Not Tithing Funds (ii)

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

The former is advancing the latter's argument that seeks to conflate tithing with other sources of church income.

It's hardly an argument that is owned solely by Huntsman. It's been posited by many, many people and Huntsman has simply turned it into a lawsuit.

And yet, we are speaking about Huntsman's use of the argument.

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

A lawsuit which I continue to predict will fail. Moreover, the fact that both espouse portions of ONE ARGUMENT does not make them one and the same about all things.

Roger is regularly chiming in on Huntsman-related threads to advance the same argument Huntsman is doing.  As the former has put it: "{U}sing tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet, we are speaking about Huntsman's use of the argument.

Roger is regularly chiming in on Huntsman-related threads to advance the same argument Huntsman is doing.  As the former has put it: "{U}sing tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."

Thanks,

-Smac

You have a knack for being pig-headed to the detriment of your own credibility.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, spending years carrying water for Huntsman, advancing the same arguments he is attempting.  Odd.

No I’m not. I’m simply having empathy for him and for the other Latter-day Saints who saw things the same way he did.

One of the Saints who weighed in on this topic was our mutual friend Pahoran, who said, "I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to [tithing],  but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution."

With 20/20 hindsight, we can now agree that Pahoran was wrong about that. We now know that if we trace the City Creek Mall’s pedigree all the way back, a large chunk of goes to tithing.

So in your mind, what was the basis of Pahoran’s confidence that the pedigree goes back to the original ZCMI and not to tithing?

Having empathy for people like Pahoran and James Huntsman isn’t advocating for anything.

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

You: "{U}sing tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."

Craig elsewhere: "It is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall."

Tithing funds were not used to fund City Creek.  The only way to argue otherwise is for you, Craig, Huntsman, etc. to conflate "tithing" with other sources of income.  It does not work.

Craig said that the mall was funded by investment income on tithing that was saved in a rainy day fund. He explained that in detail. Was he wrong about that?

Craig was wrong in his conclusory statement that "{i}t is disingenuous for the church to claim that no tithing funds were used to fund the City Creek Mall."

You are likewise wrong in asserting that "using tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Roger is regularly chiming in on Huntsman-related threads to advance the same argument Huntsman is doing.  As the former has put it: "{U}sing tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."

I'm not advancing anybody’s arguments. I’m merely trying to prevent you from rewriting history.

That original topic from 2012 was this:

[The critics] conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members. So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members 150 years ago; money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this?

How would you answer that? Would you say that doing something in an indirect way really isn’t doing it? That’s the argument you are making now.

Edited May 8, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are likewise wrong in asserting that "using tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."

I'm not asserting that. I’m explaining the reason why Latter-day Saints like Pahoran said things like "I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to [tithing],  but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution." 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

[The critics] conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members. So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members 150 years ago; money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this?

 

That's a really easy response in my opinion.

First, "made possible by" is not the same thing as "is".  My life was made possible by my mother, but I am not my mother, for example.  The connection between us exists but it would be absurd to attempt to argue that the connection means that we are the same thing.  Likewise, the heat in my chapel is made possible by tithing, but the heat is not tithing.  The hymn books, also made possible by tithing, are not tithing (have you seen what toddlers do to those poor things?).  The budget that allowed my RS presidency to make a ward cookbook for each sister in the ward was made possible by tithing.  Again though, those cookbooks are not tithing.  

The money that was used to create city creek mall may have been made possible by tithing, but that doesn't mean that the money is tithing. (The church actually does get a lot of money through donations and not just tithes, so assuming that everything the church has started from ish tithing is unlikely to be true).

Second, this conclusion is based on a narrow definition of "building God's church and helping the poor" that the church, the members, and myself am not bound to.  I believe Pres. Hinckley when he said that no tithing funds were used, but even if they were I think there is a good argument to be made that investing in the revitalization of downtown salt lake city across the street from temple square actually does fit the parameters of what tithing is meant for.  I'm glad the church had the ability to do it without needing to use tithing, but I don't think investing in that area is outside of the realm of tithing automatically.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I never said anything about "exact same account numbers." The local ward checking accounts on up the chain all interface with and draw from the Church's checking account. The scenario you are envisioning would require 33,000+ separate checking accounts for wards and branches alone. Who monitors and transfers money if/when some of these get overdrawn (our stake has high councilors audit our assigned wards, and one of my wards overspent their budget last year)? Bishop Burton was saying that this is never a factor (except for on paper, and when discussing why they spent more money than they were given), because all of the checking accounts in the Church tap into the one checking account for the Church. He also emphasized that even fast offering is only an on-paper category, as far as that account goes. Which should be obvious to anyone who's issued checks. The boxes of checks with the routing and account numbers are used to reimburse YW leaders for activities (ward budget), pay an electric bill (fast offerings), etc. We don't have different checkbooks with different account numbers for different category expenditures, because we only use the ward's checking account for all of these. Same as the Church, whether they are buying temple furniture for Bangkok, paying $10 million to the NAACP, or buying a property. According to Bishop Burton, it's the same checking account from the top down (even if, for purposes of daily local transactions, this account is tied to accounts through Zion's, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Dresdner Bank, etc.). 

[quote]And then we have places like Ensign Peak, who obviously move around church funds into multiple places.  Are those not considered accounts? [/quote]

I don't think this matters when Ensign Peak money is put into the checking account (the account the Church uses to pay for everything) to be available to be spent. When that happens, there aren't separate categories like "from tithing only," "tithing interest dividends," etc. Doesn't Ensign Peak "move around church funds into multiple places" using the checking account? How else would it "move funds around?"

The bolded isn't the scenario that I'm envisioning though.  There's a lot of room between 33,000 separate checking accounts and one checking account, especially when it comes to funds accounting like Danzo described.   

And to make sure I'm clear, I'm not saying that anyone is lying about the one account.  I do wonder whether or not how it's been described might be a simplified version of how it works especially as it is applicable in the United States.  Even having multiple accounts that can access one account makes more sense than just having one account for the entire church.

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

We now know that if we trace the City Creek Mall’s pedigree all the way back, a large chunk of goes to tithing.

 

 

Wait. Do we actually know this?  Maybe I missed something in all the back and forth.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Why do you think that needed to be asked, if Hinckley’s comments were so accurate and clear?

The OP, JAHS (who so far in my reading seems to be the only poster who comes out to state tithing and tithing investment funds are used only for religious purposes, there are several posters who are fine with it being investment funds or even tithing) appears to explain why he asked the question (and it does not appear to be because he was disturbed) in one post and that is because critics are accusing the church of improper use.

Quote

“Why is it so important for you to believe that no tithing funds were used in the mall?"

It's not that it's so important to me; I trust those in charge to use it wisely for purposes I would agree with. I don't need to see annual financial statements because once I have given the tithing to the church I know I have obeyed the commandment and what happens to it after that is up to God. I am OK with that. But the critics of the church like to complain about it and accuse the church of improperly using the sacred tithing money. I guess we should just ignore what they say.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57308-was-my-mormon-ancestors-tithing-used-to-build-city-creek-mall/?do=findComment&comment=1209103917

I am halfway through the thread.  Not sure how much more I will read.

Quite a few believing posters have said why they were speaking up and it is because of the accusations that Pres Hinckley and other leaders are liars, not because of tithing funds’ use.  Even those who appear (maybe two were obviously assuming no investments funds were used imo) to believe Pres. Hinckley meant no earnings of investment were used have made comments that suggest to me they wouldn’t care if they were, such as ‘once the money is out of my hands, it’s someone else’s stewardship’ kind of thing.

It seems to mean believing posters’ are in that thread because they are curious about or want to comment on or critique the critics’ behaviour as there is much more conversation and commentary by believers on why are the critics so hung up about it; it’s good for the people of SL, why not be happy (a couple applaud the Church’s choice btw); critics will never be satisfied; etc.  I just don’t see the believing posters as that invested (yes, I went there) in the tithing/tithing investment earnings debate at that point, but very invested in their leaders being called liars and money launderers.

added:  I think this post also shows the focus of JAHS’ thread was not intended to be on the Church’s behaviour, but the critics:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57308-was-my-mormon-ancestors-tithing-used-to-build-city-creek-mall/?do=findComment&comment=1209104463

Added:  finally finished reading the whole thread.  I was actually surprised by how little concern over whether tithing was actually used or not was expressed by believers.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church actually does get a lot of money through donations and not just tithes, so assuming that everything the church has started from ish tithing is unlikely to be true

Also a lot of land went to the Church when they first settle Utah.  Some nice discussion about it in the original 2012 thread.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wait. Do we actually know this?  Maybe I missed something in all the back and forth.

I think the reasoning is we know a large chunk of the EPA account is from tithing.  The EPA account contributed the money for the mall, therefore a large chunk of the mall was paid for by tithing.

Analytics hopefully will correct me if I am wrong.  I have read most his posts, but think I have missed some due to the fast pace.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not asserting that. I’m explaining the reason why Latter-day Saints like Pahoran said things like "I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to [tithing],  but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution." 

So let’s assume (because he isn’t here to make sure we are right, “assume” is best imo) that Pahoran believed that not only tithing wasn’t used, but no earnings of tithing investment was used either.

What difference would that make if he personally cared (and knowing him I am pretty certain he wouldn’t, that he is of the opinion that church leaders are the stewards and can do what they are inspired with the Lord’s money to do, whatever that might be….which imo was the general consensus of believers who expressed opinions on this in that thread).

Serious question….what does this prove to you about Huntsman’s position…or anyone else’s given that Pres. Hinckley stated “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.”

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/26/22347612/lds-mormon-latter-day-saint-church-leaders-respond-to-tithing-critics-churchbeat/

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

Can you provide a link or a transcript of the particular interview?

Thanks to @Calm you hopefully got the answer. 

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Wait. Do we actually know [

that if we trace the City Creek Mall’s pedigree all the way back, a large chunk of goes to tithing]?  Maybe I missed something in all the back and forth.

Fleshing out @Calm’s answer, let me try to put all of this in context.

Gordon B. Hinckley said, "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.” The need for Hinckley to give such assurance in the first place implies that according to Mormon values, there is something wrong about using “tithing funds” to build a mall. And the natural follow-up question to that is if there is something wrong about directly using tithing funds to acquire and develop City Creek for commercial purposes, is there also something wrong about indirectly using tithing funds to acquire and develop City Creek? 

Some people (e.g. Pahoran and James Huntsman) took an expansive view of Hinckley’s comments, and were confident that tithing funds weren’t used to fund City Creek, neither directly nor indirectly. They thought funding came exclusively from the for-profit entities owned by the Church (i.e. from Deseret Management Corporation and possibly other for-profit Church organiations). Others (e.g. Craig Paxton, cinepro (probably), me) thought it was obvious that tithing funds had to have been used, at least indirectly. And some people suspected that tithing funds were used indirectly but thought that’s a perfectly fine and appropriate thing.

In 2019 when the IRS whistleblower report came out, we discovered the truth. While Pahoran turned out to be about half right--around 50% of the funding of City Creek did in fact come from the for-profit entities of the Church--an additional $1.4 billion came from tithing through Ensign Peak Advisors. James Huntsman felt lied to by the Church’s assurances that tithing funds would not be used and sued.

Why are @smac97 and I talking past each other? Part of it is that he isn’t making a good faith effort to understand my point of view. The other reason is that we are talking about two different things. Smac97 is talking about the one-and-only way to correctly understand Hinckley’s words. That is why he’s so focused on definitions. In contrast, I’m talking about how different real-life people understood Hinckley’s words before the IRS letter shed transparency on the Church’s finances. That is why I’m focused on context and what different people actually said at the time.

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The OP, JAHS (who so far in my reading seems to be the only poster who comes out to state tithing and tithing investment funds are used only for religious purposes, there are several posters who are fine with it being investment funds or even tithing) appears to explain why he asked the question (and it does not appear to be because he was disturbed) in one post and that is because critics are accusing the church of improper use.

The way I read it, JAHS seems to think the critics are making a good point. That’s why he’s asking how to respond. There is a lot of general ranting about critics in the thread, but that is off topic. The original question was how to answer the point which seemed to be a good one.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Quite a few believing posters have said why they were speaking up and it is because of the accusations that Pres Hinckley and other leaders are liars, not because of tithing funds’ use.  

In general, the critics weren’t directly calling President Hinckley a liar. Rather, many of the Saints felt that Paxton’s theory about interest earned on unspent tithing was tantamount to calling Hinckley a liar. 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Even those who appear (maybe two were obviously assuming no investments funds were used imo) to believe Pres. Hinckley meant no earnings of investment were used have made comments that suggest to me they wouldn’t care if they were, such as ‘once the money is out of my hands, it’s someone else’s stewardship’ kind of thing.

Yes, there are a lot of comments like that, too. They might be implying that they suspect the critics might be right--that tithing funds really may have been used indirectly, but they are expressing they are okay with that. I’m okay with that, and I’m fine with them being okay. There are a lot of different opinions being expressed.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems to mean believing posters’ are in that thread because they are curious about or want to comment on or critique the critics’ behaviour as there is much more conversation and commentary by believers on why are the critics so hung up about it; it’s good for the people of SL, why not be happy (a couple applaud the Church’s choice btw); critics will never be satisfied; etc.  I just don’t see the believing posters as that invested (yes, I went there) in the tithing/tithing investment earnings debate at that point, but very invested in their leaders being called liars and money launderers.

There are multiple posts of people explaining how the Church has resources other than tithing (directly or indirectly). For example:

Quote

 

The Church was rich in real estate, poor in cash for a very long time. For example, converts in England were traded land in Deseret for their money in England so Europeans could migrate to the Valley. Temple Square was never "bought", nor were the lots for the Bishop's Storehouse or Tithing office.

Much of that real estate was also sold, and much kept, so the Church had a great deal of wealth tied up in that real estate, none of which was from tithing or other donations from the Saints.

The income from those grants from God has financed far more than City Creek Mall.

 

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

added:  I think this post also shows the focus of JAHS’ thread was not intended to be on the Church’s behaviour, but the critics:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57308-was-my-mormon-ancestors-tithing-used-to-build-city-creek-mall/?do=findComment&comment=1209104463

Added:  finally finished reading the whole thread.  I was actually surprised by how little concern over whether tithing was actually used or not was expressed by believers.

The way I read it, there wasn’t concern about whether tithing was being indirectly used to fund the mall, because they were sure it wasn’t. For example:

Quote

 

Easy.... You tell them that "outside" of Tithing funds have been given to the Church from the very beginning of it's existance and even before.

Remind them of several of the Restoration events such as the printing of the BOM which did not come from Tithing money, but from money simply donated.

Tell them that money, stocks, businesses, & stuff have been donated to the Church from the beginning, and non of it was Tithing money.

Their argument is ignorant and flawed and based in bigotry not truth or right just as all their arguments are.

 

I'm not saying the Saints on that thread had a homogenous opinion. Obviously they didn’t. But lots of people said things like what Evergrow said in what I just quoted. Very few said what Smac is now saying (i.e. that all saints in all times and all places agree with one voice that using tithing to indirectly do something is not using tithing to do something).

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

So let’s assume (because he isn’t here to make sure we are right, “assume” is best imo) that Pahoran believed that not only tithing wasn’t used, but no earnings of tithing investment was used either.

We don’t need to assume that. Pahoran was an excellent writer, and his point was clear--if you trace back the investments, it goes back to the original ZCMI and not to tithing donations. 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Serious question….what does this prove to you about Huntsman’s position…or anyone else’s given that Pres. Hinckley stated “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.”

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/26/22347612/lds-mormon-latter-day-saint-church-leaders-respond-to-tithing-critics-churchbeat/

Here is the point. James Huntsman paid millions in tithing, and he felt lied to. Now we have people like @smac97 trying to rewrite history and are claiming that nobody interpreted Hinckley’s remarks the way Huntsman claims he interpreted them. He’s calling Huntsman a liar. I pointed out that this board provides a contemporaneous record of how Saints at the time interpreted Hinckley’s remarks. It turns out that it is quite plausible that Huntsman is being sincere on this point--at the time, lots of people were quite confident that the Church didn’t use tithing money for the mall--neither directly nor indirectly. Many of them got offended by people who suggested that it did. Those people share Huntsman’s sensibilities. 

I would have let this issue die if @smac97 wasn't using his imagined version of events to discredit me on different topics. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

an additional $1.4 billion came from tithing through Ensign Peak Advisors.

To me, this is the sticking point.  Pres. Hinckley said some came from earnings on reserved funds.  He was correct.
 

I do not consider interest earnings on tithing to be either direct or indirect, the analogy being a gift of $100 does not transform into a gift of $105 simply because of earned interest of $5.  The gift intent belongs to the original $100 transaction, not on the interest.

I get that others don’t see it that way.  They may have felt lied to, but given Pres Hinckley made the statement on reserved funds’ earnings, I find their understanding to be a misinterpretion most likely based on the probably common past assumption that earnings on tithing reserves are counted the same as tithing, a misinterpretation that may have been common, but easily corrected when members were given correct info and they corrected their faulty assumptions.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

The way I read it, JAHS seems to think the critics are making a good point. That’s why he’s asking how to respond

I considered that too after reading the opening post.  After reading his other comments, I completely changed my mind.  (I provided links to these, maybe quotes iirc above)
 

You need to know how to respond to bad criticism as much as responding to good criticism.  In my experience it is often harder to respond to bad because you first have to untangle where the mistakes are.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Rather, many of the Saints felt that Paxton’s theory about interest earned on unspent tithing was tantamount to calling Hinckley a liar. 

No, it wasn’t just inferred; he actually made an accusation they were being disingenuous, meaning lying even if perhaps more subtle, less blatant lying and engaged in dishonest practices, including money laundering.  I quoted that post.

Quote

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disingenuous

Edited May 9, 2024 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I considered that too after reading the opening post.  After reading his other comments, I completely changed my mind.  
 

You need to know how to respond to bad criticism as much as responding to good criticism.  In my experience it is often harder to respond to bad because you first have to untangle where the mistakes are.

Exactly.  Bad criticism is often based on bad assumptions, and refuting such criticism often involves accepting the bad assumptions for the sake of argument in order to demonstrate that even with those bad assumptions the bad conclusions do not necessarily follow.  That doesn't mean, however, that those who refuted the bad criticism actually embraced the bad assumptions to begin with.  

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Fleshing out @Calm’s answer, let me try to put all of this in context.

Gordon B. Hinckley said, "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.” The need for Hinckley to give such assurance in the first place implies that according to Mormon values, there is something wrong about using “tithing funds” to build a mall. And the natural follow-up question to that is if there is something wrong about directly using tithing funds to acquire and develop City Creek for commercial purposes, is there also something wrong about indirectly using tithing funds to acquire and develop City Creek? 

Or, it could mean that Pres. Hinckley knew that some members would question the appropriateness of it, and that all critics and anti-mormons would try to use it as a stick to beat us with, so he figured it just get ahead of that line of argument at the beginning.

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.

Quote

 

Some people (e.g. Pahoran and James Huntsman) took an expansive view of Hinckley’s comments, and were confident that tithing funds weren’t used to fund City Creek, neither directly nor indirectly. They thought funding came exclusively from the for-profit entities owned by the Church (i.e. from Deseret Management Corporation and possibly other for-profit Church organiations). Others (e.g. Craig Paxton, cinepro (probably), me) thought it was obvious that tithing funds had to have been used, at least indirectly. And some people suspected that tithing funds were used indirectly but thought that’s a perfectly fine and appropriate thing.

In 2019 when the IRS whistleblower report came out, we discovered the truth. While Pahoran turned out to be about half right--around 50% of the funding of City Creek did in fact come from the for-profit entities of the Church--an additional $1.4 billion came from tithing through Ensign Peak Advisors. James Huntsman felt lied to by the Church’s assurances that tithing funds would not be used and sued.

Why are @smac97 and I talking past each other? Part of it is that he isn’t making a good faith effort to understand my point of view. The other reason is that we are talking about two different things. Smac97 is talking about the one-and-only way to correctly understand Hinckley’s words. That is why he’s so focused on definitions. In contrast, I’m talking about how different real-life people understood Hinckley’s words before the IRS letter shed transparency on the Church’s finances. That is why I’m focused on context and what different people actually said at the time.

 

Again (because I think i've brought it up in the past), Huntsman was upset about the tithing stuff before  the ensign peak stuff, right?  So his quarrel had nothing to do with that "new" revelation.  I doubt it actually has anything to do with anything really, other than Huntsman no longer believing in the church and working to find a way to stick it to its leaders in some legitimate way.  I think he's hoping the "I was lied to!" angle might work, but I don't believe the lawsuit comes from a sincere emotion other than anger and a sprinkling of revenge.

Also, I don't care at all what you and smac are saying to each other.  I haven't read any of your posts to each other because they are convoluted and mostly just bickering about word definitions and arguments about who has been meaner to the other guy.  From where I sit, both of you are taking liberties with assumptions and so focused on proving the other person wrong that you've both lost sight of the forest for the trees (just my personal opinion that no one has to care about, and I don't have an issue if you guys want to continue to go back and forth into eternity-just explaining why I'm not touching that conversation with a ten foot pole so can't respond when you bring it up).

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

To me, this is the sticking point.  Pres. Hinckley said some came from earnings on reserved funds.  He was correct.

I do not consider interest earnings on tithing to be either direct or indirect (the analogy being a gift of $100 does not transform into a gift of $105 simply because of earned interest of $5.  The gift intent belongs to the original $100 transaction, not on the interest.

This is how Smac97 and presumably the Church’s attorneys are now framing the issue. On these old threads that we looked at, did anybody interpret Hinckley that way? As far as I can tell, nobody did.

It 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.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I get that others don’t see it that way.  They may have felt lied to, but given Pres Hinckley made the statement on reserved funds’ earnings, I find their understanding to be a misinterpretion most likely based on the probably common past assumption that earnings on tithing reserves are counted the same as tithing, a misinterpretation that may have been common, but easily corrected when members were given correct info and they corrected their faulty assumptions.

Yes, this entire matter could have been avoided if the Church was transparent about its finances.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I considered that too after reading the opening post.  After reading his other comments, I completely changed my mind.  

You need to know how to respond to bad criticism as much as responding to good criticism.  In my experience it is often harder to respond to bad because you first have to untangle where the mistakes are.

Whether the arguments of the hypothetical critic in the OP is a good argument or a bad argument doesn’t really affect my point. My point is that the vast majority of responses to the question of the OP fall into a few different categories:

1- Whether tithing money was used doesn’t really matter--it’s a good use of the Church’s resources and it is their decision to make

2- Tithing money wasn’t used, neither directly nor indirectly. The funds that were used originally came from non-tithing donations, interest on non-tithing donations, and the accumulated wealth of the for-profit land and businesses that the Church has always owned.

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,.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

No, it wasn’t just inferred; he actually made an accusation they were being disingenuous, meaning lying even if perhaps more subtle, less blatant lying and engaged in dishonest practices, including money laundering.  I quoted that post.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disingenuous

disingenuous means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"

Given how widespread false beliefs were about where the money for the mall came from, it would be hard to argue that Hinckley’s comments were abounding in frankness and candor. 

It always goes back to transparency.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Analytics

[ZealouslyStriving]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or, it could mean that Pres. Hinckley knew that some members would question the appropriateness of it, and that all critics and anti-mormons would try to use it as a stick to beat us with, so he figured it just get ahead of that line of argument at the beginning.

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.

Again (because I think i've brought it up in the past), Huntsman was upset about the tithing stuff before  the ensign peak stuff, right?  So his quarrel had nothing to do with that "new" revelation.  I doubt it actually has anything to do with anything really, other than Huntsman no longer believing in the church and working to find a way to stick it to its leaders in some legitimate way.  I think he's hoping the "I was lied to!" angle might work, but I don't believe the lawsuit comes from a sincere emotion other than anger and a sprinkling of revenge.

Also, I don't care at all what you and smac are saying to each other.  I haven't read any of your posts to each other because they are convoluted and mostly just bickering about word definitions and arguments about who has been meaner to the other guy.  From where I sit, both of you are taking liberties with assumptions and so focused on proving the other person wrong that you've both lost sight of the forest for the trees (just my personal opinion that no one has to care about, and I don't have an issue if you guys want to continue to go back and forth into eternity-just explaining why I'm not touching that conversation with a ten foot pole so can't respond when you bring it up).

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel like the kids in this picture...

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Exactly.  Bad criticism is often based on bad assumptions, and refuting such criticism often involves accepting the bad assumptions for the sake of argument in order to demonstrate that even with those bad assumptions the bad conclusions do not necessarily follow.  That doesn't mean, however, that those who refuted the bad criticism actually embraced the bad assumptions to begin with.  

Okay, I’ll stipulate that the criticisms were bad, their assumptions were bad, and that the apologists never embraced the bad assumptions.

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

I am confident that the City Creek Mall's pedigree would trace back, not to the tithing paid in St George after President Snow's famous "Windows of Heaven" talk, but to the original Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution.

Why do you think Pahoran was confident about that? 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. But that’s just my theory, and I’m open to correction. Why do you think Pahoran was confident that the pedigree goes back to ZCMI and not to tithing?