James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud'

[smac97]

Here we go again:

Quote

James Huntsman, of a prominent Mormon family from Utah, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday accusing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of fraud, saying it spent members’ tithes meant for charity on commercial purposes.

In the suit, Huntsman says he wants back millions of dollars he donated and plans to give it to “organizations and communities whose members have been marginalized by the Church’s teachings and doctrines, including by donating to charities supporting LGBTQ, African-American, and women’s rights.”

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, comes 16 months after a former high-level investment manager with the church filed a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service. The complaint, which The Washington Post obtained in December 2019, alleged that the Church amassed about $100 billion in accounts intended for charitable purposes and misled members by stockpiling surplus donations using the tax-exempt donations to prop up a pair of businesses.
...
In a statement to The Post Monday, a church spokesman said that Huntsman resigned his membership last year and that his claims are “baseless.” It cited former church president Gordon B. Hinckley as saying in the early 2000s that the funds for the mall came from “commercial entities owned by the Church” and “earnings of invested reserve funds.”
...
Huntsman, 50, runs a film distribution firm in Southern California. He stepped down in 2016 as an executive with Huntsman Corp., a massive chemical supplier his father founded in 1970. Jon Huntsman Sr., who died in 2018, was a billionaire industrialist and philanthropist in Utah. James’s brother Jon Huntsman Jr. was a Utah governor, presidential candidate and an ambassador to Russia, China and Singapore.
...
In his suit, Huntsman uses sharp language, saying, “this is not a case about faith; it is a case about fraud and corporate greed.” He said the church where he spent much of his life, including as a leader and teacher, “repeatedly and publicly lied” about the use of tithing funds.
...
Mormonism, like some other faith groups, requires members to tithe 10 percent of their incomes but is more organized and deliberate about collecting it and understanding why members cannot pay.

“Make no mistake, the Church’s status as a religious organization does not give its corporate arm carte blanche to defraud the Church’s members and the general public,” the suit says.

Huntsman declined requests for an interview, but Jonelis said the suit is “not a family issue. Others aren’t involved.”

The above link (this one) takes you to the Complaint.  A few thoughts:

1. The Complaint is written "emotionally," which seems a bit out of place for a pleading filed in federal court.  Lots of conclusory and/or loaded words and phrases like "these profound words by the esteemed former leader of the Church," "in a fraudulent effort to elicit the donation of tithing funds," "the LDS Corporation secretly lined its own pockets," "brazenly and offensively," "make no mistake, the Church’s status as a religious organization does not give its corporate arm carte blanche to defraud the Church’s members," "the LDS Corporation began its campaign of lies and deceit," and so on.  There is also quite a bit of underlining ("dishonestly and fraudulently placed its own commercial financial interests," "purely non-commercial purposes"), and italicized and bolded text ("this is not a case about faith; it is a case about fraud and corporate greed," "the LDS Corporation actually spent an estimated $1.5 Billion of money donated by the Church’s members to develop the City Creek Mall," "or so he thought," "build a commercial shopping mall and bail out a private insurance company," "doubled down," "tripled down," "for the fifth time").

In my experience (in Utah, anyway), this stuff is used very sparingly.  Judges, both state and federal, seem to want lawyers to take a "just the facts, ma'am" approach.

2. The Complaint characterizes the "LDS Corporation" as "the corporate arm of the Church."  Here's an interesting table published by LDS Philanthropies:

A "corporation sole" is "a legal entity consisting of a single ('sole') incorporated office, occupied by a single ('sole') natural person."  Here is a brief summary of the two "corporations sole" listed above (in a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case) :

Quote

The Deseret Gymnasium (Gymnasium) in Salt Lake City, Utah, is a nonprofit facility, open to the public, run by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB), and the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (COP). The CPB and the COP are religious entities associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church), an unincorporated religious association sometimes called the Mormon or LDS Church.3
...
The CPB and the COP are "corporations sole" organized under Utah law to perform various activities on behalf of the Church. Both corporations are tax-exempt, nonprofit religious entities under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Appellees do not contest that the CPB and the COP are religious organizations for purposes of § 702.

