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

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

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.

It was an offhand reference to a perception rather than a statement to be evaluated by a trier-of-fact.

[CV75]

2 hours 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 2 Nephi 26: 29 reference from the article you quoted says the same thing as Alma 1: 16 that I quoted (priestcraft involves "the sake of riches and honor."), it just has a bit of exposition. Men who do this are called out and disciplined as in the case you mentioned (have you other examples?). Are you worried that our General Authorities are getting away with it? Through tithing, general authorities who profit from the sale of their religious books are laboring for Zion, presumably in the same way you are when you tithe on whatever financially profitable labor you perform, however abundant (or not) that may be.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It was an offhand reference to a perception rather than a statement to be evaluated by a trier-of-fact.

Ah, you mean that since you see the names of General Authorities on books for sale and people buy them, apparently people are buying those books because it appears that Generally Authorities wrote them.

I've wondered about that before.  I wonder if book publishers approach them and ask them if they can print what they have said in the past, as a way to make something to sell.   No good reason any GA should say no to that.  

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

The "Latter-day Saint Charities" has been publishing annual reports online since at least 2013.  You can see all of them at https://www.latterdaysaintcharities.org/annual-reports?lang=eng.  They probably published reports before then as well but I can't easily find them online.

[webbles]

On 3/25/2021 at 8:57 AM, Analytics said:

The Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability (ECFA) has thousands of accredited member organizations which all comply with this. You can look up the members here: ECFA. These churches all agree to the following:

"Every organization shall provide a copy of its current financial statements upon written request and shall provide other disclosures as the law may require. The financial statements required to comply with Standard 3 must be disclosed under this standard.

An organization must provide a report, upon written request, including financial information on any specific project for which it sought or is seeking gifts."

They also explain why they require this of themselves. A pertinent reason is the following: "Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal."

See here: ECFA Standard 5 - Transparency

For example, here is a link to the consolidated financial statements of the  Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Microsoft Word - {F6B9E0B0-36F5-4859-8333-7186912CC09D} (billygraham.org)

Thanks.  I read over that and I'm not exactly sure that fits what I understood Teancum to say.  The expenses are categorized in 12 categories and they feel a little vague, though it could be because I'm not a major follower of Billy Graham.

But, I did notice that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is "hoarding" their money far more than the LDS church is.  Their investments for 2019 are $364,803,081 and their expenses for 2019 are $78,877,721.  But if you subtract the "Deferred giving program" from both, then you have investments of $267,762,452 and expenses of $9,191,060.  Their investments are 29x their expenses.  The LDS church supposedly has $100 billion with an annual expense of $6 billion.  That is only a 16x.

Has there been any complaining about the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association "hoarding" their money?

[webbles]

3 hours 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?

It appears to have been added in 2012.  SLTrib talks about it at https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54371289-180/church-font-tithing-mormon.html.csp

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

...and even then, they are not setting themselves up to be worshipped, praised, honored or followed as a cult figure might. They are not setting themselves up as the only source of special or essential knowledge, just their insights on the same scriptures we all have access to.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?"

My gut feeling is that these books are published because (some) people want to read a book written by (or about) a General Authority, not because they are a money making opportunity.  I don't buy those kinds of books, but some people (like my mom) find them worthwhile.  She likes to read about the lives of General Authorities. 

And I don't see how the question of priestcraft could even begin to be addressed unless we knew for sure that the General Authority who wrote the book is directly getting income from the book(s).  (That's just the beginning, the question of priestcraft is much more complicated than that).  Obviously books cost money to print and sell, and the bookstore has to pay employees, rent, utilities, etc.  If there are any profits from these books left, do the profits go to the prophets?  Or do they go into a general fund that is included in the fixed cost living expenses for all the General Authorities?  Or there could be so many other possibilities.  There are just too many unanswered questions to come to any fair conclusion.

Edit:  After posting this I starting thinking about how this would play out in real life if President Monson had profited from book sales.  What would he really do with the money?  Buy a new tie?  

Edited March 26, 2021 by InCognitus

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, 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?

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.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.  

I'm happy for you bro.

[ttribe]

1 minute 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.

But, you didn't answer my question - why is your 'True Believer' status more valid than theirs?

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, you didn't answer my question - why is your 'True Believer' status more valid than theirs?

Because, in his perspective, and mine, our beliefs are more true/valid than theirs.  You've heard from us how long? and could not figure out what we would say to that question?

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Because, in his perspective, and mine, our beliefs are more true/valid than theirs.  You've heard from us how long? and could not figure out what we would say to that question?

1 - I wasn't asking you.

2 - I'm interested in what HIS motivation is for claiming that being a 'True Believer' is a justification for blind acceptance of financial conditions in a belief system.

3 - I'd like to hear HIM share why HE thinks his belief is more valid.

4 - I'm trying to gauge whether HE is equally accepting of other people giving money to an organization/spiritual leader when such organization/spiritual leader is already very, very wealthy.

Edited March 26, 2021 by ttribe

[rodheadlee]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, you didn't answer my question - why is your 'True Believer' status more valid than theirs?

It's not but I'm not donating their money. Everybody has to go with what they know and believe in. This whole fracas is over the church's money not everybody else's money.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It's not but I'm not donating their money. Everybody has to go with what they know and believe in. This whole fracas is over the church's money not everybody else's money.

So, is it fair to say you take a "To each their own" approach?  You are content with your donations being used by the Church however they being used, and you are equally accepting of others being content with their donations being used however they are being used by their church/organization/spiritual leader?

What if someone isn't content with those things?  What are they to do?

[Analytics]

54 minutes ago, webbles said:

Thanks.  I read over that and I'm not exactly sure that fits what I understood Teancum to say.  The expenses are categorized in 12 categories and they feel a little vague, though it could be because I'm not a major follower of Billy Graham.

