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

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Okay.  What is it about making money from writing a book that bothers you?

See my edited post, for instance Pres. Monson has 30 published books. Don't they have an advantage over others in a way.

What sort of advantage do you have in mind?  And how is that advantage morally/ethically problematic?

Josh Groban and David Archuleta have advantages over me.  Nobody has ever thought of paying me to sing.  And even if I threw my hat into the Free Market and released a CD, I doubt anyone would buy it in numbers approaching Josh's or David's.  Again, they have an advantage.  But is it one that is morally or ethically problematic?  Not that I can see.

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Having DB publish them and members that buy them. Or maybe I'm wrong. Or take a look at the book prices as well. 

Are members of the Church required or otherwise compelled to buy Pres. Monson's books?  It seems not, as I've never bought one. 

In the absence of such compulsion, what's the problem?

What if members of the Church appreciate these books?  What if they want to buy them?  How is that morally or ethically problematic? 

There are many many dozens of General Conference talks by Pres. Monson that are free to the public.  How is it a problem for him to have formulated additional thoughts and published them in book form?

Are you concerned, as ttribe suggested, with these books being "priestcraft?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

My experience at the bookstore is only the good writers/speakers sell their books enough to make money off of them (and a number of books profits were donated to something, so best not to assume every book is revenue for the author).  So while their calling may help a great deal to get attention for their books, it isn’t enough.  Their skill adds tremendous value like most other authors.
 

Also the shelf life of books is pretty low, rarely does popularity extend more than a year or two and sometimes only a season.

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Seriously, it wasn't about being a "white knight."  It was about short cutting a derail...which I'm now making worse....

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I do not think most are really opposed to transparency, they just feel the need to defend any perceived criticism of the Church.

There's a difference between 1) not being opposed to transparency and 2) being opposed to the church not being transparent.  

I think many members are nuanced in their feelings on the issue and fall into category 1 while rejecting category 2.  Those kinds of nuances are not as easy for critics to deal with though so they reduce the argument to an absurdity to make it easier to to find fault with it.  

[Thinking]

Perhaps the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip will protect the church.

"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."

It wasn't always there. Does anybody know when it was added to the slip?

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

$100 Billion plus all the other assets is filthy rich. The wealthiest people in the world are in this range.  The Church has about as much in easily liquid assets as Apple. So yea. RICH.

The Church is a conglomerate of about 18 million people today, I think, and that works out to about $5,555 per person.  I know some of us have some cars and some boats and some houses and other stuff, but rich? 

Neh.  Not until we have about $1 million per person will I consider us to be rich.. regarding finances.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Ahab

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Us True Believers consider that a good thing so I don't see the problem.

Yes I am sure. True believers follow their leaders even to their deaths at times.  Thank you for confirming that my liberation from being a true believer is a wonderful thing.  This forum constantly confirms this for me when I wonder if I made a mistake.  

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The Church is a conglomerate of about 18 million people today, I think, and that works out to about $5,555 per person.  I know some of us have some cars and some boats and some houses and other stuff, but rich? 

Neh.  Not until we have about $1 million per person will I consider us to be rich.. regarding finances.

Umm no not 18 Million .about 35% of that are actual believers.

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip will protect the church.

"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."

It wasn't always there. Does anybody know when it was added to the slip?

Slip?!?  You use a slip?!?  We don't need no stinkin' slips!!  And yes when you donate your money it is no longer your money to do anything with!!

Ah, but then again, we are the Church, so when we give to the Church we are giving to all of us who our members, including ourselves.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Ahab

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Umm no not 18 Million .about 35% of that are actual believers.

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How are these books examples of the Church General Authorities practicing priestcraft (what definition are you using)?

Priestcraft is “preaching false doctrines (consumed by those who love “the vain things of the world”) …for the sake of riches and honor.” (Alma 1: 16).

In the LDS church priestcraft is about much more than preaching false doctrines. It is generally considered to be priestcraft if a person profits from selling the gospel. There are many people who write religious books, but it does tend to go a step farther when individuals who hold official office in the church benefit from that notoriety in the sale of their wares.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism...