See also here:

Quote

After {Joseph} Smith died, Brigham Young and the largest body of Smith's followers incorporated the LDS Church in 1851 by legislation of the State of Deseret under the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints",^[115] which included a hyphenated "Latter-day" and a British-style lower-case d.^[116]

In 1887, the LDS Church was legally dissolved in the United States by the Edmunds–Tucker Act because of the church's practice of polygamy.^[117] In the United States, the church continues to operate as an unincorporated entity.^[118] ...

Tax-exempt corporations of the LDS Church include the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,^[122] a corporation sole which was organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property; the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,^[123] which was established in 1923 in Utah to receive and manage money and church donations; and Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which was incorporated in 1997 to hold the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.^[124] 

Huh.  I guess I hadn't realized that the Church itself is "an unincorporated entity."

3. The suit includes a single claim for "fraud."  It appears to be based solely on the financing of the City Creek Mall.

4. I'm not sure the allegations in the complaint are sufficient.  In order to pursue a fraud claim in federal court, the plaintiff must explain the allegations with specificity or "particularity."  In California, “‘{t}he elements of fraud ... are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’”  The specific statements that are deemed fraudulent all pertain to the development of City Creek not using tithed funds.  However, the allegations are also that the Church "fraudulently concealed that they intended to use Plaintiff’s tithing funds for purely commercial purposes."  "Fraud" is making a false statement, "fraudulent concealment" is not disclosing (or concealing) something you have a duty to disclose.  The elements for a claim for fraudulent concealment are (1) failure to disclose or concealed a material fact with an intent to defraud the victim, (2) a duty to disclose, (3) the plaintiff is unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she knew of the fact, and (4) the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result. 

So the only cause of action here is a bit muddled, as I am not sure if it is for "fraud" or "fraudulent concealment."  Moreover, I'm not really seeing "particular" allegations as to the falsity of the Church's statements about City Creek.  The Church clearly said at the time that "{n}o tax dollars, nor tithes from the 12.5 million Mormons, will be used in construction."  The Church further explained in 2007:

Quote

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

So can Mr. Huntsman simply declare "I think tithes were used," and thereafter file suit?  That seems sort of unlikely.  A key allegation is in paragraph 23: "On information and belief, at the time Mr. McMullin’s statement was made, he had already issued checks from the LDS Corporation’s accumulation of tithing principal for use in connection with the City Creek Mall development and the Beneficial Life Insurance bailout." 

5. FAIR has a pretty good treatment of the City Creek topic here: City Creek Center Mall in Salt Lake City

6. Similarly, the Church has a pretty good 2018 FAQ regarding its finances: Church Finances and a Growing Global Faith

7. Our own Robert F. Smith has commented on this issue here:

Quote

Quote

I agree.  Tithing was used and that is perfectly fine.  That's the purpose tithing.  City Creek furthers the work of the Church.  That is what tithing is supposed to do.

What I have a problem with is the Church playing word games and lying that these funds spent were not tithing funds.  

It is not a lie to say that tithing funds were not used, because they weren't.  The LDS Church has long invested monies into real estate and other businesses which produce greater value.  That's what investments are for (as in the parable of the talents), to grow the principal.  Having done that, one need only use that extra money for further investments.  Makes good practical sense, and City Creek is merely one more investment in a long line of good investments.  Banks and investment companies do exactly the same thing.  The only difference is that they are not eleemosynary institutions.  Since the LDS Church is a charitable institution, those investments mean that a great deal of good can be done with those reserve funds in the event of emergencies.  In fact, the LDS Church gives more money to charitable causes per capita than any other religious body (except maybe the Seventh Day Adventists, but I haven't examined their giving totals).

As did I:

Quote

Quote

EVERYTHING the Church has built or will ever build will be paid for with tithing.

