: If President Nelson asked the Church’s controller how much tithing revenue the Church received last month, do you really think that Pres. Nelson is asking about both tithes (voluntary donations of a tenth of a member's increase to the Church) and earnings on invested funds?

Do you really think that the answer to Pres. Nelson's inquiry would "objectively, unambiguously, and uncontroversially" include tithes and monies generated via EPA's investments?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

Again, “tithing funds” is an accounting term that is well-defined in the Church’s accounting system. It has nothing to do with doctrine.

Tithing "has nothing to do with doctrine."

This is patently specious statement.

I never said “Tithing has nothing to do with doctrine.” As you know, I said "tithing funds” have nothing to do with doctrine. The phrase “tithing funds” is the specific phrase that Hinckley used in his assurance. In context of what he said, he used the word “tithing” as an adjective and “funds” as a noun. The thing we are talking about here are funds. Taking my words out of context to make them look like I’m saying something I’m not is dishonest.

Explain, please, the difference between "tithing" and "tithing funds."

Back in the day, Latter-day Saints paid "tithing" via a variety of means. My great-great-grandfather, Leonard E. Harrington, spent some years managing the "Bishop's Storehouse" in American Fork, Utah. Apparently its facilities had to include pens and other things for the storage of farm animals, butter, eggs, etc.

These days, virtually nobody pays tithing this way. We pay using money, or "funds." So in my view, "tithing" is, in this context, materially indistinguishable from "tithing funds."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2024 by smac97

smac97 · February 14, 2024

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think you want to strip "tithing" of its religious/doctrinal meaning because otherwise your various "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" bloviations fall flat on their face.

No, I just think that this case isn’t about the truth or falsity of the Church’s religious doctrine.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

I encourage you to go do some substantive research on the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. It's pretty clear that you are not familiar with it, how it operates, etc.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don’t think Huntsman is asking the courts to rely on or interpret the Church’s truth claims.

I agree.

What he is asking the Courts to do, however, is to superimpose a particularized re-definition of "tithing" onto the Church and its leaders, a re-definition that expands the meaning to include both voluntary donations of one tenth of one's increase to the Church and also investment revenue generated by Ensign Peak Advisors.

Few Latter-day Saints have even heard of EPA, let alone are aware or familiar with what it does.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

And we aren’t talking about Huntsman’s own religious beliefs either. The question we are talking about is purely secular: were the Church’s statements about how it would use these funds honest? And did Huntsman reasonably rely on these statements? Those are the real issues here, and they are purely secular.

No, they aren't. Even if your recitation were accurate - and it's not - the secular court would still need to define "tithing" (or, if you insist, "tithing funds"). There is no way to do that without running afoul of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I provided extensive citations to various legal authorities that stay well clear of splitting legal hairs in this way. I encourage you to read them.

I browsed through them and it was clear that unlike the Huntsman case, those cases are about religious matters, not secular ones.

Read them again. Hancock included at least some "purely secular" claims ("Stewart alleges that she was promised repayment of her retirement funds including the costs and penalties of early withdrawal") and claims which implicated the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine ("Plaintiffs' allegation that Hancock 'never met Christ face to face as promised' appears to be an entirely religious matter beyond the courts' ability to adjudicate"). The meaning of tithing is likewise a "religious matter," as evidenced by Huntsman's attempt to secularize it by adding investment revenue generated by Ensign Peak Advisors to the ambit of its meaning.

Alternatively, Ferrero dealt with a religious dispute that was - like Huntsman's - framed as a civil one. Again, from that decision:

Quote

{C}ivil courts cannot inquire into matters concerning "theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them." Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for U. S. of Am. and Canada v. Milivojevich , 426 U.S. 696, 713-14, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976), quoting Watson v. Jones , 80 U.S. 679, 733, 13 Wall. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871). We follow this same limitation in Texas under a doctrine referred to as ecclesiastical abstention. Masterson v. Diocese of N.W. Texas , 422 S.W.3d 594, 601 (Tex. 2013) ; Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth v. Episcopal Church , 422 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. 2013).

"{C}ivil courts cannot inquire into matters concerning 'theological controversy, church discipline, {or} ecclesiastical government.'"