Quote

Author: Tate, Charles D., Jr.

The Book of Mormon says, "Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion…. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish" (2 Ne. 26:29, 31). Inherent in this definition is the concern that Church leaders must labor to build Zion into the hearts of the people, and not for their personal aggrandizement or reward. When leaders "make merchandise" of men's souls (2 Pet. 2:3), they turn religion into a business, and pride, materialism, and unrighteous dominion follow.

Both in scripture and in literature priestcraft is condemned. Peter cursed Simon the sorcerer, who wanted to purchase the priesthood for money (Acts 8:14-24). Dante's Peter castigates several popes and priests for not serving freely and for making a sewer of the sepulcher of Peter by selling priesthood appointment (Paradiso 27:22-57). Chaucer observed that greed for personal gain and glory often replaced genuine priesthood service ("General Prologue" and "Introduction to the Pardoner's Tale," Canterbury Tales ). Milton's lines from Lycidas condemning a clergy who "for their bellies' sake, / Creep and intrude, and climb into the fold" (ll. 114-15) sum up the evil of priestcraft: "The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed, / But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw, / Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread" (ll. 125-27).

For example, if a prophet, seer and revelator gives a talk in general conference in his official capacity and then repackages the talk and sells it for money (which is essentially what a lot of these books are), that could rightly (IMO) be considered priestcraft. The statement above uses a semi-colon and then state "but they seek not the welfare of Zion". To me, that adds confusion because whether or not something is priestcraft depends on the intent of the individual. Are they doing it to make money or are they doing it for the welfare of Zion and money just happens to be a biproduct? On the other hand, if the individual were to donate all earnings from these books back to the church I don't think that could be considered priestcraft UNLESS the person is publishing books to become popular. Paul H Dunn comes to mind as someone who might face that criticism, but there are certainly others.

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

My experience at the bookstore is only the good writers/speakers sell their books enough to make money off of them (and a number of books profits were donated to something, so best not to assume every book is revenue for the author).  So while their calling may help a great deal to get attention for their books, it isn’t enough.  Their skill adds tremendous value like most other authors.
 

Also the shelf life of books is pretty low, rarely does popularity extend more than a year or two and sometimes only a season.

You make a good point about the proceeds being donated but regarding the talent of the ecclesiastical leader being the reason for the success of the book I can't agree. The prophet is going to sell books whether or not he is a good writer. And I know authors who have ghost-written books for general authorities so the talent of the GA doesn't really play into it very much.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In the LDS church priestcraft is about much more than preaching false doctrines. It is generally considered to be priestcraft if a person profits from selling the gospel. There are many people who write religious books, but it does tend to go a step farther when individuals who hold official office in the church benefit from that notoriety in the sale of their wares.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism...

For example, if a prophet, seer and revelator gives a talk in general conference in his official capacity and then repackages the talk and sells it for money (which is essentially what a lot of these books are), that could rightly (IMO) be considered priestcraft. The statement above uses a semi-colon and then state "but they seek not the welfare of Zion". To me, that adds confusion because whether or not something is priestcraft depends on the intent of the individual. Are they doing it to make money or are they doing it for the welfare of Zion and money just happens to be a biproduct? On the other hand, if the individual were to donate all earnings from these books back to the church I don't think that could be considered priestcraft UNLESS the person is publishing books to become popular. Paul H Dunn comes to mind as someone who might face that criticism, but there are certainly others.

The main problem with priestcraft is people selling themselves as the light others should follow, rather than pointing to Jesus Christ as the light we all should follow.  And some people who preach about Jesus Christ are not preaching the truth about him, preaching instead a lot of false information about him which those preachers think is true, but isn't.  Doing that for any reason is not a good thing to do, whether that preaching brings in some money or not.  So it's not only about intent but about what people are preaching about.

[Tacenda]

Saw this in my email today from Church News. I say keep it going and for those that I've read that say how it can be difficult in some ways for the church to help these countries, I wonder how they were able to do as shown in the link. I say more of this, and thank you church!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/english/charities/pdf/2020/PD60011995-LDSC-Annual-Report-2020-desktop-eng.pdf?lang=eng

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You make a good point about the proceeds being donated but regarding the talent of the ecclesiastical leader being the reason for the success of the book I can't agree. The prophet is going to sell books whether or not he is a good writer. And I know authors who have ghost-written books for general authorities so the talent of the GA doesn't really play into it very much.