By that reckoning it is a "flat out lie" that I have ever earned any income.  My parents paid for all my needs during childhood.  I then went into the Army, and then on a mission, then to college, then to college again, and now here I am.  But I never would have been able to get to college without my parents' financial support.  So my income from my job really isn't mine.  It's my parents.

Of course, my parents started out with their parents supporting them, so they never made any income, either.  And neither did my grandparents, who relied on my great-grandparents, and so on, ad infinitum.

By your reasoning, my salary isn't attributable to anything I have done.  "EVERYTHING" that I have done or ever will do was paid for by my parents, and grandparents, and so on. 

That's your reasoning.  And it doesn't seem to hold up well.

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Besides, selling them off and giving all the money to the poor  might be a nice

If I was an active member,  investing money in City Creek Mall or Salt Lake City would get my 100% support.....How many cities in USA look as well  maintained and  clean as SL? 

 

This was addressed here: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency (emphasis added):

Quote

What About The Church’s Other Businesses?

Here comes a bigger sticking point: does the Church really need all these other businesses?

This is a point where reasonable people can disagree. I believe all the businesses, or at least virtually all of them, were started back in the day when the Saints could only rely upon themselves. Many are good organizations and can be used to help others (i.e. Deseret Industries, Orange Farms out in Florida, etc.). Some are designed more as Public Relations item than anything else. The biggest example of that latter point is the $1.5 billion mall in Salt Lake City. Was it necessary? I don’t know. What I do know is that downtown Salt Lake City represents the LDS Church in many people’s mind, and if it’s run down, dingy affair, many will see the Church as run down, dingy affair. It may not be fair and it may not be right, but that is the way it is.

Back to the point, are these business necessary? My guess would be “no.” It’s not really related to this transparency conversation, but as long as they’re not losing money or distracting from the missions of the LDS Church, it seems unnecessary to jettison them. Besides, selling them off and giving all the money to the poor might be a nice one year boondoggle, but if you run the business so you can continually help people, it seems like it’s all the better.

Like Jesus said, we have the poor always with us, even if we give out a Scrooge McDuck-worthy pile of money (he might not have said that last part).

I had my dad read through this article before posting since he has a lot of experience with finances, and he made another good point that should be added here. Like many charitable groups or scholarship funds, the Church prefers to invest its cash and run operations off generated interest. It’s a good way to run things when you want to be conservative (small c) with your operations and more or less guarantee a set amount of money to keep things going every year.

So, should the Church give out a "nice one year boondoggle," or should it instead be a responsible steward of the Church's funds, thus allowing it to help the poor year in and year out?

I will once again refer interested persons to D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here).

8. The Church apparently did not expect to see much in the way of profit from City Creek.  See here:

Quote

Actually, the Church spent the money on City Creek without any expectation of a profitable return on that investment.

Quote

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so modest that you would never have made such an investment

https://archive.org/stream/HowTheMormonsMakeMoney/How the Mormons Make Money- Bloomberg 7-18-12_djvu.txt

>$1 billion to make downtown SLC look prettier. Does that sound like something the Saviour would do with His funds?

9. I think a review of D. Michael Quinn's book (and our discussion about it, both linked above) would be helpful for those interested in this topic.

10. I wonder if the federal judge assigned to this case will see it as a sort of "fishing expedition," as a pretext to try to use the power of the judiciary to get a look at the Church's finances.  

11. Apparently these 2018 comments from Bishop Caussé has caused quite a stir:

Quote

Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (see Gérald Caussé, “In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Church Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018).

A Redditor "summed" up Bishop Caussé's remarks this way: 

Quote

In summary -- where does the money come from? Tithing. Where does the money go? At least some of the money goes into the church's own for-profit businesses. Straight from the church's own mouth. Another TBM apologetic line bites the dust.

