Bullying The Church Into Submission

[JCNowandForever]

Just because the check passes does not make it a completed transaction. It IS NOT a completed transaction until the conditions are met or agreed upon by the parties involved. You are under the mistaken idea that just because the check was cashed the church has control of the funds. FALSE those funds still have strings attached and can be drawn back. In reviewing your conditions there is one condition that even IF the others were valid would invalidate the whole thing. Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations. This condition is invalid because it imposes a condition beyond the control of the donee.

Members resign all the time (donations or not) and is always beyond control of the Church, regardless of contributions. You seem to have problem with that concept.

That part of the stipulation where the members resigns and request for refund refers ONLY to the Members and not to the Church and is not necessarily a condition for the Church to meet. The next stipulation (excommunication) is a condition for the Church to meet, of which it has complete control of. But because Members as a taxpayers are not excommunicated every year in any given taxable year, deductibility is not an issue. You're mixing tax issue and legal definitions of a donation (a gift).

Here's another quote from another website indicating that a gift is completed when there is transfer of title, regardless of conditions.(http://gifts.uslegal.com/revocation-of-conditional-gift/). It says, "However, the mere fact that the donee fails to do what the donor hopes and expects of the donee does not warrant the revocation of a completed gift." Completed gift is when title pass from Donor to Donee (in this case when deposited in the Church account, that title passes).

[Sleeper Cell]

Can this be considered "bullying the church into submission"?

The following information is circulating in several forums in the internet in which members are paying tithing as a Conditional Donation with the following stipulations:

On the back of their tithing check, the following words are written:

“SUBJECT TO REFUND UPON REQUEST (SEE TERMS AND CONDITIONS).”

They said when they give the donations to their Bishops (or counselors), the check and the tithing receipts are enclosed with the following information:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

· This donation is a conditional donation

· This conditional donation is given voluntarily and will be used by the Church as it sees fit

· The condition to exercise for a complete refund of all conditional donations will never be exercise by this member while membership in the Church remains in good status.

· This member reserves the right to exercise a complete refund of all conditional donations upon termination of membership in the Church.

o Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations.

o In the event of an excommunication action, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all donations.

· All donations are conditional donations, unless otherwise noted.

What would the effect of this if members start to do this in large numbers? Would it be bullying?

The phrase “acting in bad faith” comes to mind.

If you want to set your own conditions, don’t try to slip it by local church volunteers. The honest thing to do would be to first discuss the matter with those at church headquarters who have the authority (and the legal/financial background) to agree to your conditions. As others have pointed out, a ward bishop does not have that authority. Nor does a (likely overworked) ward clerk, who may well be the only one who ever sees the back of the “tithing” check.

In the LDS church, tithing is considered to be an unconditional donation -- an act of faith, not a matter of legal technicalities. Making a “tithing” donation conditional on whether or not you later lose your faith is hardly an act of faith.

If you want to make a conditional donation, why designate it as an unconditional donation on your donation slip by calling it tithing?

BTW, it occurs to me that a non-believing member who merely wants to gain some perceived short term secular benefit by being classified as a full tithe payer, could make such conditional “tithing donations,” while intending to resign and demand a refund, once he has obtained the desired benefit.

[JCNowandForever]

The phrase “acting in bad faith” comes to mind.

If you want to set your own conditions, don’t try to slip it by local church volunteers. The honest thing to do would be to first discuss the matter with those at church headquarters who have the authority (and the legal/financial background) to agree to your conditions. As others have pointed out, a ward bishop does not have that authority. Nor does a (likely overworked) ward clerk, who may well be the only one who ever sees the back of the “tithing” check.

In the LDS church, tithing is considered to be an unconditional donation -- an act of faith, not a matter of legal technicalities. Making a “tithing” donation conditional on whether or not you later lose your faith is hardly an act of faith.

If you want to make a conditional donation, why designate it as an unconditional donation on your donation slip by calling it tithing?

BTW, it occurs to me that a non-believing member who merely wants to gain some perceived short term secular benefit by being classified as a full tithe payer, could make such conditional “tithing donations,” while intending to resign and demand a refund, once he has obtained the desired benefit.

There are myriad reasons why people give donations to the Church, majority call it an act of faith. Good for them. There are others do it other than faith.Donations can be labelled tithing, fast offering, temple bldg donations, missionary donations, etc. the last three mentioned are a form of conditional donations, The church is obligated to restrict funds it received ffrom fast offering to help the needy, same with missionary funds, they are restricted only for missionary activities. These are conditional donations. Starting to demonize others who do it for other reasons other than your supposed "faith" is missing the Spirit. First of all WHO are you to judge! It is perfectly legal to give gifts with conditions as shown. If you didn't know about that then you have to get out of your "box" and start respecting other people's idea other than your own. Starting to question individual's intent on why they donate is not your domain to do.

Get back to the topic.

[CASteinman]

BTW, it occurs to me that a non-believing member who merely wants to gain some perceived short term secular benefit by being classified as a full tithe payer, could make such conditional “tithing donations,” while intending to resign and demand a refund, once he has obtained the desired benefit.

I think this might be so. I would consider revoking the Temple Recommend if I were the Bishop -- it strikes me as a sort of 5th column type of act.

[JCNowandForever]

I think this might be so. I would consider revoking the Temple Recommend if I were the Bishop -- it strikes me as a sort of 5th column type of act.

Yeah we're definitely spies and infiltrators designed to eradicate the church and really bully the church into submission into our own "holier than thou" agenda! Yeah take away our temple recommend, disfellowship us, castigate us, shame us, make us learn a lesson so we won't do it again, put us in line otherwise ban us! Thus there could be no civil discussion about the Church that could be deemed anti, derogatory or otherwise demeaning.. NOT!! This is so hillarious! typical mormon rhetoric that adds nothing to what is already known as mormon rhethoric. Let's not get off topic by throwing straw-man or ad-hominem comments. Look at the question on the issue and answer it directly instead of attacking the person making the issue..

[Joyful]

If you don't believe in the Church, then yes, they seem like good changes for a man-made organization managed by social pressures.

Great response, I 100% agree!

[CASteinman]

Yeah we're definitely spies and infiltrators designed to eradicate the church and really bully the church into submission into our own "holier than thou" agenda!

Well then that should not be tolerated at all.

Let's not get off topic by throwing straw-man or ad-hominem comments.

Said after throwing straw-man and ad hominem comments!

Look at the question on the issue and answer it directly instead of attacking the person making the issue..

I have not attacked anyone on this matter. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

Did you miss my answers on the question?

Incidentally, if you noticed I said I would consider it. I did not say I would do it. That would require more assurance that it was right than I currently have.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[bluebell]

Can this be considered "bullying the church into submission"?

The following information is circulating in several forums in the internet in which members are paying tithing as a Conditional Donation with the following stipulations:

On the back of their tithing check, the following words are written:

“SUBJECT TO REFUND UPON REQUEST (SEE TERMS AND CONDITIONS).”

They said when they give the donations to their Bishops (or counselors), the check and the tithing receipts are enclosed with the following information:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

· This donation is a conditional donation

· This conditional donation is given voluntarily and will be used by the Church as it sees fit

· The condition to exercise for a complete refund of all conditional donations will never be exercise by this member while membership in the Church remains in good status.

· This member reserves the right to exercise a complete refund of all conditional donations upon termination of membership in the Church.

o Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations.

o In the event of an excommunication action, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all donations.

· All donations are conditional donations, unless otherwise noted.

What would the effect of this if members start to do this in large numbers? Would it be bullying?

I don't know if it's bullying but it's pretty dumb.

Why would someone think they could be entitled to a refund of a donation, after it had been spent or used by the entity they donated it to, especially after specifically stating specifically that the donation was to be used?

Considering that tithing money goes to fund things (such as buildings, utilities, etc.) that the person was benefiting from while a member, who do these people think they are that they can sit in a warm church building with lights and all the comforts of such and then later request their donation back, essentially implying that they had no responsiblity to help pay for something they themselves used?

[ERayR]

Well then that should not be tolerated at all.

Said after throwing straw-man and ad hominem comments!

I have not attacked anyone on this matter. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

Did you miss my answers on the question?

JCNowandForever doesn't miss it, just ignores anything that he/she doesn't agree with.

[ERayR]

I don't know if it's bullying but it's pretty dumb.

Why would someone think they could be entitled to a refund of a donation, after it had been spent or used by the entity they donated it to, especially after specifically stating specifically that the donation was to be used?

Considering that tithing money goes to fund things (such as buildings, utilities, etc.) that the person was benefiting from while a member, who do these people think they are that they can sit in a warm church building with lights and all the comforts of such and then later request their donation back, essentially implying that they had no responsiblity to help pay for something they themselves used?