I consider ghostwriters authors rather than the claimed one, but you have a point since those types of authors are not likely to be getting the royalties  

The prophet is an exception Imo and will sell books no matter what (and they may keep repackaging the popular talks), but the book’s quality and content matters in my experience to push the book into massive bestseller, editor and presentation choices included. The LDS market isn’t that big and there were books from the prophet that were limited sellers compared to others that we would sell hundreds.  Some of the most popular during my time were small quote books which were perfect Christmas presents...I consider those as more gift books than spiritually educational...though daily affirmations and such things have their own value.  
 

I suspect DB is very good at knowing how to package books to sell, so it may depend on how willing the GA author is to go along with the editor, etc. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Calm

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect DB is very good at knowing how to package books to sell, so it may depend on how willing the GA author is to go along with the editor, etc. 

Yes, and the books Deseret Books or any other publisher sells brings in money for the publisher and publishing company as well as money for the person(s) providing the source material.

So it's basically providing an income to others, like any employer does when paying people to do a job.  One of the best things about being an employer, in my perspective.  Doing something to provide an income for others.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Not particularly responsive to the question.

It was a pretty broad question. There are all sorts of differences between the two--one is based in Utah and the other in California, one is a C-corp and the other is a corporate sole, etc.

Quote

Do you see a difference between Apple "investors" and tithe-paying members of the Church?

Other than Apple having a lot of institutional investors (including the Church), I don't see much of a difference. I suppose people who invest in Apple aren't broke while many tithe-paying members are broke, so in that sense it is a different demographic. Other than those two things, there isn't much of a difference between the two groups.

Quote

Do you see a difference between purchasing Apple stock and charitable donations to a religious institution?

Yes. Investments and donations are intrinsically different.

Quote

Your income is also a "closely guarded secret."  So what?

Apple is a public corporation. The church is a public charity. Both should be transparent to the public. That is why my analogy is valid. In contrast, I am a private individual. That is why comparing me to either of them is not a valid analogy.

Quote

[I had said, "All of this is kept secret from the general membership of the Church so that they cannot make informed decisions about whether donating to the Church is a wise use of charitable dollars."]

You know this . . . how (the bolded part)?

Please see the following link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+make+informed+donation+decisions

Clearly, you cannot make an informed decision to give to an organization that keeps its financial details secret from you.

Note that step #1 of making an informed decision is, according to the Forbes article that comes up first in the google search above, to "strategically ensure your dollars have the greatest impact possible." That seems very relevant to Huntsman's lawsuit. We can be sure that James Huntsman and his family spent a lot of time discussing how they could make the greatest impact possible with their philanthropic dollars. And quite naively, Huntsman assumed the money he donated to the Church would have a real impact of helping the Church with its publicly-stated mission by helping in build chapels and temples, fund the missionary program, fund genealogy, etc. That is why when he figured out that about 50% of the Church's annual income is going to an already-bloated "rainy day fund" that has absolutely no strategic purpose, he felt the money he was donating to the Church had absolutely no impact at all. He felt the Church had misled him, and he wanted to money back to redirect it to organizations that actually need it. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Analytics

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Slip?!?  You use a slip?!?  We don't need no stinkin' slips!!  And yes when you donate your money it is no longer your money to do anything with!!

Ah, but then again, we are the Church, so when we give to the Church we are giving to all of us who our members, including ourselves.

It's on the bottom of the virtual slip also.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's on the bottom of the virtual slip also.

A virtual slip.  Interesting.  It's been a while since I have donated online because my wife usually takes care of that for us.  Even though I am the professional accountant in our family.

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It was a pretty broad question. There are all sorts of differences between the two--one is based in Utah and the other in California, one is a C-corp and the other is a corporate sole, etc.

Other than Apple having a lot of institutional investors (including the Church), I don't see much of a difference. I suppose people who invest in Apple aren't broke while many tithe-paying members are broke, so in that sense it is a different demographic. Other than those two things, there isn't much of a difference between the two groups.

Yes. Investments and donations are intrinsically different.

Apple is a public corporation. The church is a public charity. Both should be transparent to the public. That is why my analogy is valid. In contrast, I am a private individual. That is why comparing me to either of them is not a valid analogy.

Please see the following link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+make+informed+donation+decisions

Clearly, you cannot make an informed decision to give to an organization that keeps its financial details secret from you.

Note that step #1 of making an informed decision is, according to the Forbes article that comes up first in the google search above, to "strategically ensure your dollars have the greatest impact possible." That seems very relevant to Huntsman's lawsuit. We can be sure that James Huntsman and his family spent a lot of time discussing how they could make the greatest impact possible with their philanthropic dollars. And quite naively, Huntsman assumed the money he donated to the Church would have a real impact of helping the Church with its publicly-stated mission by helping in build chapels and temples, fund the missionary program, fund genealogy, etc. That is why when he figured out that about 50% of the Church's annual income is going to an already-bloated "rainy day fund" that has absolutely no strategic purpose, he felt the money he was donating to the Church had absolutely no impact at all. He felt the Church had misled him, and he wanted to money back to redirect it to organizations that actually need it. 

The church is not like any other earthly organization it is a religion directed by God and prophets who are led by God. Either you trust their prophetic abilities to know what will be needed for the Church in the future(strategic purpose) or you do not. If you do then there is no reason to question how the donations you give will be spent. I am quite certain the church leaders are very careful with how the donations are handled, because they do not want to offend God in any way.
Huntsman is no longer a believer so of course he is going to think of the church as any other organization that requires full disclosure of what they do so he can decide whether he would want to donate to it or not.

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Relax, I'm not making the assertion.  I'm impatiently trying to shortcut smac's interrogation of Tacenda where he plays gotcha games when it's clear she is uncomfortable with General Authorities receiving an income stream on books based solely on their status as General Authorities.  So, yes, I'm referring to a stripped down version of the definition.

OK I'll relax (I find the scriptures very relaxing) while you impatientize! 😁!

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK I'll relax (I find the scriptures very relaxing) while you impatientize! 😁!

I have a special level of skill in being impatient.  I have issues.

[CV75]

Well lookie here what I just got in my e-mail: https://www.latterdaysaintcharities.org/annual-reports/2020?lang=eng

I wasn't looking for transparency and this is a lot more information than I would expect for my donations, but it's nice to see. 

But it prompted me to check it out on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Philanthropies where I found this snippet:

"Transparency and accreditation

"The LDS Church, and its affiliated entities, do not publish a complete financial report on the amount of funds received or their use. Addressing this topic in 2018, the church's presiding bishop, Gérald Caussé, published a Q&A, stating that "The Church is not a financial institution or a commercial corporation [and] chooses not to publish the details of its finances...".[9] However, certain entities do publish limited details. For instance, BYU-Idaho stated it received 6.3 million dollars in donations in 2018,[10] of which, 69% went to need-based aid for individual students, administered through a university grant.

"Due to these transparency practices, Latter-day Saint Charities does not meet requirements for evaluation by established charity-rating organizations, such as the BBB Wise Giving Alliance or Charity Navigator."

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Relax, I'm not making the assertion.  I'm impatiently trying to shortcut smac's interrogation of Tacenda where he plays gotcha games when it's clear she is uncomfortable with General Authorities receiving an income stream on books based solely on their status as General Authorities.  So, yes, I'm referring to a stripped down version of the definition.

Do we know this is true?  Sincere question.

As an aside-I'm going to separate GAs and apostles and prophets, even though they may sometimes all go by that designation.  I don't know any GA's the receive revenue from books sold solely because they are GAs, most members don't even know who the GA's are by name.  Usually, if a GA is selling books it's because they were successful at it before they were a GA.  Like Brad Wilcox who was a successful writer long before he was a GA.  I think the question really only applies to apostles and prophets, who members know and who would have been unlikely to have become a best selling author without their calling bringing them to people's attention.