12. The full response from the Church's spokesperson:

Quote

“Mr. James Huntsman resigned his Church membership last year.  Now, he is demanding through his lawyers that tithing he paid to the Church as charitable contributions be returned to him.  He claims that, contrary to assurances made by past Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, the Church used tithing to build City Creek, a mixed use commercial development across the street from Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project.  As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 General Conference.  Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.

“Tithing funds are voluntary contributions by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an expression of their faith in God. They are used for a broad array of religious purposes, including missionary work, education, humanitarian causes and the construction of meetinghouses, temples and other buildings important to the work of the Church, as reflected in scripture and determined by Church leaders.”

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 23, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here we go again:

The above link (this one) takes you to the Complaint.  A few thoughts:

1. The Complaint is written "emotionally," which seems a bit out of place for a pleading filed in federal court.  Lots of conclusory and/or loaded words and phrases like "these profound words by the esteemed former leader of the Church," "For decades, in a fraudulent effort to elicit the donation of tithing funds," "the LDS Corporation secretly lined its own pockets," "brazenly and offensively," "make no mistake, the Church’s status as a religious organization does not give its corporate arm carte blanche to defraud the Church’s members," "{b}eginning in 2003 ... the LDS Corporation began its campaign of lies and deceit," and so on.  There is also quite a bit of underlining ("dishonestly and fraudulently placed its own commercial financial interests," "purely non-commercial purposes"), and italicized and bolded text ("this is not a case about faith; it is a case about fraud and corporate greed," "the LDS Corporation actually spent an estimated $1.5 Billion of money donated by the Church’s members to develop the City Creek Mall," "or so he thought," "build a commercial shopping mall and bail out a private insurance company," "doubled down," "tripled down," "for the fifth time").

2. The Complaint characterizes the "LDS Corporation" as "the corporate arm of the Church."  Here's an interesting table published by LDS Philanthropies:

A "corporation sole" is "a legal entity consisting of a single ('sole') incorporated office, occupied by a single ('sole') natural person."  Here is a brief summary of the two "corporations sole" listed above (in a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case) :

See also here:

Huh.  I guess I hadn't realized that the Church itself is "an unincorporated entity."

3. The suit includes a single claim for "fraud."  It appears to be based solely on the financing of the City Creek Mall.

4. I'm not sure the allegations in the complaint are sufficient.  In order to pursue a fraud claim in federal court, the plaintiff must explain the allegations with specificity or "particularity."  In California, “‘{t}he elements of fraud ... are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’”  The specific statements that are deemed fraudulent all pertain to the development of City Creek not using tithed funds.  However, the allegations are also that the Church "fraudulently concealed that they intended to use Plaintiff’s tithing funds for purely commercial purposes."  "Fraud" is making a false statement, "fraudulent concealment" is not disclosing (or concealing) something you have a duty to disclose.  The elements for a claim for fraudulent concealment are (1) failure to disclose or concealed a material fact with an intent to defraud the victim, (2) a duty to disclose, (3) the plaintiff is unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she knew of the fact, and (4) the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result. 

So the only cause of action here is a bit muddled, as I am not sure if it is for "fraud" or "fraudulent concealment."  Moreover, I'm not really seeing "particular" allegations as to the falsity of the Church's statements about City Creek.  The Church clearly said at the time that "{n}o tax dollars, nor tithes from the 12.5 million Mormons, will be used in construction."  The Church further explained in 2007:

So can Mr. Huntsman simply declare "I think tithes were used," and thereafter file suit?  That seems sort of unlikely.  A key allegation is in paragraph 23: "On information and belief, at the time Mr. McMullin’s statement was made, he had already issued checks from the LDS Corporation’s accumulation of tithing principal for use in connection with the City Creek Mall development and the Beneficial Life Insurance bailout." 

5. FAIR has a pretty good treatment of the City Creek topic here: City Creek Center Mall in Salt Lake City

6. Similarly, the Church has a pretty good 2018 FAQ regarding its finances: Church Finances and a Growing Global Faith

7. Our own Robert F. Smith has commented on this issue here:

As did I:

And here:

8. The Church apparently did not expect to see much in the way of profit from City Creek.  See here:

9. I think a review of D. Michael Quinn's book (and our discussion about it, both linked above) would be helpful for those interested in this topic.

10. I wonder if the federal judge assigned to this case will see it as a sort of "fishing expedition," as a pretext to try to use the power of the judiciary to get a look at the Church's finances.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I had no idea that a member of the Huntsman family is so vitriolic. Sad. 

[PacMan]

Huntsman is a disingenuous loser. On one hand, he says he was among the most devout members. Then he says he wouldn’t have contributed tithes if he had known the “true purpose.”  Well, if he was truly devout then he would have paid his tithing either way. There can be no reliance on the stated purpose of the funds if the giving was as a demonstration of faith.

This case should be dismissed. There is a complete lack of particularity. For example, what did statements in 2012 have to do with contributions given in 1993? Sorry - no causation, no case.

The only fraud here is the creatine, James Huntsman.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Huntsman is a disingenuous loser. On one hand, he says he was among the most devout members. Then he says he wouldn’t have contributed tithes if he had known the “true purpose.”  Well, if he was truly devout then he would have paid his tithing either way. There can be no reliance on the stated purpose of the funds if the giving was as a demonstration of faith.

This case should be dismissed. There is a complete lack of particularity. For example, what did statements in 2012 have to do with contributions given in 1993? Sorry - no causation, no case.

The only fraud here is the creatine, James Huntsman.

I think the case lacks merit, but let's avoid personally attacking Mr. Hunstman.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

See I told you we were in the lull before the storm.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

See I told you we were in the lull before the storm.

 

Do you really think this frivolous and vexatious lawsuit amounts to the onset of a storm?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

See I told you we were in the lull before the storm.

It's not exactly prophetic to anticipate lawsuits against the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Have not read your whole first post, so I apologize in advance if my question has been answered herein. Isn't use of charitable donations by the receiver or use of gifts by the receiver a none suit by the giver, as in once it leaves my hands as a gift to you (you being a 501(c 3), you are permitted to utilize as you see fit? 

Edited March 23, 2021 by provoman

[ksfisher]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I wonder if anyone filed suit against Joseph during the 7 fat years in Egypt.

Personally, I find it a blessing to pay tithing.  I can't set out any specific blessings I've received, other than the joy of knowing that a portion of my earnings is returned to the Lord to do His work.  10% seems like a small thing compared to what the Savior has done for me.  It's saddening to see someone who has so lost themselves in the proverbial mists of darkness.

Edited March 24, 2021 by ksfisher

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had no idea that a member of the Huntsman family is so vitriolic. Sad. 

I would hope that members of the Church would be somewhat circumspect about these sorts of stories.  The finances of a huge organization like the Church are always going to be complex.  Moreover, the leaders of the Church aren't stupid.  They repeatedly told us that tithes were not used.  Perhaps some caution and investigation would be in order rather than jumping to the conclusion that the Church went out of its way to hoodwink us.  The Golden Rule and all that.

If the leaders of the Church were living high off the hog, I could understand concerns and grievances about that.  But that isn't happening.  The GAs have a comfortable, but by no means extravagant or lavish, standard of living.  And many of them take a fairly significant financial hit when they accept the call.  And the call requires them to work until they are 70 (for Seventies), or else until they die (for apostles).  Rather than fault these men, I am grateful they are willing to spend their twilight years working very hard to manage and build up the Church.

If the Church was misappropriating sacred funds, I could understand concerns and grievances about that.  But that isn't happening either.  There are no mansions, no private jets, no "riotous living."  Instead, the Church maintains its facilities and educational institutions, and otherwise uses sacred funds to support the four-fold mission of the Church.

If the Church was being wasteful or foolish in its stewardship of sacred funds, I could understand concerns and grievances about that.  But that isn't happening either.  Instead, the Church is paying its bills, living within its means, and setting aside excess amounts for prudent investment and protection.  And it appears to be doing a really good job at that.  And that, somehow, is scandalous.

If the Church was being overly-frugal in its use of sacred funds, I could understand concerns and grievances about that.  The challenge here is that this is a subjective judgment call.  No matter how much "the Church" spends on humanitarian efforts, it will never be enough for self-appointed gainsayers.  Such folks can, and will, always simply move the goalposts, demand "more," and then continue to criticize us.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[PacMan]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the case lacks merit, but let's avoid personally attacking Mr. Hunstman.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, but that bridged was crossed when Jimmy Huntsman filed a frivolous lawsuit based on personal (and demonstrably dishonest) grounds.  There’s very little to attack but him, because his allegations are all about....him.

He’s a loser because his case is a loser. He’s disingenuous because, as I’ve noted, his self-characterization as devote is dishonest.

John Sr. would be rolling in his grave to think he’s financed this apostate son’s hit job.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Have not read your whole first post, so I apologize in advance if my question has been answered herein. Isn't use of charitable donations by the receiver or use of gifts by the receiver a none suit by the giver, as in once it leaves my hands as a gift to you, you are permitted to utilize as you see fit? 

Fraud is, legally speaking, a miracle solvent.  It can dissolve almost anything.  So I imagine that a person who was defrauded into making a charitable donation might be able to make a colorable claim for fraud, and as a remedy get the donation back.

I don't think this case is that, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, PacMan said:

Sorry, but that bridged was crossed when Jimmy Huntsman filed a frivolous lawsuit based on personal (and demonstrably dishonest) grounds.  There’s very little to attack but him, because his allegations are all about....him.

He’s a loser because his case is a loser. He’s disingenuous because, as I’ve noted, his self-characterization as devote is dishonest.

John Sr. would be rolling in his grave to think he’s financed this apostate son’s hit job.

I'm something of a hypocrite on this point, but I have tried to correct myself when I cross that bridge.  Consider these remarks by Pres. Oaks:

And these by Elder Renlund:

Quote

This past Sunday, I participated in a satellite broadcast for stakes in the North America Northwest and West Areas of the Church. One thing I felt impressed to share was a bit of advice from my wife, Ruth. She was a plaintiff’s attorney for 23 years. She was always working with others who strongly held different opinions than she. I was impressed by how two lawyers who were fierce adversaries in the courtroom could sit down calmly together and eat lunch. She said that she had learned early in her career to disagree without being disagreeable. She might say to opposing counsel something like, “I can see we are not going to agree on this issue. I like you. I respect your reasoned opinion. I hope you can offer me the same courtesy.” Most often, this allowed for mutual respect and friendship.

Our Church doctrine does not lend itself well to sound-bite debate and argument. But if we are allowed the opportunity to explain our belief in living prophets, the plan of salvation, and the ultimate destiny of all of Heavenly Father’s children, others will at least understand why we believe as we do, even if they disagree. After offering such an explanation and respectfully listening to another’s opposing viewpoint, it might be wise to say to someone who disagrees something like, “I can see we are not going to agree on this issue. I like you. I respect your reasoned opinion. I hope you can offer me the same courtesy.”

We may on occasion find ourselves in uncomfortable situations where we differ in doctrine with our acquaintances, friends, and family members. But the doctrine can never be used to justify treating others with anything less than respect and dignity. We can stand firm in our beliefs and have a loving relationship with those who hold differing opinions. It is never an either-or choice. We love and live our doctrine, and we love those who do not live it. We need not create false dichotomies. The late Elder Marvin J. Ashton shared this insight from an inspired leader: “The best and most clear indicator that we are progressing spiritually and coming unto Christ is the way we treat other people.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[PacMan]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm something of a hypocrite on this point, but I have tried to correct myself when I cross that bridge.  Consider these remarks by Pres. Oaks:

And these by Elder Renlund:

Thanks,

-Smac

Sadly, I was being civil....

After all, calling him “creatine” isn’t a personal attack. He probably works out. It’s not like I called him a “cretin” or something particularly rude. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by PacMan

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not exactly prophetic to anticipate lawsuits against the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Indeed it’s not. Vexatious lawsuits have been a weapon of choice against the Church and its leaders since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. 

[PacMan]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed it’s not. Vexatious lawsuits have been a weapon of choice against the Church and its leaders since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. 

And it’s time the church starts countersuing and/or moving for fees and costs. The American legal system encourages frivolous actions. If there’s a legitimate case against the church, so be it. The church has and will makes mistakes. And it should be libel for those costs. But in the face of frivolous filings, sanctions against a plaintiff and his attorneys are appropriate. 
 

I’m still waiting (hoping) for the church to sue the so-called whistleblower and his brother. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by PacMan
Typo

[Robert F. Smith]

45 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

See I told you we were in the lull before the storm.

What is so amazing about this frivolous lawsuit is that it is utterly meaningless.  It will go nowhere, and the judge will likely be very annoyed at this guy wasting his time.  Master James needs to be sent back outside to make mudpies.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, PacMan said:

But in the face of frivolous filings, sanctions against a plaintiff and his attorneys are appropriate. 

I recall reading a short story years ago about the legal system of a fictional society.  In this story, at the conclusion of a trial, the losing attorney was executed. 

[Analytics]

I do find this paragraph of the Church's response to be misleading:

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project.  As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 General Conference.  Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.

Every year, the size of the church's for-profit investment portfolio grows from two components: from new tithing money that is being saved for a future "rainy day," and from the profits of the commercial entities. On the rare occasions when the funds are tapped, such as when one of its insurance companies needs a bailout or when it needs to build a mall, how does it know it is the commercial profits that are being tapped and not the tithing money? Money is fungible--how does it know which specific dollars in its investment portfolio are from tithing and which are not?

My best guess is that at this point, about half of the church's annual income is from tithing, and half is profits from its for-profit businesses and investments. Further, my best guess is that the the church uses about 80% of its tithing income to run the church, and saves the remaining 20% in its reserve fund "for a rainy day." If those numbers are right, then of its total income (tithing + investments), 40% is used for religious purposes and 60% is used to purchase more stocks, bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests, and commercial and residential property.

If those numbers are in the right ballpark and less than half of its total income is used for charitable purposes and the rest is used to further grow the business empire, I can understand why a major donor would regret donating to this organization rather than to, say, the Huntsman Cancer Institute that only gets about 2% of its annual revenue from investment income, because it spends the vast majority of its income on its charitable purposes rather than growing its balance sheet.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Analytics

[Fair Dinkum]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is so amazing about this frivolous lawsuit is that it is utterly meaningless.  It will go nowhere, and the judge will likely be very annoyed at this guy wasting his time.  Master James needs to be sent back outside to make mudpies.

First off, Huntsman filed his lawsuit in a Federal California court which will probably be more sympathetic to his P.O.V.  If Huntsman wins it would be appealed to the very liberal and based in San Francisco 9th and not the 10th circuit. Second, based solely on the merits of the suite, doesn't Huntsman have some justification for his suit?  The church has not been very transparent with how it uses tithing funds since it stopped releasing that information back in the late 1950's other then to repeatedly state that tithing is used to to fund missionary program, temple, build chapels etc.  No where has the church ever stated that it would build a massive reserve fund and invest in for profit real estate and bail out its insurance affiliates.

However every tithing slip does have this disclosure: "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission.

Wouldn't it be fun to get an invitation to the Huntsman's Family Thanksgiving Dinner this year?

Edited March 23, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I do find this paragraph of the Church's response to be misleading:

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project.  As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 General Conference.  Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.

Every year, the size of the church's for-profit investment portfolio grows from two components: from new tithing money that is being saved for a future "rainy day," and from the profits of the commercial entities. On the rare occasions when the funds are tapped, such as when one of its insurance companies needs a bailout or when it needs to build a mall, how does it know it is the commercial profits that are being tapped and not the tithing money? Money is fungible--how does it know which specific dollars in its investment portfolio are from tithing and which are not?

My best guess is that at this point, about half of the church's annual income is from tithing, and half is profits from its for-profit businesses and investments. Further, my best guess is that the the church uses about 80% of its tithing income to run the church, and saves the remaining 20% in its reserve fund "for a rainy day." If those numbers are right, then of its total income (tithing + investments), 40% is used for religious purposes and 60% is used to purchase more stocks, bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests, and commercial and residential property.

If those numbers are in the right ballpark and less than half of its total income is used for charitable purposes and the rest is used to further grow the business empire, I can understand why a major donor would regret donating to this organization rather than to, say, the Huntsman Cancer that only gets about 2% of its annual revenue from investment income, because it spends the vast majority of its income on its charitable purposes rather than growing its balance sheet.

 

Agree!!

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

First off, Huntsman filed his lawsuit in a California court which will probably be more sympathetic to his P.O.V.  Second, based solely on the merits of the suite, doesn't Huntsman have some justification for his suit?  The church has not been very transparent with how it uses tithing funds since it stopped releasing that information back in the late 1950's other then to repeatedly state that tithing is used to to fund the

oh but Pres. Hinckley said the members do know...not.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I do find this paragraph of the Church's response to be misleading:

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project.  As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 General Conference.  Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.

Every year, the size of the church's for-profit investment portfolio grows from two components: from new tithing money that is being saved for a future "rainy day," and from the profits of the commercial entities. On the rare occasions when the funds are tapped, such as when one of its insurance companies needs a bailout or when it needs to build a mall, how does it know it is the commercial profits that are being tapped and not the tithing money? Money is fungible--how does it know which specific dollars in its investment portfolio are from tithing and which are not?

Wouldn't that be a matter of accounting?

And what is it about this statement that you find "misleading?"

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My best guess is that at this point, about half of the church's annual income is from tithing, and half is profits from its for-profit businesses and investments. Further, my best guess is that the the church uses about 80% of its tithing income to run the church, and saves the remaining 20% in its reserve fund "for a rainy day." If those numbers are right, then of its total income (tithing + investments), 40% is used for religious purposes and 60% is used to purchase more stocks, bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests, and commercial and residential property.

Have you read D. Michael Quinn's book regarding the Church's finances?

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If those numbers are in the right ballpark and less than half of its total income is used for charitable purposes and the rest is used to further grow the business empire, I can understand why a major donor would regret donating to this organization rather than to, say, the Huntsman Cancer Institute that only gets about 2% of its annual revenue from investment income, because it spends the vast majority of its income on its charitable purposes rather than growing its balance sheet.

People "regret" all sorts of things.  The issue here is a federal lawsuit for fraud (or fraudulent nondisclosure - it's hard to tell based on the complaint).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wouldn't that be a matter of accounting?

You throw that out there as if it were a simple matter.  It is not.

[HappyJackWagon]

I can't imagine this case will go anywhere but it does bring up some interesting questions. I think most people pay tithing with the expectation that the funds will be used to build up the church in religious ways; Temples, chapels, missions etc. Most people don't expect their donation to be placed into investments for highrise housing in Philadelphia or malls or cattle farms etc. IMO the church can do whatever it wants to with donated monies but that doesn't change the fact that the use of funds may not meet the donor's expectations. That's a PR issue and I think the church is responsible for creating those expectations. How many lessons have we heard about tithing and its uses? Rarely, if ever is it taught that donations will go into a massive investment structure and that the church will function primarily on the annual returns from those investments. I wish I could finance my life that way but I don't think most people expect the church to function that way.

The issue of the Corporation Sole is interesting. Legally there is no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church is essentially a trademark with legal entities surrounding it controlled by 1 person.