"Tithing" is plainly a religious/doctrinal/theological concept. Its meaning, particularly when that term was used by Pres. Hinckley et al., is disputed by Huntsman and those that have followed him. That sure sounds like a "theological controversy."

More:

Quote

In re Godwin raised another issue. The former church member alleged that the church had misused church funds, which formed the basis of a fraud allegation. 293 S.W.3d at 749-50. Some of the disputed financial expenditures, however, were approved by a committee based on the church's doctrine. Id. Necessarily, the determination of whether the financial expenditures were proper would have required an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified by the church's religious doctrine and practices. Id. Accordingly, the court lacked any jurisdiction to hear the fraud claim upon which the challenged expenditures was based. Id.

"Necessarily, the determination of whether the financial expenditures were proper would have required an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified by the church's religious doctrine and practices. Accordingly, the court lacked any jurisdiction to hear the fraud claim upon which the challenged expenditures was based."

If we re-work the foregoing to apply it to Huntsman's claims, I see it as something like this: "Necessarily, the determination of {whether the phrase 'tithing funds' as used by Gordon B. Hinckley in 2003 refers to just 'tithed' donations or else includes tithes as both principal and earnings on tithing principal (even though Hinckley's comments explicitly differentiated 'tithing funds' from the funds which were to be used to fund City Creek), whether Gordon B. Hinckley spoke with the specific intent to deceive, whether his statement was objectively 'false,' whether Hinckley intended this statement as an inducement to church members to pay tithing or continue to pay tithing, whether the claimant's supposed reliance on these representations about 'tithing funds' was reasonable, etc.} would have required an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified by the church's religious doctrine and practices. Accordingly, the court lack{s} any jurisdiction to hear the fraud claim upon which the challenged expenditures was based."

From Godwin directly:

Quote

"The plaintiff argued the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims against the church because they related to financial and not doctrinal matters. The court of appeals, however, disagreed ... {explaining that} the plaintiff's case concerned whether the church followed its constitution when it became involved with a housing and urban development project ... The court emphasized that '[t]his is true despite {the plaintiff's} attempt to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction by framing her claims in civil terms.'"

...

"The court therefore concluded the plaintiff's 'claims, viewed substantively and considering the effect of their resolution by a civil court, relate to how and when {the church} may spend its resources and are thus ecclesiastic in nature.'"

This is what you are trying to do. You are trying to justify the invocation of a secular court's jurisdiction over a dispute about "tithing funds" by "framing {} claims in civil terms."

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think you are incorrect in trying to characterize "tithing" as having no religious/doctrinal meaning or significance...

Please don’t misrepresent me.

I wasn't intending to (and, candidly, I don't think I did). That is how your arguments come across.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’m merely stating that the issue of whether tithing funds were used the way Hinckley said they’d be used is a secular question.

This issue cannot be answered without the secular court defining "tithing funds."

A secular court imposing a definition of "tithing funds" onto the Church runs afoul of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Did you even read Hawthorne?

Yes. If you compare and contrast Hawthorne with Huntsman, you’d see that Hawthorne is about religious issues while Huntsman is about secular issues.

Well, no. Both are religious disputes framed as civil ones. Again, from that decision:

"Discipline of church members, particularly based on a scriptural concept such as tithing, are uniquely ecclesiastical."
"'The issue of tithing is at its core a purely ecclesiastical matter.'"
"{T}ithing is at the root of ecclesiastical doctrine. If these complaints are in any way related to discipline on such, they would fall outside of the Court's jurisdiction."
"At best, this raises an internal governance issue for which the courts should abstain."

See also this excerpt from Ferrero:

Quote

As our supreme court noted, the "differences between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical issues will not always be distinct, and that many disputes of the type before us will require courts to analyze church documents and organizational structures to some degree." Id. at 606 ; see also Tran v. Fiorenza , 934 S.W.2d 740, 743 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.) ("The difficulty comes in determining whether a particular dispute is ‘ecclesiastical’ or simply a civil law controversy in which church officials happen to be involved.").

I think it's going to be really hard for Huntsman to successfully argue that a dispute about a religious leader speaking of a religious tenet to religious adherents is not a religious dispute, and is instead "simply a civil law controversy in which church officials happen to be involved."

