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

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

...........................

Whether Churches are in fact taxed has a lot of bearing on whether they may be taxed.

Churches don't cease being churches if they endorse political candidates. Rather, they are simply taxed according to the Constitutional rules of the tax code. Likewise, churches don't cease to be churches if they generate taxable income. These examples prove that churches can be and in fact are taxed.

Churches can only be taxed when they are not churches.  You might want to work out the syllogism.

Churches in fact cease to be churches when they cease to function as such.  That is why churches may have profit-earning subsidiary businesses, which are in fact taxed.  The profit-making subsidiearies are not churches.  Tax lawyers advise on the niceties, which do not include by-gosh-and-by-golly reasoning.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well given that case the phrase is still being over applied.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If no law respecting establishing a formal religion is what they actually meant, then applying it as "no laws respecting Churches" would be a big overstatement.

The Founding Fathers were disestablishmentarians.   😎

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It has bothered me that many of the leaders have many books in the book store. I remember going online at DB store and seeing many per leader, or the select few I looked up. But maybe I'm causing cross hairs here.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a lot of LDS members like to read advice from the Brethren.  Some of their books have become classics.  There is a definite market for it.  Why does that bother you?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Founding Fathers were disestablishmentarians.   😎

But only on the federal level. Some of the founders opposed them on the state level but it wasn’t until the early 19th century that state funds going to support churches ended for the last states. The last great church/state controversy was Utah where statehood was held back out of fear that the church would be the government.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Founding Fathers were disestablishmentarians.   😎

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But only on the federal level. Some of the founders opposed them on the state level but it wasn’t until the early 19th century that state funds going to support churches ended for the last states. The last great church/state controversy was Utah where statehood was held back out of fear that the church would be the government.

Yes, it is instructive to note the ever so slow application of the Constitution to American life.  It took so long to remove legal slavery of Black people, and another century to remove illegal slavery.  Yet we are still afflicted by massive human trafficking.

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Churches can only be taxed when they are not churches.  You might want to work out the syllogism.

Churches in fact cease to be churches when they cease to function as such.  That is why churches may have profit-earning subsidiary businesses, which are in fact taxed.  The profit-making subsidiearies are not churches.  Tax lawyers advise on the niceties, which do not include by-gosh-and-by-golly reasoning.

That clarifies where you are coming from. It is a good thing we have the IRS and tax attorneys to tell us what aspects of churches are really churches and when! 

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, webbles said:

I agree the report is excellent, I just don't see it as "transparent".  I can't use that report to figure out if the Billy Graham Evangelical Association is using their funds "wisely".

And, you are correct about the numbers.  I misread the report.

Big organizations are usually complicated and even the Board of Directors can struggle to understand what’s really going on.  

I’m just using that report as an example of what transparency, as I use the word, looks like.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Big organizations are usually complicated and even the Board of Directors can struggle to understand what’s really going on.  

I’m just using that report as an example of what transparency, as I use the word, looks like.

I just don't see the point of that transparency.  Take the fraud allegation that James Huntsman filed.  He is alleging that tithing money was used for commercial purposes (specifically, the City Creek mall and the Beneficial Life Insurance).  I don't see how a report like the one from Billy Graham Evangelistic Association would help James Huntsman.  Everything he is alleging would probably just show up under the "Investment return" line on page 4.

If the church released a report like that, how would that help James Huntsman?  How would it help others?

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Ahab said:

That doesn't matter.  All Church money and property belongs to all of the members, whether active or inactive or less active than some others as members.  And we even share it with others who are not members.  Generous, we are.  Truly, truly.

I like you Ahab.😀

[Teancum]

On 3/26/2021 at 1:03 PM, teddyaware said:

As a matter of fact, I can absolutely guarantee to you that the day will come when the complainers will reverse course and start railing against the Church leaders for not preparing enough (!) when they knew darn well that persecutions, droughts, famines, pestilences, pandemics, natural disasters and armed conflicts galore were coming. I can hear it now, “What kind of prophets are these people to leave us in such a mess that all we have left to do is curse God and die?! What more proof do we need to know for certain that they are not real prophets of God?!”

No you cannot "absolutely guarantee to you that the day will come when the complainers will reverse course..."  Your beliefs are dimply faith based and some metaphysical experience that what you believe is true. THAT IS IT.  That is fine and well and feel free to live your live accordingly but you cannot guarantee diddly squat and it is the ultimate hubris and arrogance to think you can.  Of course that is epidemic in the very religious and the LDS people possess that bad attribute is excess.

[Teancum]

On 3/26/2021 at 1:05 PM, smac97 said:

Do you see a difference between a large sum of money held by, say, Jeff Bezos and a separate sum of money held in trust by, say Russell M. Nelson?  If so, what differences do you see?

Do you see a difference between the revenues of Apple and the revenues of the Church?  If so, what differences do you see?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure I see a difference in both. For the first it is one man who has amassed a fortune and in the case of Apple a for profit corp. In my mind it is less justifiable for Bezos than Apple. I like what Bill Gates is doing with his money. For Apple they may need the $$ to grow their business. It is mot likely that they will let is just sit idle.  Businesses just don't do that. I think the LDS Church could follow with their 100 plus billion.  Put it to work but let it grow as well. I really have no problem with a reasonable reserve for the LDS Church. We live in a modern worlds where money is important and the Church is a large entity that needs cash to take care of what it does. I guess we an debate all day long about how much should be kept in reserve.  Personally I think for a Church whose major source of operating income is donations they should have a healthy reserve. $20-$30 billion in liquid assets would seem more than sufficient assuming annual operating costs are around $6 billion. 

[Teancum]

On 3/26/2021 at 1:13 PM, ttribe said:

And true believers in Scientology feel the same way.

And true believers in the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh feel the same way.

And true believers in Joel Osteen feel the same way.

What makes your belief any more valid?

Well see his true believing beliefs, are the one and only true believing beliefs. The others are simply sub par or downright deluded. 😆

[webbles]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure I see a difference in both. For the first it is one man who has amassed a fortune and in the case of Apple a for profit corp. In my mind it is less justifiable for Bezos than Apple. I like what Bill Gates is doing with his money. For Apple they may need the $$ to grow their business. It is mot likely that they will let is just sit idle.  Businesses just don't do that. I think the LDS Church could follow with their 100 plus billion.  Put it to work but let it grow as well. I really have no problem with a reasonable reserve for the LDS Church. We live in a modern worlds where money is important and the Church is a large entity that needs cash to take care of what it does. I guess we an debate all day long about how much should be kept in reserve.  Personally I think for a Church whose major source of operating income is donations they should have a healthy reserve. $20-$30 billion in liquid assets would seem more than sufficient assuming annual operating costs are around $6 billion. 

For the first bold, isn't that what the church is doing?  It is investing the 100 billion which is putting it to work so that it can grow.

[Stargazer]

On 3/23/2021 at 10:02 PM, Analytics said:

I'd guess that about 45% of its income, including both tithing income and investment income/profit, goes towards its actual non-profit work.

You do a lot of guessing for an analytical person.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well see his true believing beliefs, are the one and only true believing beliefs. The others are simply sub par or downright deluded. 😆

Hardly a gotcha. Anybody who believes anything which anybody else disagrees with must therefore maintain that belief on the assertion that the other person is not rightly perceiving reality, somehow. 

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

That would be a True Believer in the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. Those other folks donate to their church is not my church. You donate to the one you believe in valid or not.

See ttribe... I was right!

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

For the first bold, isn't that what the church is doing?  It is investing the 100 billion which is putting it to work so that it can grow.

No.  You are incorrect. The church is not investing squat of their stock pile of wealth in any work to help human kind. NOT ONE CENT. But some for the mall and an insurance company.

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Hardly a gotcha. Anybody who believes anything which anybody else disagrees with must therefore maintain that belief on the assertion that the other person is not rightly perceiving reality, somehow. 

Well sure, When you base your belief in faith and some esoteric "revelation."  But otherwise not so much.

[OGHoosier]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well sure, When you base your belief in faith and some esoteric "revelation."  But otherwise not so much.

Hardly. Let's take politics. (THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE, NOT A PIECE OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY, O MIGHTY NEMESIS) Let's say that Person A believes that raising the minimum wage would result in a net improvement in working-class well-being. Person B believes that it will not. These are mutually contradictory views - raising the minimum wage cannot make a net improvement and not make a net improvement at the same time per the law of non-contradiction. This means that either Person A or B must be wrong, and therefore they are perceiving the world incorrectly. However, neither Person A or Person B can believe that they themselves are wrong about the minimum wage, or else they would not hold their current beliefs regarding the minimum wage! Therefore, they must believe that the other person is wrong, which entails believing that the other person is perceiving reality incorrectly. Perhaps they don't have enough information, or perhaps their information is bad, or perhaps they are interpreting it badly, but either way, they must be making a mistake and viewing the world in a way that is disconnected from reality. All of this without invoking "faith" or "esoteric revelation". 

Or, let's try philosophy. Let's say philosophy of mind because I'm fairly well acquainted with it, even though this same problem can recur in any school of philosophy or, in fact, any field of inquiry at all. Let's say Person C is an eliminative materialist. Person D is a substance dualist. These are mutually contradictory positions. They cannot both be right. Therefore, at least one of them must be wrong, if not both. However, the same problem from my first paragraph recurs. Neither Person C or Person D can believe that they themselves are incorrect, or they would not hold their beliefs in the first place. So they must believe that the other person is wrong and not perceiving the world rightly. This same problem occurs whenever disagreement exists. If you honestly believe something to be true, and somebody else disagrees with you to the point of contradiction, then they have to be perceiving the world incorrectly. Basic epistemology of disagreement. 