But, I did notice that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is "hoarding" their money far more than the LDS church is.  Their investments for 2019 are $364,803,081 and their expenses for 2019 are $78,877,721.  But if you subtract the "Deferred giving program" from both, then you have investments of $267,762,452 and expenses of $9,191,060.  Their investments are 29x their expenses.  The LDS church supposedly has $100 billion with an annual expense of $6 billion.  That is only a 16x.

Has there been any complaining about the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association "hoarding" their money?

I can't speak for Teancum, but I think this report is excellent.

Regarding your analysis of the numbers, I may be wrong, but my understanding of the report is that the $78,877,721 number are their total liabilities, i.e. that is a figure on the balance sheet that reflects debts they owe. The "deferred giving program" is a piece of that. This is money that was given to them, but which they aren't allowed to spend until certain dates in the future. The fact that they aren't allowed to spend it is reflected by the liability.

I fully admit that I'm not an expert in accounting or in the particulars of this organization, but my simplistic view of the financial statements is that if they need $126.6 million a year to do what they did in 2019 (i.e. Total Operating Expenses, Total = $126,631,281, page 4). Going by the Accounting 101 definition, Capital = Assets - Liabilities = 357,031,669 (Net Assets, total without donor restrictions, Page 3). So, their total capital is $357.0M/$126.6M = 2.8 years of operating expenses. Their "cash and cash equivalents" of $53.7M is probably the closest thing to a "reserve", and is 5 months of operating expenses.

If we performed the same exercise for the LDS Church, I would guess there are now perhaps $110 Billion in the EPA accounts, plus another, say, $30 Billion in commercial real estate, residential real estate, retail, farms, other businesses, and the Church's "cash and cash equivalents" (outside of EPA). So that is $140B of net assets. I would guess the Church's total Operating Expenses are $7 Billion, but of course that is just a guess. So, $140B/$7B = 20 years of operating expenses.

[Analytics]

[duplicate]

Edited March 27, 2021 by Analytics
duplicate

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

 

I suppose the question is whether "a religion directed by God and prophets who are led by God" should have standards, including transparency standards, that are higher than the rest of society, or whether they can use their righteousness as an excuse to follow lower standards.

The ECFA feels that their organizations are the ones that are dedicated to the true God, and ironically they think this makes transparency a moral obligation rather than something that is just for other people. They explain their biblical mandate for transparency thusly:

Moral integrity, both as it relates to facts and principles, should be our concern as we present ourselves to other Christians and to the secular world. In John’s account of Jesus’ arrest and trial before the high priest, the high priest questions Jesus about His disciples and teaching. To this Jesus responds:

I have spoken openly to the world . . . I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret (John 18:20).

In speaking about his ministry and the purity and candor of his ministerial conduct, the Apostle Paul says:

Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:1–2).

It is evident from the context of this epistle that Paul speaks not out of concern for his own reputation. Rather he contrasts himself and other Christians with those whose behavior has been inconsistent with their claim to be ministers of Christ. He does not want his ministry to be marked by subterfuge, self-interest, and deceit. His ministry is displayed in so open a manner that no one can second-guess him or question the sincerity of his motives. Moreover, he not only appeals to every person’s conscience, but he does so before God. Therefore, he emphasizes a higher scrutiny than that of human conscience; namely, that it is to God that every ministry is ultimately and eternally answerable.

Paul is concerned not only for his own ministry and conduct. In writing to Titus, he addresses his concern for the kind of ministry Titus should exemplify.

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech
that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us (Titus 2:7–8).

Titus must show incorruptibility. He must do so in order to keep opponents from pressing formal charges against him or spreading malicious gossip about him. Because of his irreproachable conduct, he can completely disprove any insinuations or accusations aimed against him. This is even more important when the accusations and antagonism are directed not against Titus as an individual, but as a disciple of Christ and, therefore, against Christ Himself.

Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christ-centered organizations. It may be true that public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of Christ-centered ministries in general is at stake.

Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal. Furthermore, the availability of financial statements promotes responsible Christian stewardship over assets as donors seek to make monetary investments in the work of the Kingdom.

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I can't speak for Teancum, but I think this report is excellent.

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.

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal.

So far the church has been very good at making sure this doesn't happen. The lasting goal is and always has been the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and to bring to pass the eternal life of man.
If that should ever stop being the goal I think it will be evident enough for all to recognize.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

So, is it fair to say you take a "To each their own" approach?  You are content with your donations being used by the Church however they being used, and you are equally accepting of others being content with their donations being used however they are being used by their church/organization/spiritual leader?

What if someone isn't content with those things?  What are they to do?

Yes. A donation is a gift once you give it you have to let go of it. Do you guys put the same scrutiny on the Clinton Foundation? What about the org founded to distribute the money won off of big tobacco?

[PacMan]

On 3/23/2021 at 8:03 PM, ttribe said:

I'm well aware of the requirements to prove fraud.  The "act of faith" element is clearly believed by the Plaintiff to be something other than that.  

He alleged that he was devout. His words. Not mine. He’s stuck. 

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes. A donation is a gift once you give it you have to let go of it. Do you guys put the same scrutiny on the Clinton Foundation? What about the org founded to distribute the money won off of big tobacco?

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. 

[ttribe]

31 minutes ago, PacMan said:

He alleged that he was devout. His words. Not mine. He’s stuck. 

Does the law care about how devout he was?

Edited March 27, 2021 by ttribe

[blueglass]

9 hours ago, 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

Just a lite pushback - as I hope there is a considerable difference considering the parable in Luke12.  "What will I do, because I don't have room to store my crops?' 18He said, 'This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods"