Not Tithing Funds (ii)

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And again, using the investment money from surplus tithing is not indirectly using tithing funds.  That's like trying to argue that the gas company is indirectly using government funds because some people pay their bills with their tax returns.

Yes, I know this is how you interpret Hinckley’s remarks now. Did anybody make this argument in 2012 or 2015? No they did not.

Repeating the personal anecdote I made up in case you missed it, this line of reasoning reminds me of an argument I had with my now ex-wife. I promised her that I wouldn’t use any of our retirement savings for my hunting trip to Alaska with the guys last summer. When she did some digging, she accused me of using the retirement savings. I explained that retirement savings refers to the amount of money we “save” over the years. I didn’t touch that--rather, I used the interest on the savings, which is a totally different thing.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Analytics

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, I know this is how you interpret Hinckley’s remarks now. Did anybody make this argument in 2012 or 2015? No they did not.

I honestly have no idea if anyone made that argument, but it's a pretty reasonable argument so I'm assuming it was made by people sometimes, somewhere.  How do you feel so certain that it was never made?

Quote

 

Repeating the personal anecdote I made up in case you missed it, this line of reasoning reminds me of an argument I had with my now ex-wife. I promised her that I wouldn’t use any over our retirement savings for my hunting trip to Alaska with the guys last summer. When she did some digging, she accused me of using the retirement savings. I explained that retirement savings refers to the amount of money we “save” over the years. I didn’t touch that--rather, I used the interest on the savings, which is a totally different thing.

 

Yes! It's a totally different thing and your ex-wife was being completely unreasonable in her accusations.  See, we agree.  

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I honestly have no idea if anyone made that argument, but it's a pretty reasonable argument so I'm assuming it was made by people sometimes, somewhere.  How do you feel so certain that it was never made?

Maybe somebody said it back then and I just haven’t seen it. Whether they did or didn’t doesn’t affect my point.

Here’s the issue. @smac97 thinks Huntsman is lying about how he interpreted the Church’s statements because no believing Mormon would believe what Huntsman claims. In contrast, I think Huntsman is being sincere, because historically, many people did in fact interpret things in basically the same way that Huntsman did. I’m trying to have empathy for Huntsman, Pahoran, and everybody else who were confident that the ultimate sources of the mall funding came from the Church’s historical for-profit ventures and non-tithing donations. @smac97 is trying to gaslight us about the historical record, and discredit me personally in the process.

I’m still trying to have empathy for believers and I’ll open up this question for all of the masochists who are reading this: Pahoran was confident that if you traced the genealogy of the money that was used to fund the mall, it wouldn’t go back to tithing. What was the basis for his confidence?

My theory is that he thought that Hinckley’s assurance that tithing wouldn’t be used should be interpreted broadly--tithing wouldn’t be used, neither directly nor indirectly. Further, I think he and most Mormons believed that that interest earned on unspent tithing was just about as sacred as the tithing itself. 

Am I wrong about that?

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

3- Craig Paxton and perhaps one or two others said the money came indirectly from tithing, but the vast majority of apologists didn’t like this answer,.

I think we differ primarily on this point because I see almost all the reactions to him based on the dishonesty accusations (there is nothing subtlety dishonest about money laundering), not really caring about what else he said, but because of him using the “indirectly from tithing” as the hook for his dishonesty attack, it gets mentioned naturally. 
 

Quote

Tithing money wasn’t used, neither directly nor indirectly.

I don’t think there were actually that many posters that approached it that way once you took their total comments into context.  When I read the thread all through, I worked at remembering what the poster had said before and went back and double-checked to see if consistent over time.  This is the main reason why I believe most believers in the thread were focused on the dishonesty part of the accusations when addressing criticisms.

I do agree the earnings on the invested reserve funds comment was not part of that particular discussion, but that doesn’t mean posters didn’t differentiate between the two, it just means they likely weren’t aware of the comment.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The fact remains that most of the apologists responses were like this one from Pahoran:

I disagree.  I think few of them were that clear in what they were talking about…because their focus was on the dishonesty claim.  

When you reread the thread (I am assuming you reread the whole thing and not just the posts you linked to, so I am not suggesting you just went in and cherry picked and I hope no one claims that is what I believe), were you focused on looking for such responses or more on seeing what various posters’ global positions on the topic were?  Did you read their posts as individual or as a whole for each poster?  I think the method of analysis will affect what type of conclusions are drawn.

I wish others had time to go back and reread the thread, but at 17 pages I get why they won’t.  And I am guessing if any do, fewer will take the time to track what individuals said over the entire thread, including going back and rereading posts to keep the context fresh in their mind.  There are advantages to having low expectations for accomplishing work, lol.  I got nothing done yesterday, except a bit of tidying up my bedroom and bathroom.  My guess is you see the indirect from tithing as the most important element and so that jumps out at you.  My expectation was that would be the most important aspect in the discussion for the posters as well, but my personal bias would naturally lead to the focus being the dishonesty claim (the money laundering attack is an attention getter as intended), so not surprising if I have inflated that some, but you had set my expectations pretty high that the discussion would focus around ‘what is tithing’, so I was quite surprised by how it came across as so few believers were actually invested in that side of it (and I don’t use “invested” this time as wordplay, but because it fits better than “caring” to me for describing what I picked up as where the intensity of comments was focused).

I think it likely the comment by Pres Hinckley never came up as a defense because the believers didn’t care enough about where the money came from to look for a defense, unlike the concern over the amount actually spent (there was a significant side topic on the mall not costing $5 billion, but it being $1.5 billion with the rest going to the surroundings as well as a smaller subtopic on how cool the whole thing was, especially from the viewpoint of the urban planning and construction).

My impression was believers trusted it wasn’t from tithing (whether they cared about this or not, the important thing was leaders had said it was not from tithing); some assumed it also wasn’t from earnings off of reserved tithing (this did require some reading between the lines because quite a few were ambiguous in how they stated it, so I drew my conclusions based on what other of their posts said and focused on, the overall context rather than isolated sentences); no one cared if it had been off of those earnings (even when they were explicit they didn’t believe those earnings were used) and those who took the time to say what they cared about in the controversy over the mall, wouldn’t even have cared if it came from tithing as they saw the investment as a good thing, some being explicit on that as it was important to keep the temple surroundings attractive, others were viewing it as a good long term financial investment, quite a few saw it as good for those who had been able to be employed during a bad time for construction workers.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

23 hours ago, Analytics said:

Maybe somebody said it back then and I just haven’t seen it. Whether they did or didn’t doesn’t affect my point

Why does any of this matter? It seems like you a just trying to settle a score with Smac.

Quote

Here’s the issue. @smac97 thinks Huntsman is lying about how he interpreted the Church’s statements because no believing Mormon would believe what Huntsman claims.

I don't see him making that argument.

Quote

In contrast, I think Huntsman is being sincere, because historically, many people did in fact interpret things in basically the same way that Huntsman did.

Five people on an obscure message board equates to many?

Quote

I’m trying to have empathy for Huntsman, Pahoran

Pahoran has nothing in common with Huntsman, and I am pretty confident that Pahoran would have little interest in your empathy.

Quote

,and everybody else who were confident that the ultimate sources of the mall funding came from the Church’s historical for-profit ventures and non-tithing donations.

Who are these "everybody else" people? And, again, why does it even matter other than to attempt to settle a score? I didn't take it this way, and if I were to venture a guess, the vast majority of Latter-day Saints never thought twice about it.

President Hinckley's statement was accurate and not difficult to understand. The Church operates on tithing revenue. They create budgets, short term and long term, based on this revenue, and adjust from time to time based on economic conditions. Any funds left over, after budgeting, are put in reserve and, using Matthew 25:14–30 as a guide, invested. They would be foolish not to. This is where interest on reserve funds comes from. It is pretty simple. Principal is not interest and interest is not principal. Any average business person knows this. Huntsman knows this. He's just trying to be a nuisance. After spending interest, the principal remains. Thus, no tithing funds were used to build a mall.

Quote

@smac97 is trying to gaslight us about the historical record, and discredit me personally in the process.

I don't see any gaslighting. You seem to be upset, thinking he is trying to discredit you while you are trying to discredit him.

Quote

I’m still trying to have empathy for believers and I’ll open up this question for all of the masochists who are reading this: Pahoran was confident that if you traced the genealogy of the money that was used to fund the mall, it wouldn’t go back to tithing. What was the basis for his confidence?

I think, generally speaking, he was correct. ZCMI was not started with tithing funds. It became very successful and allowed the Church to use profits from it to engage in other business interests.

Quote

My theory is that he thought that Hinckley’s assurance that tithing wouldn’t be used should be interpreted broadly--tithing wouldn’t be used, neither directly nor indirectly.

The Church did not invest reserve funds for the purpose of building a mall. They invest reserve funds because it is prudent to do so and because, based on scripture, the Lord expects them to. The interest on these reserve funds is used for a myriad of things. At the time that revitalizing downtown Salt Lake City became a proposal, the funds were already available based on years of wise money management. I am sure that if non-tithing money was not available at the time, no one would have even proposed such a large project. This whole talk of directly or indirectly is just a smoke screen in an attempt to confuse people and sew discontent. In the end, Hinckley was correct and completely accurate. No tithing funds were used. There was no lying or being disingenuous. He was truthful and accurate.

Quote

Further, I think he and most Mormons believed that that interest earned on unspent tithing was just about as sacred as the tithing itself. 

I don't know about "most Mormons" but I am confident that the Church sees all of its money, whether it be from tithing, interest or business ventures, as sacred. I don't think they have categories based on degrees of sacredness.

Quote

Am I wrong about that?

I think you are wrong about a lot of things pertaining to the Church.

Edited May 10, 2024 by T-Shirt

[rpn]

I haven't participated in anything but the OP, but I would like to describe what I consider "tithing funds":   They are the funds that individuals give up 10 percent of their increase.  It is not the value of the farms the church has bought, or what gains the stock market makes or investments into the SLC mall (or any other commercial interest BECAUSE NONE OF ANY OF THAT IS the individual sacrifice of the member or use of what the member could have spent themselves.  

I see any but the original amounts as what God (using His mortal proxies) has done (and likely far beyond what individual mortals could or would have done with  the funds had they not tithed).

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by rpn

[Stormin' Mormon]

33 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I don't know about "most Mormons" but I am confident that the Church sees all of its money, whether it be from tithing, interest or business ventures, as sacred. I don't think they have categories based on degrees of sacredness.

In a discussion about sacred funds vs tithing funds back in 2020 (so, too late for the timeframe that Analytics has queried), I said the following.  I don't know what I believed in 2012 or 2015, and my posting history during those years is pretty sparse (hence the reference in the quote block below to my "years-long lurk").  

Quote

Thank you.  I was going to emerge from my years-long lurk to make this very point.  Tithing is not a dollar, but an act.  It is an act of will, of intention, of faith, and of sacrifice.  A dollar that is tithed to the Lord is one that has first come to the hands of a believer, and then that believer has passed the dollar to the Lord in a pro-active and willful act of faith.  Dollars that come to the church through a passive, automatic process do not pass through hands of faith, and do not come to the church via sacrifice and will.  Those passive, automatic funds still belong to the Lord, they are still consecrated.  But to call them tithing cheapens the act and sacrifice of the believer.

 

Also, and I apologize profusely to everyone for being such a pedant, but when talking about the lump sum of money that generates interest over time, it's principal, not principle.  Y'all are driving me batty with this homophone. 

Sorry, I'll return now to my lurking ways.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I’m still trying to have empathy for believers and I’ll open up this question for all of the masochists who are reading this: Pahoran was confident that if you traced the genealogy of the money that was used to fund the mall, it wouldn’t go back to tithing. What was the basis for his confidence?

 

Sincerely asking, how would any of us know? 

Unless he comes back to explain, or we find more of his words in some other posts that clarify, there isn't a way for us to know. We can guess. Your guess aims in one direction, other guesses may aim in different directions.  Any guess would probably be equally reasonable since they aren't really based on anything. 

I have no guess personally.  I don't understand why it matters why Pahoran believed what he did so I've put no effort into it.  Having been asked point blank about it, I can't come up with any reason that would be based on anything other than something made up in my head.  Any guess of that nature seems worthless enough not to bother typing so I haven't even tried to come up with one. 

I know you've tried to explain the significance of this line of thought to me (and I appreciate it because it's probably annoying to do that multiple times) but even after all of that, I'm not seeing it (which is fine, it doesn't need to mean anything to me for it to be important to you).

Quote

 

My theory is that he thought that Hinckley’s assurance that tithing wouldn’t be used should be interpreted broadly--tithing wouldn’t be used, neither directly nor indirectly. Further, I think he and most Mormons believed that that interest earned on unspent tithing was just about as sacred as the tithing itself. 

Am I wrong about that?

 

It's definitely a theory.  I have no idea if you are wrong or right.  I'm confused about how you think anyone (including yourself) can determine if you are wrong or right.  

Maybe Pahoran will show back up and fill us in.  I'm not sure when he stopped posting here but maybe he ended up over at our evil (😈) doppelganger board and could be persuaded to come back for a minute if so.

[T-Shirt]

14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Also, and I apologize profusely to everyone for being such a pedant, but when talking about the lump sum of money that generates interest over time, it's principal, not principle.  Y'all are driving me batty with this homophone. 

Sorry, I'll return now to my lurking ways.  

No need to apologize. I appreciate the correction. Thanks to you, I don't think I will make that mistake again.

[Stormin' Mormon]

29 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

No need to apologize. I appreciate the correction. Thanks to you, I don't think I will make that mistake again.

I hope I didn't come across as targeting you specifically.  Every time this topic comes up, I see this error from multiple people in multiple posts.  Usually I can resist the urge to push my glasses up on my nose and chime in, "well, ackshully..."

And sometimes I can't.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Maybe somebody said it back then and I just haven’t seen it. Whether they did or didn’t doesn’t affect my point.

Here’s the issue. @smac97 thinks Huntsman is lying about how he interpreted the Church’s statements because no believing Mormon would believe what Huntsman claims. In contrast, I think Huntsman is being sincere, because historically, many people did in fact interpret things in basically the same way that Huntsman did. I’m trying to have empathy for Huntsman, Pahoran, and everybody else who were confident that the ultimate sources of the mall funding came from the Church’s historical for-profit ventures and non-tithing donations. @smac97 is trying to gaslight us about the historical record, and discredit me personally in the process.

I’m still trying to have empathy for believers and I’ll open up this question for all of the masochists who are reading this: Pahoran was confident that if you traced the genealogy of the money that was used to fund the mall, it wouldn’t go back to tithing. What was the basis for his confidence?

My theory is that he thought that Hinckley’s assurance that tithing wouldn’t be used should be interpreted broadly--tithing wouldn’t be used, neither directly nor indirectly. Further, I think he and most Mormons believed that that interest earned on unspent tithing was just about as sacred as the tithing itself. 

Am I wrong about that?

 

I don’t see you being fundamentally wrong in this except (and this is a massive except since they are the crux of the accusation against Smac) the gaslighting accusation and on the rewriting of history, I don’t have an opinion or care to be honest except that it wouldn’t be gaslighting as I don’t believe Smac would lie, I think he believes what he writes even when he is wrong (I think that is one reason it is hard to get him to see a different interpretation, such as when he’s misinterpreted my position as opposite to what I actually hold as well as why he isn’t always careful about the credibility of his sources as if it’s truth/accurate, it shouldn’t matter where it came from).  He may be rewriting history (not saying he is as you may misunderstand him and are unintentionally misrepresenting him), but if so he believes it was like that for whatever reason.   The sacred funds’ issue I will address below.  I am guessing you are interpreting that as members assuming “sacred” means it will be spent on pastoral care projects as in teaching, welfare, missionary work, temple work and the mall therefore falls outside of eligible for sacred funds.  If so, guess what, shocker, I disagree!  (Spoiler:  see T-shirt’s comment I quote below for why for a better explanation than my own)

Like bluebell, I am not interested in this back and forth between you and smac, so I can’t be sure what his positions actually are in your personal discussions.  Trying to figure out which of you is right, if either, wasn’t why I made the effort yesterday, I was simply curious about how the discussion over the mall and tithing might have changed over time.

I have read more of the two of your responses to each other than bluebell, enough to have come to the belief that at this point you are mostly talking past each other and neither is accurate in framing what the other one is saying, so rather than accepting your summary and conclusion he is gaslighting here, I would need to have Smac summarize what he is arguing, if his position is really no sincere believer in the past viewed tithing and earnings of invested surplus tithing as tithing as opposed to arguing the fact (not the perception) they are not the same and the Church never taught they were the same (and that is what it’s important in my view even if they never taught they were different) and so whatever Huntsman believed back then, it is irrelevant.  This position is pretty much what I have picked up from Smac’s posts about the lawsuit when he is not discussing it with you.  If I understand the lawsuit correctly from the way Smac and others have presented it, Huntsman would have to demonstrate sufficiently that the two, tithing and earnings from surplus tithing, are officially taught to be the same because it was said “tithing” would not be used and that would get into the courts deciding what the Church teaches and that is a no go.  I need to refresh myself on how “sacred funds” were referred to in the various announcements to see if that phrase is directly relevant to the lawsuit.

But given it is relevant to your position as stated in the above quote, I take the time here to summarize what I picked up from the thread about “sacred funds”….

From the pov of the 2012 thread, I got the impression that almost all believers (since there are nonbelievers who are officially members and/or who view themselves as members and since I can’t check to see if posters are really members and on occasion this actually matters in discussions, I prefer to identify posters by how they present with belief or lack thereof in the gospel and the Church as the vehicle for it at this time rather than membership) were okay with spending funds on the surrounding environment of the temple, sacred or not, as beautifying the surroundings and creating more reasons to go to that area contributed to the mission of the Church (no one detailed why iirc, it comes across to me as not needing to be said since it is so well known that Temple Square is a massive missionary tool given how many tourists come to it and missionary work is a key part of the Church’s mission).  Duncan did not come across happy about it, though I don’t think he said enough to determine it would have been worse if it was tithing or earnings off of invested tithing; I think it was clear he would have preferred the money go to those in need (this was the subtopic where the work provided for the construction workers being a very good thing was brought up).  Then there were some posters who I am unsure of their belief status at the time and they didn’t say enough to provide much context that seemed critical, others in the same category were supportive of the expenditure.

I don’t recall much, if any, extended direct discussion on the appropriate use of sacred funds in the thread.  I  have no doubt some members would view the use of tithing not on Temple Square itself, but on the for profit surroundings as inappropriate.  I don’t think that is relevant to the lawsuit, but only whether or not church leaders identified the mall, etc as an inappropriate use or simply promised no tithing would be spent on the project.  I believe the latter was done, I don’t believe the former is true though given the mall’s location has implications for more than just making money as an investment.  I see it as similar to the Church owning a newspaper, tv station, bookstores/publishing companies.  Besides the for profit aspect, these can be vehicles to make missionary work easier and the Church less dependent on others to pursue missionary efforts.

Quote

I’m trying to have empathy for Huntsman, Pahoran, and everybody else who wereconfident that the ultimate sources of the mall funding came from the Church’s historical for-profit ventures and non-tithing donations.

I don’t think they need your empathy unless it actually made a difference to them.  I got the impression for most on the thread it didn’t (Duncan is the one believer that really stands out in my recall as unhappy with any expenditure and likely would be less happy if it was tithing, it would be interesting if he is reading this if he went back and read his own response to refresh his memory and see if he agrees or if I messed up on nuances).  And while I probably shouldn’t, I extrapolate from that and my own experience of talking to members about the differences as well as other posters’ reports on their discussions that for the vast majority of believing members, it doesn’t either.  This is not to say I am condemning those who feel that way or am insisting they are wrong.  In fact, my guess is like T-shirt and myself, most believers see all the monies and property belonging to the Church as ultimately belonging to God and how work and therefore all are sacred.

I wonder if this portrayal of such believers as essentially victims of church leaders is contributing to the tenacity or intensity of Smac’s response to you.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I hope I didn't come across as targeting you specifically.  Every time this topic comes up, I see this error from multiple people in multiple posts.  Usually I can resist the urge to push my glasses up on my nose and chime in, "well, ackshully..."

And sometimes I can't.  

I know I did it!  😂

[Calm]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I don't know about "most Mormons" but I am confident that the Church sees all of its money, whether it be from tithing, interest or business ventures, as sacred. I don't think they have categories based on degrees of sacredness.

Thank you for saying this…much better than what I resorted to for making the point I was trying to make.

[Amulek]

On 5/7/2024 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

[A]s far as I know, I have never said anything about what Latter-day Saints on this board or elsewhere understand tithing to be or not to be. I have claimed to understand how many Latter-day Saints on this board interpreted various statements about tithing funds not being used, but I’m completely unaware of any controversy about what the word “tithing" actually means to Latter-day Saints.

I don't plan on spending my day off getting dragged into the middle of a smacalytics debate, so I'll just chime in quickly on what my personal recollection is from that time. 

In general, I believe many members conceptualized the Church as having multiple streams of income. They understood that the Church receives monies from tithing and other donations from members, but they also knew the Church owned several for-profit businesses. I don't know how many people gave much though to how the Church came into possession of these other businesses (investments) to begin with, but I believe they generally considered those to be separate from tithing. So, when President Hinkley said that no tithing funds were used to finance the City Creek project, I think many people simply assumed he meant the Church was using funding acquired from it's for-profit ventures.

If someone had made such a claim back then, I likely would have accepted it as a plausible explanation. It's not the only explanation that would have saved President Hinkley's remarks from being characterized as disingenuous, but it's one that I think many members at the time believed. 

 

[Analytics]

42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't plan on spending my day off getting dragged into the middle of a smacalytics debate, so I'll just chime in quickly on what my personal recollection is from that time. 

In general, I believe many members conceptualized the Church as having multiple streams of income. They understood that the Church receives monies from tithing and other donations from members, but they also knew the Church owned several for-profit businesses. I don't know how many people gave much though to how the Church came into possession of these other businesses (investments) to begin with, but I believe they generally considered those to be separate from tithing. So, when President Hinkley said that no tithing funds were used to finance the City Creek project, I think many people simply assumed he meant the Church was using funding acquired from it's for-profit ventures.

If someone had made such a claim back then, I likely would have accepted it as a plausible explanation. It's not the only explanation that would have saved President Hinkley's remarks from being characterized as disingenuous, but it's one that I think many members at the time believed. 

 

THANK YOU!!!

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

THANK YOU!!!

How does "the Church was using funding acquired from it's for-profit ventures" differ from your understanding?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

How does "the Church was using funding acquired from it's for-profit ventures" differ from your understanding?

To me, “for-profit ventures” refers to Deseret Management Corp, its subsidiaries, and related for-profit entities. The Church did in fact use perhaps 50-70% of funds from that side of the house.

The remaining 30-50% came from Ensign Peak Advisors, which is a non-profit venture.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

To me, “for-profit ventures” refers to Deseret Management Corp, its subsidiaries, and related for-profit entities. The Church did in fact use perhaps 50-70% of funds from that side of the house.

The remaining 30-50% came from Ensign Peak Advisors, which is a non-profit venture.

Good find. I wish the church would be more honest, and not worry about how something might look to the outside world. I'm speaking of Pres Hinckley's white lie, or in a sort of way, putting something out that may make it like it is so, when it's not. Speaking of him saying that the financials of the church belongs to those that pay their tithing to it. Which was quite a starling thing to say when it actually doesn't happen. And like this fiasco with the tithing, the sitting prophet/president should have not told a different story than what actually occurs/occurred, if I'm understanding correctly that it does use the tithing's interest? Or straight tithes?

Edited May 10, 2024 by Tacenda

[Analytics]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:33 PM, T-Shirt said:

Five people on an obscure message board equates to many?

Do you think those are the only five people who saw it that way?

On 5/9/2024 at 12:33 PM, T-Shirt said:

Pahoran has nothing in common with Huntsman, and I am pretty confident that Pahoran would have little interest in your empathy.

In 2012, Pahoran and Huntsman were both tithe-paying, faithful members of the Church. That isn’t nothing. Furthermore, Huntsman claims now that he interpreted the Church’s statements in the same way that Pahoran said he did in 2012. That goes a long way to help us evaluate whether or not its plausible that Huntsman is telling the truth.

I’m quite certain that Pahoran doesn’t have any interest in my empathy, but that doesn’t mean I can’t earnestly try to understand where he’s coming from. I try to understand people, and you are acting like that is a character defect of mine.

[Teancum]

On 5/8/2024 at 6:09 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

😴 All ya'll have been making the same points (literally) over and over again for multiple pages (literally). 

For our collective sanity, can you just move on to something else?

Skip the thread if you are not interested.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

To me, “for-profit ventures” refers to Deseret Management Corp, its subsidiaries, and related for-profit entities. The Church did in fact use perhaps 50-70% of funds from that side of the house.

The remaining 30-50% came from Ensign Peak Advisors, which is a non-profit venture.

Thank you, I see the difference between for-profit and non-profit. While both of entities are affiliates or integrated auxiliaries (as the case may be) of the Church, how is either the recipient of tithing funds? How are their activities using tithing funds -- maybe that's all been hashed out in this thread

It may not be relevant, but when I heard President Hinckley talk about the mall in General Conference, I took "no tithing" to mean its funding came from any other source but tithing, whether personal (unrestricted gifts and bequests, for example), or the Church's affiliates or integrated auxiliaries. I don't recall distinguishing between for-profit and nonprofit in my mind, and while and organization's "money is money" to me no matter where it comes from, I sensed a distinction that tithe, once it is used up for immediate needs, it is no longer available as a funding type (obviously), and if any surplus is invested, a new funding type is created. I did not consider at that point that the principal would continue as a tithing fund (figured that designation was over) while the interest would not be, but it makes sense. I assume it's legal!  

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

In 2012, Pahoran and Huntsman were both tithe-paying, faithful members of the Church. That isn’t nothing. Furthermore, Huntsman claims now that he interpreted the Church’s statements in the same way that Pahoran said he did in 2012. That goes a long way to help us evaluate whether or not its plausible that Huntsman is telling the truth.

I’m quite certain that Pahoran doesn’t have any interest in my empathy, but that doesn’t mean I can’t earnestly try to understand where he’s coming from. I try to understand people, and you are acting like that is a character defect of mine.

While empathy means having the ability to see things from others’ POV and thus has technically a pretty broad application, being pretty much  interchangeable with understanding but with a more complete full sense of understanding the other person, not only their thoughts but their feelings as well, empathy generally has the connotation of being able to understand feelings rather than thoughts*** and usually for the purpose of being supportive of someone’s suffering.  Empathy usually comes up when people are having a hard time because that is when people need it.  A person doing great, not having problems, etc doesn’t need empathy in most people’s view (I think life can be better all around if empathy exists in play, work, happiness, suffering as that is often how deep connections get made with others) so it is brought up much less often in those cases.

My guess why you expressing your desire to have empathy for Pahoran and others is not being received as a good thing is because there is the question of why would you need to understand their feelings about the issue?  Telling someone you are trying to have empathy for them usually carries the connotation you see them being harmed in some way, which means they are being victimized by their assumptions about tithing, etc. or at least has the implication you are seeing them as expressing themselves emotionally, otherwise why would you see a need to understand their feelings…..which is rather patronizing in a conversation that is about facts, etc.

There is also a connotation of caregiving surrounding empathy in many cases, so speaking of having empathy for others may come off as patronizing, as those who are in the position to care for others are generally in a better place, more capable than those they care for (or the reverse might be happening).  Empathy also gets contrasted to sympathy all the time, which again places it in the context of the other suffering or struggling in some way.

In this case, one of those you say you are having empathy for is Huntsman, who is presenting himself as a victim, as someone whose feelings are negative, etc.  You grouping Huntsman with Pahoran implies you see him as well as a victim (he is in the same category as Pahoran, it is easy to assume you are thinking of the category of victim even if you aren’t if you don’t clarify… or even if you do due to the ‘empathy is about feelings’ explanations), Pahoran in your apparent view is thus someone who would be upset when he found out he was wrong about earnings off of tithing reserves were part of the account used to fund the mall.  

I suspect when most people ask themselves “why would X want to have empathy for Y”, they are going to assume Y is struggling with something.  If someone sees it as unlikely that Pahoran is struggling over the issue in any way, even after learning more info, if they see you as insisting he is whether you are or not, it can likely come off as you being very patronizing….similar to the often stated “I have been where you are and know what you are going through”, which is not actually empathy, but a projection of one’s own POV and feelings on the other, the opposite of empathy.

So perhaps rather than using “empathy” to describe your attempt to simply understand an issue more completely from someone’s POV, perhaps it’s best to avoid the implication they are being emotional about the issue and just stick with “understand” or more precisely “understand from the other’s POV”.

***For example how it is explained here:  https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-empathy-2795562#:~:text=Empathy is the ability to,feeling what they are feeling.

Quote

Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling.

Empathy means that when you see another person suffering, such as after they've lost a loved one, you are able to instantly envision yourself going through that same experience and feel what they are going through

 

[Analytics]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:33 PM, T-Shirt said:

Any funds left over, after budgeting, are put in reserve and, using Matthew 25:14–30 as a guide, invested. They would be foolish not to. This is where interest on reserve funds comes from. It is pretty simple. Principal is not interest and interest is not principal. Any average business person knows this. Huntsman knows this. He's just trying to be a nuisance. After spending interest, the principal remains. Thus, no tithing funds were used to build a mall.

Let's take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and see if you are being consistent. Hypothetically, let’s assume the Church has $150 billion in commercial assets that generates $10 billion a year in interest. And let’s assume that every year it takes in $8 billion in tithing, and has total expenses of $7 billion to run the Church. Using these numbers, would it be accurate to say that right now, “no tithing funds are used” to run the Church and that 100% of tithing is used to build the size of Ensign Peak Advisor’s portfolio of commercial assets? 

On 5/9/2024 at 12:33 PM, T-Shirt said:

I think you are wrong about a lot of things pertaining to the Church.

Without a doubt. But I think you might be wrong about a few things, too.

Edited May 11, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:33 PM, T-Shirt said:

The Church operates on tithing revenue. They create budgets, short term and long term, based on this revenue, and adjust from time to time based on economic conditions. Any funds left over, after budgeting, are put in reserve and, using Matthew 25:14–30 as a guide, invested. They would be foolish not to. This is where interest on reserve funds comes from. It is pretty simple. 

This is the way most people view the situation now, but I’d like to juxtapose this with a conversation from about 9 years ago. 

On June 13, 2015, @Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true.

I responded with this:

Quote

It isn't that clear cut.

For example, say that one year the Church takes in a cool $1 Billion in tithing.  It might budget to spend $900 Million on its various "paid by tithing" operating expenses, and save the remaining $100 Million.

The Church really would save tithing money for a rainy day, wouldn't it?

So what is it going to do with the $100 Million?  Surely the Church would not bury the money in a hole--they are going to be wise and faithful servants and make a return on it, right?

How would they invest it?  A savings account?  Government bonds?  Publicly traded stock?  Those all represent loans to outside entities.  If it is okay to loan the money to a bank (i.e. put it in a savings account), is it okay to loan the money to Deseret Management Corporation (DMC)?  If it does loan it to DMC, is it okay for DMC to, say, buy a cattle farm in Florida with the money and try to make a return on it?  Or a Mall in Salt Lake City?

So when the Church says, "no tithing money was used," the meaning of that isn't clear; if the Church has any tithing money saved in a stock or bond issued by one of the Church's for-profit businesses, and if that for-profit business used any of its resources to fund the project in question, there is a direct connection between the tithing dollar and the fungible resources of the for-profit entity.

When I said that, nobody said “interest on tithing isn’t tithing!” And nobody argued that I was using the wrong definition of tithing. And nobody said interest on principle isn’t principle.

Rather, they said things like what @bluebell said to me then:

Quote

I'm not sure if you read the post in this thread by the person who actually worked as an accountant for the Church.  They explain how the church really doesn't have the chance to put much tithing away in a rainy day fund.  Probably not more than would keep the church running for a few months.  I'm also guessing that they would keep such a fund pretty liquid.

And that is why they thought people like Paxton and I were wrong for suggesting that interest on the rainy day fund was probably used.

The person who actually worked as an accountant for the Church she is referring to is Kim Pearson who said in a post that has 19 up-votes (with my highlights in bold and a few comments [in braces])

Quote

I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues.  I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls.

One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church.  All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund.  Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates.  All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity.  Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross [and Ensign Peak Advisors].  This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time.  The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members.  Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings.

The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity.  This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio.  The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank.  This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold.  Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses.  Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church.  As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash.  These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek.  No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek.  That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status.  The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either.  Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans.  I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited.  Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash.  Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church.  Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good.

The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity.  All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States.  The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country.

There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities.  The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity.

Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies.  Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws.  If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case.  Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties.

Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen.

Here are the main points Pearson made, and my thoughts on them now:

• There are two basic legal entities, the for-profit entity and the non-profit entity. That is true. And remember, Ensign Peak Advisors is part of the non-profit entity.
• Pearson claimed that the reserves of the non-profit entity were small and would only sustain the church for a very short period of time. That was obviously false to some of us like Paxton and me back then, and it is obviously false to everyone now)
• “There is no cross mingling between the two entities.” There isn’t mingling in an accounting sense, but the two entities do support each other. The Church owns the for-profit entities and provides them with capital. Most of the capital organically grew within the for-profit entities, but fresh infusions of capital can be made and were made for both the mall and the bail out of the insurance company. This isn't illegal. Likewise, the for-profit entities can pay profits to the church in the form of dividends. Totally legal.