Learning philosophy really helped me understand why the "thousands of religions" argument doesn't work. If you disagree with me, then by all means, but bear in mind that your very disagreement means that you believe I perceive the world incorrectly, which means you commit the same sin you accuse me of. Faith and esoteric revelation have nothing to do with this basic principle. 

Quote

No.  You are incorrect. The church is not investing squat of their stock pile of wealth in any work to help human kind. NOT ONE CENT. But some for the mall and an insurance company.

Perhaps from your perspective. I believe that you are perceiving the world incorrectly and therefore do not view your opinion as forceful. 

Also, for what it's worth, making sure an insurance company doesn't go under actually is helping people. Let alone, you know the $200 million the Church has donated this year. Perhaps that doesn't satisfy your exalted, authoritative demands for the Church, but when I last checked, that's about 20 billion cents, so your insult is baseless regardless. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by OGHoosier

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Also, for what it's worth, making sure an insurance company doesn't go under actually is helping people. Let alone, you know the $200 million the Church has donated this year. Perhaps that doesn't satisfy your exalted, authoritative demands for the Church, but when I last checked, that's about 20 billion cents, so your insult is baseless regardless. 

You know, the Church didn’t do anything financially that the Unitarian Church or the NAACP or the NOW or Planned Parenthood or Habitat for Humanity or the American Red Cross or any one of a hundred universities couldn’t also have done.  The difference is, the Church leadership allocated its resources in a more disciplined way; and now the Church gets more per annum from its investment income (and spends more in its bona fide charitable operations) than nearly all of those other entities.   All this sound and fury is basically The Little Red Hen writ very, very large.  The Church has perfectly valid reasons to continue to grow that nest egg:  a) its theology happens to teach that times of extreme chaos and scarcity lie ahead, b) its enemies have historically proven able to bleed it profusely, and c) similar institutions (think BSA) are currently facing billions of dollars of liability.

I get that many people, including some participants in this discussion, would have gotten their kicks and giggles over the City Creek project stalling during the 2008 crash when there was a giant hole across the street from Temple Square.  But the simple fact is that keeping the City Creek project going benefitted several hundred (thousand?) construction workers, as well as thousands of workers in the supply chain; who otherwise would have been unemployed and looking to taxpayer funds for relief either through corporate TARP bailouts or direct welfare payments.  Most secularists and progressives had no problem with the government using involuntarily-extracted taxpayer funds to keep favored companies afloat and their workers on the job at that point in time.  But let the Church accomplish the same thing with some strategic loans of the investment proceeds of carefully-husbanded, voluntarily-donated tithepayer funds; and suddenly all Hades breaks loose.

Where was Jimmy-boy Huntsman in 2008-2009 when people were losing their jobs and their life-savings and Huntsman Chemical laid off eleven hundred people? Sitting on his miserable padded keester surrounded by his daddy’s billions and trading on the family name to play-act as a Hollywood bigwig, that’s where—while Tom Monson, living on a roughly $150K stipend, saved thousands of jobs and supervised the distribution of thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars in food and humanitarian relief, to boot.

Like I said upthread:  these critics want people to suffer and have their lives absolutely ruined so that the critics’ spite for the Church can be indulged.  

It’s evil.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by mgy401

[rodheadlee]

22 hours ago, ttribe said:

One, I don't know what you mean by "you guys." Am I on some team I'm not aware of? Two, I've never donated tens of thousands of dollars to those organizations, so they're not my concern right now. I did, however, donate tens of thousands of dollars to the Church. 

Ok I'll rephrase. Do you put the same scrutiny to other charities that you donate to?  Do you expect to have a say where the money goes? Do you expect a refund if you don't like the way they spend it? If you give gifts of tens of thousands to your wife over the years and she then cheats on you, you then get a divorce, do you expect a refund?

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

No.  You are incorrect. The church is not investing squat of their stock pile of wealth in any work to help human kind. NOT ONE CENT. But some for the mall and an insurance company.

That makes no sense.  Are you seriously suggesting that the church has a massive money bin somewhere where they have all that money stock piled?  That would be a serious breach of trust if they did.  The money would loose value just by inflation alone.

[OGHoosier]

5 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Sitting on his miserable padded keester surrounded by his daddy’s billions and trading on the family name to play-act as a Hollywood bigwig, that’s where—while Tom Monson, living on a roughly $150K stipend, saved thousands of jobs and supervised the distribution of thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars in food and humanitarian relief, to boot.

Reading this sentence was a cathartic experience. 

I agree that Huntsman's moral authority is nonexistent. 

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

That makes no sense.  Are you seriously suggesting that the church has a massive money bin somewhere where they have all that money stock piled?  That would be a serious breach of trust if they did.  The money would loose value just by inflation alone.

It in stocks, bonds and do forth.  The record is clear. Ensign Peak has not spent any of its massive wealth on humanitarian efforts. It is just growing and growing. They did however move money to an insurance company and the SLC downtown mall.