Quote

In so deciding, "courts must look to the substance and effect of a plaintiff's complaint to determine its ecclesiastical implication, not its emblemata." Tran , 934 S.W.2d at 743, citing Green v. United Pentecostal Church Int'l , 899 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995, writ denied) ; see also Mouton v. Christian Faith Missionary Baptist Church , 498 S.W.3d 143, 149-50 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (sustaining challenge to jurisdiction because appellants' claims were "inextricably intertwined with inherently ecclesiastical issues"); Williams , 26 S.W.3d at 59 ("Whether this suit is ecclesiastical, or concerns property rights, torts, or criminal conduct, is determined by first examining the substance and effect of the [plaintiffs'] petition--without considering what they use as claims--to determine its ecclesiastical implication.").

I have seen this analysis play out many times in other contexts. Courts look to the substance of the dispute, not the labels the plaintiff uses, when determining what areas of law are in play.

By way of example, I have had several cases where a plaintiff's complaint is rather clearly based on a fraud theory, but the plaintiff doesn't use the word fraud, and actually goes out of his way to avoid it. This is because any claim which "sounds in fraud" (that is, the substance of it is a fraud theory, even if the word is not used) must be pleaded with "particularity," which is often very difficult to do. And if it's not pleaded with particularity, the complaint can be dismissed. Attorneys sometimes try to avoid this by denying that their claims "sound in fraud." Courts, however, disregard these characterizations, and instead look to the substance of the complaint to evaluate the issue.

Something similar arises when someone tries to sue a religious group, but then avoid the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine by claiming that their grievance is purely civil, and not in any way religious. If and when that happens, is will be the court, not Huntsman, who determines whether the dispute has, as Ferrero put it, "ecclesiastical implication."

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not sidestepping principles of law.

You most certainly are.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I just happen to think that fundamentally, this case isn’t about religious doctrine. A court court could look at public statements and the Church’s financial records and determine what funds were actually used to finance the project.

Funny how you keep saying "funds" and not "tithing funds." I wonder why that would be. It sure looks like part of you "sidestepping principles of law."

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

A jury could evaluate whether Huntsman was being reasonable to rely on these statements when deciding whether or not to tithe. None of this has anything to do with religious doctrine. These are secular issues.

Statements from a religious leader about a religious tenet to religious adherents has "{nothing} to do with religious doctrine," and instead "are secular issues."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. To be sure, City Creek was a "secular issue," but the point in dispute is whether the Church's tithed funds would be funding it. I think this necessarily implicates the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine keeps the courts out of essentially religious controversies.

You are substantially truncating the scope and breadth of the application of this doctrine.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

But those considerations are not applicable to purely secular disputes when fraud is alleged, even if one of the parties is a religion.

Well, no. Again, your lack of legal training and experience are really on display here.

"Fraud" is not a magic word. Merely alleging fraud as a civil claim and asserting that the dispute is "purely secular" does not preclude the application of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. Several courts have emphatically said as much ("courts must look to the substance and effect of a plaintiff's complaint to determine its ecclesiastical implication, not its emblemata").

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Then why on earth are Huntsman et al filing lawsuits? The dispute centers on whether the Church used - or did not use - one of its resources - "tithing" - in a "proper" way (that is, in accordance with the public assurances from several ecclesiastical leaders).

You are mischaracterizing the lawsuit.

I don't think so.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Huntsman acknowledges the right of the church to teach whatever it wants, believe whatever it wants, and spend its money any way it wants.

So he says. So he has to say. And yet he larded up his complaint with all sorts of "religious" criticisms against the Church.

The fraud claim is, in my view, just a pretext. It's the only vector Huntsman et al have available to them as "lawfare" against the Church, so they are trying it out. I think the Church has a variety of ways by which it can prevail in the litigation. One is actually defeating the fraud claim on its substantive merits (or, to be more precise, defeating the claim based on its lack of merit). Another however, is to argue the preclusive effect of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

It isn’t about the “proper” use of resources. It is about the church allegedly committing fraud by lying to the membership about how the mall would be funded.

Which alleged "lie" and "fraud" center on the meaning of "tithing funds," and which claims can only prevail by persuading a secular judge to adjudicate the meaning of that phrase, decide that its meaning "refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal," retroactively superimpose that definition on a statement by Pres. Hinckley made 20+ years ago, and do all of this while avoiding the adjudication of any matter of church doctrine, governance, financial management, etc.

I don't see that happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2024 by smac97

Analytics · February 14, 2024

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I encourage you to read the original summary judgment decision....

Are you sure you gave me the right link? The link you provided says on page 5:

"The Court concludes that the instant case presents a purely secular dispute. To resovle the dispute, no analysis of church policy or doctrine is necessary. Nor must a court or jury determine whether those policies or doctrines allow Defendant to spend tithing funds on the City Creek project. Rather, Defendant has already stated it would not spend tithing funds on the City Creek project. The only question is whether that assertion was true or not. That question can be resolved on the basis of accounting records and witness testimony, the scope of which need not include the meaning of “tithing funds” or the purposes towards which religious doctrines allows Defendant to spend tithing funds."

Is that really the document you intended to link to to support your position that this is a religious dispute about the meaning of “tithing funds” and not a secular dispute?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Esoteric" means "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." Little children in the Church can explain what "tithing" is.

Yes, I knew what “esoteric” means when I used that word.

Are the finer points of “tithing” esoteric, meaning “understood by only a small number of people with specialized knowledge”? How many people know why it is okay to use tithing funds to finance California tech companies, but it isn’t okay to use tithing funds to finance a mall across the street from the temple? You don’t know the answer to that question. How many people do? Not many.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I tithe $1,000.00 to the Church, and if the Church takes that $1,000.00 and invests it and generates interest or additional revenue from that investment in the amount of $200.00, is my "tithe" to the Church $1,000.00 or $1,200.00?

Your tithe would be $1,000.00. (Note that I was able to answer this question without referencing Church doctrine.)

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Let's tweak your previous hypothetical: If President Nelson asked the Church’s controller how much tithing revenue the Church received last month, do you really think that Pres. Nelson is asking about both tithes (voluntary donations of a tenth of a member's increase to the Church) and earnings on invested funds?

Tithing revenue would be the voluntary donations made by members of the Church that were designated as “tithing", regardless of whether they were in fact “a tenth of a member’s increase” (whatever that means) or not. Investment earnings on the Church’s savings would be categorized as investment earnings.

Note that my answers are based on basic accounting principles, not religious precepts.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you really think that the answer to Pres. Nelson's inquiry would "objectively, unambiguously, and uncontroversially" include tithes and monies generated via EPA's investments?

No, I don’t think that, and I never claimed otherwise.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Explain, please, the difference between "tithing" and "tithing funds."

“Tithing” is a religious doctrine that has to do with a commandment to give 10% of your “increase” (whatever that means) to God, promises of blessings flooding down that you won’t be able to contain, promises of not being burned at the second coming, etc. In contrast, “tithing funds” are the funds in the Church’s financial accounts that are designated “tithing.” Investment income on the assets in the tithing funds happen to accrue the same tithing funds. That is how the Church’s accounting system is set up. It isn’t set up to distinguish its assets between tithing and investment income on tithing, which is why your ad hoc rationalizations about the difference between principle and interest are just that. Donations that are categorized as tithing go into the tithing funds. The investment income on the assets in the tithing fund also go into the tithing fund. There isn’t a fund with tithing receipts and another fund with investment income. It is all lumped together.

Analytics · February 15, 2024

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, they aren't. Even if your recitation were accurate - and it's not - the secular court would still need to define "tithing" (or, if you insist, "tithing funds"). There is no way to do that without running afoul of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

This was in response to me saying, " The question we are talking about is purely secular: were the Church’s statements about how it would use these funds honest? And did Huntsman reasonably rely on these statements? Those are the real issues here, and they are purely secular."

When I said that I was paraphrasing the Opinion of the 9th Circuit, which says:

“Instead, as presented to us, the questions are secular. The questions are whether the Church’s statements about how it would use tithing funds were true, and whether Huntsman reasonably relied on those statements when he made tithing contributions."

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny how you keep saying "funds" and not "tithing funds." I wonder why that would be. It sure looks like part of you "sidestepping principles of law."

This was in response to me saying:

"A court court could look at public statements and the Church’s financial records and determine what funds were actually used to finance the project."

When I said that I was paraphrasing the 9th Circuit when it said,

“A court or jury can look at public statements and relevant financial records of the Church to determine what church officials said about how the City Creek Mall project would be financed and to determine what funds were actually used to finance the project."

Do you think the 9th Circuit was also sidestepping principles of law?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Statements from a religious leader about a religious tenet to religious adherents has "{nothing} to do with religious doctrine," and instead "are secular issues."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. To be sure, City Creek was a "secular issue," but the point in dispute is whether the Church's tithed funds would be funding it. I think this necessarily implicates the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

This was in response to me saying:

"A jury could evaluate whether Huntsman was being reasonable to rely on these statements when deciding whether or not to tithe.'

When I said that, I was paraphrasing the 9th circuit, which said:

"A court or jury can assess Huntsman’s reliance by looking to the Church’s and Huntsman’s evidence and asking if Huntsman reasonably relied on the Church’s statements in deciding whether to tithe."

Yes, you think this necessarily implicates the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. The courts disagree with you on that point.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are substantially truncating the scope and breadth of the application of this doctrine.

You said that in response to me saying, "The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine keeps the courts out of essentially religious controversies."

When I said that, I was paraphrasing the 9th Circuit, which said,

"The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine protects First Amendment rights by avoiding court entanglement “in essentially religious controversies” or the state intervening on behalf of a particular religious doctrine."

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no. Again, your lack of legal training and experience are really on display here.

“Fraud" is not a magic word...

This was in response to me saying, “But those considerations are not applicable to purely secular disputes when fraud is alleged, even if one of the parties is a religion."

When I said I that, I was paraphrasing the 9th Circuit, which said,

"But these 'considerations are not applicable to purely secular disputes between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religious affiliated organization, in which fraud . . . [is] alleged.'”

Judge William A. Fletcher wrote that. Do you hold his legal training and expertise in as low regard as you hold mine?

I purposefully paraphrased specific points made by the Ninth Circuit in forming my responses because I wanted to see if you would attack their analysis as being those of somebody who had no legal experience or training.

And you did.

Knowing that, why should I take you seriously?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church has a variety of ways by which it can prevail in the litigation. One is actually defeating the fraud claim on its substantive merits (or, to be more precise, defeating the claim based on its lack of merit). Another however, is to argue the preclusive effect of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

Yes, the Church is free to make the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine argument. It’s already done so in front of one judge at the district court level, and three judges at the circuit court level. Four out of four of those judges rejected this argument.

That tells me something about its strengths. But if you think that is the Church’s strongest argument, that is your prerogative.

Edited February 15, 2024 by Analytics

Tacenda · February 17, 2024

Not sure how accurate, are there fact checks from the church side?

https://www.youtube.com/@thewidowsmitereport

SeekingUnderstanding · February 18, 2024

On 2/14/2024 at 2:15 PM, smac97 said:

Well, no. Again, your lack of legal training and experience are really on display here.

On 2/14/2024 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

When I said I that, I was paraphrasing the 9th Circuit, which said,

How embarrassing.

MiserereNobis · February 18, 2024

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On 2/14/2024 at 2:15 PM, smac97 said:

Well, no. Again, your lack of legal training and experience are really on display here.

On 2/14/2024 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

When I said I that, I was paraphrasing the 9th Circuit, which said,

How embarrassing.

It's a good example of the inverse of the fallacy of arguing from authority. Rather than objectively assessing the argument on its own terms, the argument is diminished at the outset by saying the person giving the argument doesn't have the proper authority, knowledge, training, experience, etc. "I have a Ph.D., so I can tell you that you don't know what you're talking about."

It's an easy mistake to fall into. I'm sure I've done it before when it comes to literary analysis or other areas where I "pride" myself as an expert.

Edited February 18, 2024 by MiserereNobis

Calm · February 18, 2024

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not sure how accurate, are there fact checks from the church side?

https://www.youtube.com/@thewidowsmitereport

What did you have in mind? The Church rarely responds to something specifically, but there may be info available depending on what you are looking for.

Edited February 18, 2024 by Calm

Sign In

Third "Tithing" Lawsuit Under Way

Recommended Posts

smac97

Analytics

Analytics

smac97

smac97

Analytics

Analytics

Tacenda

SeekingUnderstanding

MiserereNobis

Calm

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse