Yet Another Lawsuit Against the Church

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 I have seen it in a couple of places, latest was the whistleblowing doc appendix.  Sometimes Canada is included.  I think Michael Quinn had info on it as well.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Though I do recall when the Church's taxes were revealed from England.  Of course that included expenses for employees in England, which may or may not have really applied appropriately.  meaning employees in England are working for the corporate Church and so expenses for them should not be considered as part of English tithing donations.  

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That assessment could apply to any number of organizations, couldn't it?  "I wonder if people will continue to file lawsuits against [fill-in-name-of-organization-here] until something sticks."

That is interesting, as it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations.  

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That assessment is based on a couple of pretty big assumptions.  I would think you would need to support the assumptions for the overall point to have support. 

You haven't heard the old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich?  Civil litigation isn't much different.  While evidence is another matter, and while simply because an action is filed doesn't mean it will survive a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss, pretty much anyone can sue pretty much any entity about pretty much anything.

Indeed we will.

Ah!  At last!  We agree!!!

Good.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Looks like Nemelka himself got slammed by a RICO lawsuit and it was successful (it was the court case he tried to get the judge removed from and failed).  Ended up paying....if he did pay...over $15,000 rather than just over $5000.  This link also includes affidavits from his followers in 2018, including the three involved in the current lawsuit.

https://marvelousworkandawonder.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/nemelka-summary-judgment.pdf

Oh, wow.  Nemelka tried with check out of the lawsuit, which essentially left him vulnerable to a judgment being entered against him.  The other party (Harry Dschaak) had an attorney, who apparently did a pretty good job on pursuing the case, including the procedural steps necessary to obtain a judgment against Nemelka.  One of those steps was serving paperwork on Nemelka at an address in Orem: 224 Garden Park Drive.  This is similar to, but not quite, the addresses used in the lawsuit for Lynnette Cook (228 West Garden Park Drive) and Rodney Jay Vessels (230 West Garden Park Drive) (these two addresses do not appear to exist).

Per county land records, 224 Garden Park Drive is presently owned by a number of parties as joint tenants: Diane Jorgensen Heath, Lynnette Cook, and Monica Smith as trustee of the "Irrevocable Marvelous Work and Wonder Purpose Trust, u/t/a Dated August 28, 2009." 

This property was previously owned by Christopher Nemelka (as trustee of the above trust) from 2015 to 2016.  Prior to that, it was owned by Sheryl Nemelka, presumably a relation to Christopher.  Prior to Sheryl, the property was owned by . . . wait for it . . . Ida Smith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, wow.  Nemelka tried with check out of the lawsuit, which essentially left him vulnerable to a judgment being entered against him.  The other party (Harry Dschaak) had an attorney, who apparently did a pretty good job on pursuing the case, including the procedural steps necessary to obtain a judgment against Nemelka.  One of those steps was serving paperwork on Nemelka at an address in Orem: 224 Garden Park Drive.  This is similar to, but not quite, the addresses used in the lawsuit for Lynnette Cook (228 West Garden Park Drive) and Rodney Jay Vessels (230 West Garden Park Drive) (these two addresses do not appear to exist).

Per county land records, 224 Garden Park Drive is presently owned by a number of parties as joint tenants: Diane Jorgensen Heath, Lynnette Cook, and Monica Smith as trustee of the "Irrevocable Marvelous Work and Wonder Purpose Trust, u/t/a Dated August 28, 2009." 

This property was previously owned by Christopher Nemelka (as trustee of the above trust) from 2015 to 2016.  Prior to that, it was owned by Sheryl Nemelka, presumably a relation to Christopher.  Prior to Sheryl, the property was owned by . . . wait for it . . . Ida Smith.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’d say “The plot thickens,” but it is already so thick a chainsaw could scarcely penetrate. 
 

I hope the judge finds a way to slap down this bunch for abuse of the legal system. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

wait for it . . . Ida Smith.

Iirc, the city weekly article states the she donated the property to Nemelka.  Will check later.

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/19/2020 at 9:29 AM, stemelbow said:

That is interesting, as it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations.  

Good.

So, somehow, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at fault if Paul Plaintiff simply decides, "Hey, there's an organization with deep pockets!  I think I'll file a lawsuit.  If nothing else, at least the organization will pay me to go away"?  If the Church of Jesus Christ pays settlements in what are, essentially, nuisance suits because it's cheaper to pay out than it is to litigate in such circumstances, while I think the former rather than the latter is a more efficient, better use of sacred funds, I would prefer that the Church do neither, but that's not the world we live in.

As for the Church of Jesus Christ being "quite like many other corporations," while I'm sure your mileage varies here, it is and it isn't.  Unlike you, apparently, I wouldn't necessarily read too much into the fact that it is necessary for the Church to organize according to the law in order for it to be able to fulfill certain of its purposes.  Just because the Church of Jesus Christ is, for example a 501(c)(3) organization doesn't mean that it's like every other 501(c)(3) organization.  The fact that every 501(c)(3) organization has certain things in common does not mean that they're all exactly alike.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, somehow, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at fault if Paul Plaintiff simply decides, "Hey, there's an organization with deep pockets!  I think I'll file a lawsuit.  If nothing else, at least the organization will pay me to go away"?  If the Church of Jesus Christ pays settlements in what are, essentially, nuisance suits because it's cheaper to pay out than it is to litigate in such circumstances, while I think the former rather than the latter is a more efficient, better use of sacred funds, I would prefer that the Church do neither, but that's not the world we live in.

As for the Church of Jesus Christ being "quite like many other corporations," while I'm sure your mileage varies here, it is and it isn't.  Unlike you, apparently, I wouldn't necessarily read too much into the fact that it is necessary for the Church to organize according to the law in order for it to be able to fulfill certain of its purposes.  Just because the Church of Jesus Christ is, for example a 501(c)(3) organization doesn't mean that it's like every other 501(c)(3) organization.  The fact that every 501(c)(3) organization has certain things in common does not mean that they're all exactly alike.

THe question was about it being a corporation.  I don't know what trail you ran down exactly.  But legally the church is a corporation.  It is a very large one with many business and investment interests.  There are other large corporations comparable.  Indeed, as it is the Church has a larger cash reserve than some of the large ones, like Amazon, Google, and Walmart.  In a year or two it'll likely only get much larger, as it appears to be on a very steep upward swing.  At some point it may be the richest corporation in the world, if it continues at this pace.  That'd be something huh?   Of course by then the Church would likely have far fewer members, as a percentage of the world, than it does now.  it certainly does appear the greatest interest the Church has right now is to make money.  I guess we'll see how it goes.  

[smac97]

On 2/19/2020 at 9:29 AM, stemelbow said:

That is interesting, as it is the Church does appear to be quite like many other corporations.  

Good.

The Church is quite unlike many other corporations.

It is not publicly traded.  Ownership of it is never bought/sold.  There are no "stockholders" as there are in other corporations.  Those who run it  are not enriching themselves.  The income of the Church is not an end unto itself.  The Church's "business" is administering the Church's religious programs, maintaining its religious buildings, and so on.  There is no "product" or "service."  It is a charitable endeavor, not a for-profit one.  It is exempt from regulatory and taxation laws (except for its for-profit businesses it owns).  And so on.

There are some similarities in structure, of course.  The corporate form is a legal requirement, hence there will necessarily be some similarities.  But there are also many substantive and meaningful differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church is quite unlike many other corporations.

It is not publicly traded.  Ownership of it is never bought/sold.  There are no "stockholders" as there are in other corporations.  Those who run it  are not enriching themselves.  The income of the Church is not an end unto itself.  The Church's "business" is administering the Church's religious programs, maintaining its religious buildings, and so on.  There is no "product" or "service."  It is a charitable endeavor, not a for-profit one.  It is exempt from regulatory and taxation laws (except for its for-profit businesses it owns).  And so on.

There are some similarities in structure, of course.  The corporate form is a legal requirement, hence there will necessarily be some similarities.  But there are also many substantive and meaningful differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

well sure there are differences.  My point is only that there are similarities as you suggest.  

" The income of the Church is not an end unto itself."

If you look at any corporation they have mission statements which never suggest something as you seem to imply for them here.  THey never suggest income is an end unto itself. Indeed, take anyone and look at the mission statement.  It's often much like the Church's in that it defines itself as existing for the purpose of helping people.  Thus, the income is not an end unto itself.  Unless of course you think that's true of the Church too.  Of course it's pretty silly to think the Church invests for a purpose other than making money.  MOtivations are difficult to define and narrow down.  Who knows what is the strongest motivation moving you, for instance?  You may know, or you may think you know.  But what we do know is there are tons of motivations moving you around, and whatever you think is the main motivation, may or may not actually be.  The same goes for the Church.  The main motivation may actually be to make money.  Of course everything points to that being true.  And of course there are other motivations.  But as it is, none of them, really stand out as driving the Church quite like making money.  At least that seems quite evident to me.  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

well sure there are differences.  My point is only that there are similarities as you suggest.  

" The income of the Church is not an end unto itself."

If you look at any corporation they have mission statements which never suggest something as you seem to imply for them here. 

Mission statements are not determinative.

The Church is not a for-profit endeavor.  It is a religion.  The laws of the land pretty much require it to maintain a corporate form for taxation purposes, regulatory purposes, legal purposes (holding property, standing to seek redress, etc.).

Google and Apple and such are for-profit endeavors selling products and services.  The Church is not.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

THey never suggest income is an end unto itself. Indeed, take anyone and look at the mission statement. 

Please.  The IRS and the courts do not rely on "mission statements."

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's often much like the Church's in that it defines itself as existing for the purpose of helping people.  Thus, the income is not an end unto itself. 

This is ignorant and unserious.  Get on a conference call of stockholders of a publicly-traded company and try to tell everyone that the business is not about making money.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Unless of course you think that's true of the Church too.  Of course it's pretty silly to think the Church invests for a purpose other than making money. 

It's not silly at all.  The Church has a wonderful track record of using its money for "purpose{s} other than making money."

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

MOtivations are difficult to define and narrow down. 

Hence we look at the conduct of the Church.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Who knows what is the strongest motivation moving you, for instance?  You may know, or you may think you know.  But what we do know is there are tons of motivations moving you around, and whatever you think is the main motivation, may or may not actually be.  The same goes for the Church. 

Nope.  The Church's motivations are pretty clear, and making money as an end unto itself is not it.  Those running the Church are not in it for the money.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The main motivation may actually be to make money. 

Nope.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course everything points to that being true.  And of course there are other motivations.  But as it is, none of them, really stand out as driving the Church quite like making money.  At least that seems quite evident to me.  

The provocateur stuff.  Again.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mission statements are not determinative.

The Church is not a for-profit endeavor.  It is a religion.  The laws of the land pretty much require it to maintain a corporate form for taxation purposes, regulatory purposes, legal purposes (holding property, standing to seek redress, etc.).

Google and Apple and such are for-profit endeavors selling products and services.  The Church is not.

So the Church offers no service at all?  Its for-profit ventures provide no product nor service?  Pretty odd take, Smac.  It seems to me that Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso, seeing as the Church has a larger cash reserve than either.  I agree it's odd for a Church to be in it for the money, but such has been going on with Church's for a long time.  We should realize it's not so odd, after all.  The LDS Church is the biggest of all corporate mega-church's out there.  

Quote

Please.  The IRS and the courts do not rely on "mission statements."

This is ignorant and unserious.  Get on a conference call of stockholders of a publicly-traded company and try to tell everyone that the business is not about making money.

Then you agree, the CHurch is about making money in the same sense as any publicly-traded company?  I'd say it seems even more about making money then them.  Of course they don't require the poorest of the poor to give them money regularly.  

Quote

It's not silly at all.  The Church has a wonderful track record of using its money for "purpose{s} other than making money."

very large corporation uses it's moeny for purposes other than making money.  It's because they care about others, and it's also because it's a great PR move.  The more charitable Amazon looks (Bezos giving a one time sum of money for global warming research outdoes any single Church donation) good and nice, the more likely people will trust them. It's of course, no different for the LDS Church.  The better it can come off to it's aherents the more the donations the Church will receive.  

Quote

Hence we look at the conduct of the Church.

Nope.  The Church's motivations are pretty clear, and making money as an end unto itself is not it.  Those running the Church are not in it for the money.

Nope.

The provocateur stuff.  Again.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree.  The Church is clearly in it for the money.  So are other large corporations.  None of them got to be large corporations by accident.  They did it by focusing in on good ways to pull in the dough.  We already know the Church focused in on how best to make it's few billion into many billions.  

Edited February 20, 2020 by stemelbow

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the Church of Jesus Christ pays settlements in what are, essentially, nuisance suits because it's cheaper to pay out than it is to litigate in such circumstances, while I think the former rather than the latter is a more efficient, better use of sacred funds,

I would think that settlements would be more expensive long term because they would invite more suits. A few victories in court would quickly put a stop to frivolous suits IMO.

[topcougar]

28 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I would think that settlements would be more expensive long term because they would invite more suits. A few victories in court would quickly put a stop to frivolous suits IMO.

I think that is the policy of the church. The Church only settles cases where there is liability.   It has had the effect of making competent attorney's reluctant to take contingency cases against the Church except when the grounds are really solid. They know there is not quick payday for a weak case. On the other hand, cases filed by marginal attorneys are like the whack a mole game. Marginal attorneys file weak case frequently and Church 's attorneys knock them down as fast they can, but the process never ends and will not end before the second coming. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Mission statements are not determinative.

The Church is not a for-profit endeavor.  It is a religion.  The laws of the land pretty much require it to maintain a corporate form for taxation purposes, regulatory purposes, legal purposes (holding property, standing to seek redress, etc.).

Google and Apple and such are for-profit endeavors selling products and services.  The Church is not.

Please.  The IRS and the courts do not rely on "mission statements."

This is ignorant and unserious.  Get on a conference call of stockholders of a publicly-traded company and try to tell everyone that the business is not about making money.

It's not silly at all.  The Church has a wonderful track record of using its money for "purpose{s} other than making money."

 

Oh, how I wish that were true. I'll bet each of us have had experiences in our wards where some money was needed or equipment needed fixing or buildings needing remodeling.

My BIL and SIL are serving in Australia and he was just called to be a Branch President in a small mining town. There are members that live 6 hours away and don't have a church building to meet in and go once a month because of the distance.

There are members in countries that can't attend a temple because they're too far a way. So what's up with not building smaller temples for them? Also the church wants members to reach out to family before the church when needing help. At least it used to be that way.

So the church holds those funds very tightly, unless they get publicity and must do it differently, like recently IMO. How about members donations for humanitarian needs, how often does the church match that with their for profit side? 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The truth about this, or the idea that the Church somehow creates such doctrines in violation to the Book of Mormon, and “Eternal Families”, in order to entice, or entrap families into a lifetime of giving has major flaws within it. First of all, the doctrine of tithing, is not a Book of Mormon doctrine, but is taken from the Bible, and predates the coming (or birth) of Jesus Christ. In addition, the doctrines of Eternal Families and Temples came in the Church’s infancy, and the building of Temples began, when the Church was broke. Yet despite that poverty, the Church still built Temples. Temples and Eternal Families did not come as a way for the Church to make money, it began and continued when the Church had almost no money, and barely a hope of caring for it’s members. Finally when President Snow, made clear the Lord’s will on tithing, and the Biblical teaching that by doing so, the Church and it’s members coulda done would prosper, and care for it’s members, then for a long time, we were still barely getting by, and then over time, we began to prosper in a great way. We did so because we both practiced what we preacher, and by the obedience to that Biblical doctrine, continued to prosper. 
 

in addition, members are encouraged to tithe, but Weekly, Monthly, and Yearly, we help feed those who are hungry, help them keep their homes, help them keep their cars, etc. I know first hand, that many have received in a month, through Fast Offerings, and Tithing, x10 what they may have paid in tithing, and others who paid tithes at all. Depending on my callings, I either approved these funds, or signed the checks myself. There have been times in my own life, I have been on the receiving end of that charity, born of love. Unless someone has been found abusing thee system, none are turned away, from Church, the Sacrament, or the fellowship of the Saints. Stakes even have, “Transit Bishop’s”, who aid members while traveling, when some hardships may befall them. We also help those who are no even members, when the Bishop sees the need to do so. What will be next, lawsuits for people who put money in an “offering plate”, because after a time they found they did not like the Pastor’s teacher during the time they attended? 
 

So, our sin now, prospering for obedience to a “Biblical Doctrine”, predating Jesus Christ?   

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are members in countries that can't attend a temple because they're too far a way. So what's up with not building smaller temples for them?

They don't have the staff to maintain them.  Instead there is the Temple Patrons Fund that pays for members' travel expenses to the temple if they live too far away and can't afford the expense of travel.

Quote

There are members that live 6 hours away and don't have a church building to meet in and go once a month because of the distance.

Are you suggesting a church building be built when the number of members can probably fit into a home?  What happens if those members move away and the building sits empty?

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

The truth about this, or the idea that the Church somehow creates such doctrines in violation to the Book of Mormon, and “Eternal Families”, in order to entice, or entrap families into a lifetime of giving has major flaws within it. First of all, the doctrine of tithing, is not a Book of Mormon doctrine, but is taken from the Bible, and predates the coming (or birth) of Jesus Christ. In addition, the doctrines of Eternal Families and Temples came in the Church’s infancy, and the building of Temples began, when the Church was broke. Yet despite that poverty, the Church still built Temples. Temples and Eternal Families did not come as a way for the Church to make money, it began and continued when the Church had almost no money, and barely a hope of caring for it’s members. Finally when President Snow, made clear the Lord’s will on tithing, and the Biblical teaching that by doing so, the Church and it’s members coulda done would prosper, and care for it’s members, then for a long time, we were still barely getting by, and then over time, we began to prosper in a great way. We did so because we both practiced what we preacher, and by the obedience to that Biblical doctrine, continued to prosper. 
 

in addition, members are encouraged to tithe, but Weekly, Monthly, and Yearly, we help feed those who are hungry, help them keep their homes, help them keep their cars, etc. I know first hand, that many have received in a month, through Fast Offerings, and Tithing, x10 what they may have paid in tithing, and others who paid tithes at all. Depending on my callings, I either approved these funds, or signed the checks myself. There have been times in my own life, I have been on the receiving end of that charity, born of love. Unless someone has been found abusing thee system, none are turned away, from Church, the Sacrament, or the fellowship of the Saints. Stakes even have, “Transit Bishop’s”, who aid members while traveling, when some hardships may befall them. We also help those who are no even members, when the Bishop sees the need to do so. What will be next, lawsuits for people who put money in an “offering plate”, because after a time they found they did not like the Pastor’s teacher during the time they attended? 
 

So, our sin now, prospering for obedience to a “Biblical Doctrine”, predating Jesus Christ?   

Funds from fast offerings, I presume. So when will the church use some of the for-profit money or at least match donations?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So when will the church use some of the for-profit money or at least match donations?

How do you know they don't?  EPA is only one auxiliary organization of the Church.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

They don't have the staff to maintain them.  Instead there is the Temple Patrons Fund that pays for members' travel expenses to the temple if they live too far away and can't afford the expense of travel.

Are you suggesting a church building be built when the number of members can probably fit into a home?  What happens if those members move away and the building sits empty?

I'll give ya one more, my SIL said in her email as well, that the missionaries have to ride bikes and how she wished they had transportation to reach more non-members. My SIL wasn't being negative either. She just said it was sad. So what's with no vehicles? You can defend all you want Calm, I'm just saying the church can do more. If they are as Smac proclaims. And the now, 124 billion dollars EPA fund wouldn't feel it at all.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 So what's with no vehicles?

That one I don't know about as that info has not be shared publicly.

Of course the Church can do more.  Just like the individual us, the community of us is learning how to be more like Christ.

My issue is where it sounds dismissive of or outright ignoring what is being done (Temple patron fund) or not taking into account very practical reasons why something hasn't yet been done ( staffing issues).

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[2BizE]

Is there a statute of limitations on counterfeiting?  In the early church, there were implications of counterfeiting; however, the church organization from back then was dissolved and the church we know today was started in 1923 iirc.

[Ahab]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:50 AM, smac97 said:

I eventually became so fed up with the sheer number of poorly-drafted fraud-based lawsuits that I wrote an article about it and had it published in the Utah Bar Journal:  A Primer on Pleading Fraud Claims in Utah.  

Nice for me to finally see a picture of what you look like.  I thought about copying it and pasting it here in this thread for everyone to see but then I thought you might not like that I did that and then you would probably sue me. So I didn't.  But I still know what you look like.

Hi Spencer!

But anyway, yeah, I'm sure you do become fed up with seeing things like this.  You don't seem to mind starting threads about things like this, though. 

I imagine I'd be like:   Pfftt. Another one!  And they're not even doing it right! Again!  Probably no worse that playing the lottery, though, as far as a way to possibly make some money.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Funds from fast offerings, I presume. So when will the church use some of the for-profit money or at least match donations?

I am not the Presiding Bishop, nor a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, nor a member of the first Presidency, so I cannot answer whey, how, or if the money is spent. But I do know that the Church spends a lot of money on a lot of charities, both in and out of the Church.  

[Tacenda]

Why has tithing changed so much from the early church? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/the-tithing-of-my-people?lang=eng Footnote 17

Bishop Partridge explained, saying, “If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6” (Edward Partridge letter to Newel K. Whitney, July 24, 1838, in Reynolds Cahoon letter to Newel K. Whitney, July 24, 1838, Church History Library, Salt Lake City). Six percent was a common interest rate at the time (see the forthcoming publication of The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 6: February 1838–August 1839).

 

 

Orson Hyde wrote in 1847:

The celestial law requires one tenth part of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church, and one tenth part of his annual increase ever after. If it requires all a man can earn to support himself and family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. (Millennial Star, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 12, byu.edu)

 

Speaking of Abraham and Melchizedek, the Bible says, “And he gave him tithes of all” (KJV Genesis 14:20). Joseph Smith changed it to, “Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need” (JST Genesis 14:39).

Edited February 21, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

The Church is not a for-profit endeavor.  It is a religion.  The laws of the land pretty much require it to maintain a corporate form for taxation purposes, regulatory purposes, legal purposes (holding property, standing to seek redress, etc.).

Google and Apple and such are for-profit endeavors selling products and services.  The Church is not.

So the Church offers no service at all? 

No, it doesn't provide for-profit goods or services.

Playing dumb and the provocateur.  Sigh.

Quote

Its for-profit ventures provide no product nor service?  Pretty odd take, Smac. 

The Church is a religious institution.  It does not sell products or services.

The Church invests some of its resources in for-profit enterprises to raise money for its religious endeavors and provide for the members of the Church. 

Again, the Church is not publicly traded.  Ownership of it is never bought/sold.  There are no "stockholders" as there are in other corporations.  Those who run it  are not enriching themselves.  The income of the Church is not an end unto itself.  The Church's "business" is administering the Church's religious programs, maintaining its religious buildings, and so on.  There is no "product" or "service."  It is a charitable endeavor, not a for-profit one.  It is exempt from regulatory and taxation laws (except for its for-profit businesses it owns).  And so on. 

Quote

It seems to me that Church is as much in it for the money as Google and Apple, and perhaps even moreso, seeing as the Church has a larger cash reserve than either. 

Google and Apple sell products and services for the sake of making money for the private discretionary use of its owners/stockholders.  They are not charitable institutions.  The Church is.

Also, water is wet, circles are round, and the sun provides warmth to the earth.  Are there any other self-evident truths we need to trot out?  Or can you stop playing dumb now?  Please?

Quote

I agree it's odd for a Church to be in it for the money,

This is a false characterization of what I said.  The Church is not "in it for the money."

Quote

but such has been going on with Church's for a long time. 

The Church is not a for-profit institution.  It is a charitable institution.  Legally.  In form and function.  The whole kit n' kaboodle.

Quote

Quote

Please.  The IRS and the courts do not rely on "mission statements."

This is ignorant and unserious.  Get on a conference call of stockholders of a publicly-traded company and try to tell everyone that the business is not about making money.

Then you agree, the CHurch is about making money in the same sense as any publicly-traded company? 

No.  You are moving past playing dumb and being the provocateur, and are now demonstrating bad faith.  I have said nothing that would indicate that I agree with this.

Quote

The Church is clearly in it for the money. 

The Church is clearly not in it for the money.  The leaders are not enriching themselves.  There are no stocks traded, and no stockholders.  There are no quarterly earning reports.  There are no dividends distributed.  It is a charitable non-profit organization under the law.

In contrast, the purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for the benefit of individual shareholders.  

I can't imagine you are so acutely ill-informed about such basic and obvious things.  I conclude you are saying these things in bad faith.  To provoke.  To insult.  Not to have a meaningful, genuine discussion or debate.

Quote

So are other large corporations.  None of them got to be large corporations by accident.  They did it by focusing in on good ways to pull in the dough.  We already know the Church focused in on how best to make it's few billion into many billions.  

See?

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97