It is his idea that the church is more interested in the money than his behavior. If I make my contribution contingent on them keeping me a member then they won't excommunicate me. Surprise, surprise when one is excommunicated the church will no longer accept any donations from them, not just tithing.

[JCNowandForever]

Why would someone think they could be entitled to a refund of a donation, after it had been spent or used by the entity they donated it to, especially after specifically stating specifically that the donation was to be used?

In this particular donation, nothing was specified to use it for purpose. It's unrestricted. It states that the donations "will be used by the Church as it sees fit". Please read the stipulation again. It is a conditional donation. (Assuming it allowed the donation to be deposited into its bank account thereby completing the gift process), the question is what legal standing does the member has for requesting a refund, when the Church acquiesed to the stipulation. That's all it's asking. It is not making any restrictions on the donated funds other that the event of leaving the Church (voluntarily or excomm) may trigger the right to refund, which to each member in any given taxable year is highly unlikely.

Considering that tithing money goes to fund things (such as buildings, utilities, etc.) that the person was benefiting from while a member, who do these people think they are that they can sit in a warm church building with lights and all the comforts of such and then later request their donation back, essentially implying that they had no responsiblity to help pay for something they themselves used?

Generally no economic/financial benefit is derived from this donations, otherwise it's not tax deductible. The things you specified (lights, comforts, etc) are what the church considers spiritual benefit that the IRS doesn't really care about. Request of refund are only triggered by the two events mentioned above. The rest of the time, the donation has no restrictions at all. The stipulation even says the the member is prevented from requesting refund during time when member is in good status. Thus no strings are even attached in the use of funds.

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[JCNowandForever]

Well then that should not be tolerated at all.

Didn't you guys see the word NOT on my comment regarding spies, etc... Come on lighten up

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[CASteinman]

the question is what legal standing does the member has for requesting a refund, when the Church acquiesed to the stipulation.

Probably not much. Most conditional donations require some actual performance be initiated on the part of the Charity by some date certain.

This on the other hand does not require some performance and has no date. It would almost certainly be considered both too vague and too unilateral to be reasonable or enforcable.

In any case, this is is a silly conjecture because most Charities and certainly the Church would reject this sort of thing immediately and without a moment of thought.

Generally no economic/financial benefit is derived from this donations, otherwise it's not tax deductible. The things you specified (lights, comforts, etc) are what the church considers spiritual benefit that the IRS doesn't really care about.

This is utter nonsense and mumbling.

A conditional donation cannot be claimed for tax purposes until title passes and title is deemed not to pass until the condition is fulfilled. Since in this case the vague open ended condition has no date certain, it cannot be fulfilled at any time before or after death and thus title never accrues to the Church, regardless of other wording.

And the mumbo jumbo about "Spiritual benefits" of lights is nonsense. The IRS does not recognize such things. CFR if you think so.

[yootaw]

Surprise, surprise when one is excommunicated the church will no longer accept any donations from them, not just tithing.

Is this true? What about fast offerings?

[JCNowandForever]

Surprise, surprise when one is excommunicated the church will no longer accept any donations from them, not just tithing.

I disagree. CFR!!

[KevinG]

I disagree. CFR!!

Is PBS a good enough source for you? http://www.pbs.org/m...troversies.html

I think the church can accept charitable donations from anyone even excommunicated. In this case it would not be counted as tithes. But i suspect charitable donations from excommunicated members is a rare issue.

Your childishly gleeful use of CFR with two exclamation points is noted. Too bad you got two threads closed down because you cannot observe the same courtesy you demand of others.

Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG

[JCNowandForever]

Is PBS a good enough source for you? http://www.pbs.org/m...troversies.html

That it not is an adequate CFR. It doesn't say "the church will no longer accept any donations". Even Yootaw questioned your assertions on FO.

CFR still stands unless you retract! Provide adequate reference to your exact assertions above. Plus this is a PBS assertions not an Official Church policy.

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[USU78]

In the now closed thread on City Creek and the claimed use of donated funds to fund its construction, there was a claim that if only the Church would allow an independent auditing firm access to its financial records to conduct a forensic audit, the question could be laid to rest forever.

What such a claim and proposed remedy fail to take into consideration, however, is the presence of Certified Public Accountants who perform audits in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Both of these are legal terms, not terms of art or ad hoc impositions upon an unsuspecting and gullible public. When the Accounting Department issues an Audit Opinion, also a legal term, not a term of art or ad hoc imposition, as is done every Spring conference, the auditors in that department stake their professional licenses on the opinion.

Thus the independence of the auditors is quite irrelevant: the fact that the Church pays their salaries and [probably] indemnifies them in lieu of Errors and Omissions coverage, also a legal term, not a term of art or ad hoc imposition, matters not at all. They have an independent legal duty to perform their audits in accordance with their professional standards, including gaining access to that information, financial and otherwise, reasonably necessary to perform their auditing functions.

Now . . . the boobirds have been crying about the lack of publication of financial data for almost as long as I've been alive. Fact is, however, that so long as the auditors keep issuing those opinions, there is no legal basis for claiming the Church is misusing funds or misleading donors.

And no amount of bullying changes that.

[JCNowandForever]

Your childishly gleeful use of CFR with two exclamation points is noted. Too bad you got two threads closed down because you cannot observe the same courtesy you demand of others.

No! I think this website has a documented pattern of censorship based on the those two threads being closed. And people in those thread who asked for CFR cannot be fully satisfied and have not made a case of Full disclosure and transparency of the Church without providing audited financial statements. That is why the Call for CONDITIONAL DONATIONS, to put the Church on notice that some members will no longer just take their words for it. Church needs to disclose audited financial statements, otherwise, charges of mis-appropriations will abound in this and other websites.

[KevinG]

That it not is an adequate CFR. It doesn't say "the church will no longer accept any donations". Even Yootaw questioned your assertions on FO.

CFR still stands unless you retract! Provide adequate reference to your exact assertions above. Plus this is a PBS assertions not an Official Church policy.

I already said I thought the church could accept donations other than tithes. No need for me to CFR because I agree with you on that point.

[why me]

That it not is an adequate CFR. It doesn't say "the church will no longer accept any donations". Even Yootaw questioned your assertions on FO.

CFR still stands unless you retract! Provide adequate reference to your exact assertions above. Plus this is a PBS assertions not an Official Church policy.

I see most of your posts as bully posts. You want to bully the church to do the tithes the way you think that tithes should be handled. You probably wish the church to do other things to to make you a little more happier. And I have this feeling that even if the church would do what you think it should do, you would not be any happier. You would still have a negative attitude toward the church.

[KevinG]

No! I think this website has a documented pattern of censorship based on the those two threads being closed. And people in those thread who asked for CFR cannot be fully satisfied and have not made a case of Full disclosure and transparency of the Church without providing audited financial statements. That is why the Call for CONDITIONAL DONATIONS, to put the Church on notice that some members will no longer just take their words for it. Church needs to disclose audited financial statements, otherwise, charges of mis-appropriations will abound in this and other websites.

Let's see how that logic works in other areas.

I can say I suspect you are a serial adulterer and will continue to suspect that unless you show me your current and past temple recommends. If told my moderators I am breaking board rules by making personal accusations I will then accuse them of censorship.

[JCNowandForever]

I already said I thought the church could accept donations other than tithes. No need for me to CFR because I agree with you on that point.

No. Let's see what the original poster says. He hasn't provided the requested CFR for his original post #285. The CFR is still stands unless retracted by the original poster (ErayR). Yes I agree with you that they can still accept donation from excomms. But ErayR says no. I'm requesting ErayR to provide CFR or retract.

[why me]

No! I think this website has a documented pattern of censorship based on the those two threads being closed.

The thread was closed because the thread was heading nowhere. You made a claim that you couldn't support and you continued to make the claim which you could not support. Your anger may be over something that is not real. You think that mall was not a good investment for a church to make. I disagree. You want to bully the church into disclosing its business dealings. I don't. But the thread was closed because it was going nowhere. Likewise for other threads if you make a claim and cannot support that claim.

[CASteinman]

You think that mall was not a good investment for a church to make. I disagree.

You know.. the interesting thing to me about all of this is that a few years before, I was visiting Salt Lake and watching the area around Temple Square go into deterioration. I thought to myself:

"I wish the Church could buy all of this wreckage and make it into something beautiful -- its awful to have the Lord's house surrounded by slowly but inexorably growing blight."

They have done it -- and did not even use Tithing to do it. Inspired and genius. And I am grateful.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman