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

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for that response.

I'm thinking Bishop's may want to change their spiel when conducting tithing settlements and teaching children where their tithing donations go. I don't recall ever hearing that the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth. Saying it that way I can appreciate a little more Huntsman's claim of fraud about where his tithing donations have been used.

CFR, please that "the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The foregoing portions of David's declarations are appropriate.  While the probative value can be challenged, the overall admissibility of these statements is probably legit. 

Wouldn't David actually have to be deposed for it to be admissible? I would think statement itself would be hearsay unless David had the opportunity to be cross examined in court or at least a deposition.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't recall ever hearing that the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth.

I don't recall ever hearing that either - though, possibly, that's because it isn't true.

What would be the basis for saying that the majority of donated funds are not used for carrying out the Church's programs?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I don't recall ever hearing that either - though, possibly, that's because it isn't true.

What would be the basis for saying that the majority of donated funds are not used for carrying out the Church's programs?

 

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please that "the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth."

Thanks,

-Smac

I was responding to Analytics statements about how Ensign Peak is funded and how those funds are managed.

I don't know how accurate his statement was.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Wouldn't David actually have to be deposed for it to be admissible?

Some parts, yes.  Other parts, no.  

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would think statement itself would be hearsay unless David had the opportunity to be cross examined in court or at least a deposition.

A fair point.  Per the ABA, "[t]rial court finds statements of third-parties in affidavit submitted to oppose summary judgment motions as hearsay are admissible when not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in such statements."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

CFR, please that "the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth."

I was responding to Analytics statements about how Ensign Peak is funded and how those funds are managed.

I don't know how accurate his statement was.

Analytics said that "the majority of funds donated to the Church are then in turn donated to {EPA}," or something like that?  Where, please?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please that "the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth."

Thanks,

-Smac

It was the post that I quoted and then you quoted me so you must have seen it since it was on my post.

Quote

 

I'm not sure. Certainly the president of the Church. Probably other members of the first presidency and presiding bishopric. Probably nobody else.

I'm saying Ensign Peak is its own legal entity. The same people who control the Church control Ensign Peak, but the Church itself does not.

The only reason I can think of is because it is trying to appear less wealthy than it is. If it has extra money it donates money to Ensign Peak. If it needs extra money it can have Ensign Peak donate money back to the Church. But if you look at the Church's actual assets, the assets of Ensign Peak is not on the list.

Ensign Peak Advisors is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and there is nothing scandalous about the Church giving money to a nonprofit. The Church can do whatever it wants with its money. And there is nothing illegal about Ensign Peak doing nothing other than accumulating investments and occasionally bailing out insurance companies and building malls

 

 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

CFR, please that "the majority of funds donated to the church are then in turn donated to another 501C3 for the purpose of accumulating wealth."

It was the post that I quoted and then you quoted me so you must have seen it since it was on my post.

Quote

I'm not sure. Certainly the president of the Church. Probably other members of the first presidency and presiding bishopric. Probably nobody else.

I'm saying Ensign Peak is its own legal entity. The same people who control the Church control Ensign Peak, but the Church itself does not.

The only reason I can think of is because it is trying to appear less wealthy than it is. If it has extra money it donates money to Ensign Peak. If it needs extra money it can have Ensign Peak donate money back to the Church. But if you look at the Church's actual assets, the assets of Ensign Peak is not on the list.

Ensign Peak Advisors is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and there is nothing scandalous about the Church giving money to a nonprofit. The Church can do whatever it wants with its money. And there is nothing illegal about Ensign Peak doing nothing other than accumulating investments and occasionally bailing out insurance companies and building malls

 

I don't see anything in there to support your paraphrase about "the majority of funds ... {being} donated to another 501C3."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 20, 2021 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see anything in there to support your paraphrase about "the majority of funds ... {being} donated to another 501C3."

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization.  The exception as I understand it is that the Church funds current operations out of tithing receipts before transmitting them to EPA.  That didn't happen one recent year; there was a shortfall and EPA had to make up the shortfall.

There's now confusion as to who sent money out for the mall.  Was it EPA, directly? Or did EPA transfer funds to the Church to do it?  Or did EPA transfer funds to Property Reserves to do it?  To me it doesn't matter.  It was a church investment, not an expenditure of money.

Neophyte church members have the following confusion, and this whistleblower didn't help: 

1. They think that spending money on a mall is like spending money on a utility bill.  Spent, lost.  When in fact its just an investment with a return expected.  Like putting money into Bank of America stock.

 2.  They think there is something wrong with building up an endowment, when there isn't.  

3.  They think that EPA ought to be spending money on charitable causes, when that is not the Church's mission at all.  Matt. 26:1 1:  "She has done a beautiful deed to Me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. "  Although the Church does donate money for charitable causes, the Church's mission is to preach the gospel as it sees it and redeem the dead.  That entails the construction of very costly temples and the maintenance of an expensive mission program that most others would consider wasteful expenditures. 

4.  They think that no spending the money on a charity violates IRS tax law, when it doesn't.  Otherwise, we'd hear about it.  The whistleblower would get finder's fee, and he hasn't.

5.  They think there's something wrong with accumulating money, when in fact the NT reports on bequests to the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization.  The exception as I understand it is that the Church funds current operations out of tithing receipts before transmitting them to EPA.  That didn't happen one recent year; there was a shortfall and EPA had to make up the shortfall.

There's now confusion as to who sent money out for the mall.  Was it EPA, directly? Or did EPA transfer funds to the Church to do it?  Or did EPA transfer funds to Property Reserves to do it?  To me it doesn't matter.  It was a church investment, not an expenditure of money.

Neophyte church members have the following confusion, and this whistleblower didn't help: 

1. They think that spending money on a mall is like spending money on a utility bill.  Spent, lost.  When in fact its just an investment with a return expected.  Like putting money into Bank of America stock.

 2.  They think there is something wrong with building up an endowment, when there isn't.  

3.  They think that EPA ought to be spending money on charitable causes, when that is not the Church's mission at all.  Matt. 26:1 1:  "She has done a beautiful deed to Me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. "  Although the Church does donate money for charitable causes, the Church's mission is to preach the gospel as it sees it and redeem the dead.  That entails the construction of very costly temples and the maintenance of an expensive mission program that most others would consider wasteful expenditures. 

4.  They think that no spending the money on a charity violates IRS tax law, when it doesn't.  Otherwise, we'd hear about it.  The whistleblower would get finder's fee, and he hasn't.

5.  They think there's something wrong with accumulating money, when in fact the NT reports on bequests to the Church.

First part- Yes. I agree. My understanding (which I admit could be wrong) is that all funds go to the EPA first to be added to the endowment and invested. Then any funds the needs for church operations are withdrawn from endowment returns.

Second part highlighted- 1- I don't know anyone who thinks spending on a mall is money spent like a utility bill and is just gone, as opposed to an investment. I think most people (everyone I've ever spoken with) understands the difference.  2- I don't know anyone who is opposed to building up an endowment. The dispute comes in when discussing how much is enough. Is $100 Billion+ enough or too much?

I do think many people, myself included, expect the primary use of donated funds to go towards the purposes stated on the tithing slips, whether that be church operations, temples, church-purpose real estate, COB salaries, and yes...charitable purposes etc.  IF the primary purpose is building up an endowment and growing the endowment to $200 Billion or $1 Trillion (or whatever) the church can choose to do that, but it would seem ethical to explain that purpose and priority to those making the donations.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization.  The exception as I understand it is that the Church funds current operations out of tithing receipts before transmitting them to EPA.  That didn't happen one recent year; there was a shortfall and EPA had to make up the shortfall.

There's now confusion as to who sent money out for the mall.  Was it EPA, directly? Or did EPA transfer funds to the Church to do it?  Or did EPA transfer funds to Property Reserves to do it?  To me it doesn't matter.  It was a church investment, not an expenditure of money.

Neophyte church members have the following confusion, and this whistleblower didn't help: 

1. They think that spending money on a mall is like spending money on a utility bill.  Spent, lost.  When in fact its just an investment with a return expected.  Like putting money into Bank of America stock.

Yes, I think this deserves more emphasis and attention than it gets.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 2.  They think there is something wrong with building up an endowment, when there isn't.

Yep.  The Parable of the Talents comes to mind.  Moreover, the fact that the Brethren are not enriching themselves or anyone else out of the Church's coffers is a huge point, but one that seems to get lost in the discussion.  What is the difference between Pres. Nelson and Jeff Bezos?  Both have direct control of tens of billions of dollars.  But Jeff Bezos owns his money.  He can do with it whatever he wants, including live a super-rich, jetset lifestyle.  Conversely, Pres. Nelson holds the Church's funds in trust, is not enriching himself, is not living a profligate lifestyle, and is working with the other leaders of the Church to ensure that the funds are being properly managed.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

3.  They think that EPA ought to be spending money on charitable causes, when that is not the Church's mission at all.  Matt. 26:1 1:  "She has done a beautiful deed to Me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. "  Although the Church does donate money for charitable causes, the Church's mission is to preach the gospel as it sees it and redeem the dead.  That entails the construction of very costly temples and the maintenance of an expensive mission program that most others would consider wasteful expenditures. 

The four-fold mission of the Church:

1. Perfect the Saints
2. Proclaim the Gospel
3. Redeem the Dead
4. Care for the Poor and Needy

Missionary work and redemption of the dead are, in my view, "charitable causes."  The purpose of these things is to improve lives and serve others, not to make money or any other telestial motive.  However, I could see those not of our faith would disagree.

"Perfect{ing} the Saints" would also seem to be a "charitable cause."  Church services, educational services, Fast Offerings, etc. are all intended to help people with no thought of a financial ROI.

"Car{ing} for the Poor and Needy," though, seems to fall quite neatly into "charitable causes."  Would you agree?

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

4.  They think that no spending the money on a charity violates IRS tax law, when it doesn't.  Otherwise, we'd hear about it.  The whistleblower would get finder's fee, and he hasn't.

5.  They think there's something wrong with accumulating money, when in fact the NT reports on bequests to the Church.

Yep.  For all the hyperventilating about how much money the Church collects (as tithes and via prudent investments), there is precious little discussion about how much it spends.  On church buildings, on missionary work, on temple work, on educational institutions, on charitable and philanthropic efforts, and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 20, 2021 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Yep.  For all the hyperventilating about how much money the Church collects (as tithes and via prudent investments), there is precious little discussion about how much it spends.  On church buildings, on missionary work, on temple work, on educational institutions, on charitable and philanthropic efforts, and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I had a client, now deceased, who did polling for the church.  He was asked to determine the single most significant factor, statistically, that would predict activity in the Church.  He did his polling in the early 80s when the Church was contemplating spinning off the BYUs after it had spun off its hospitals.  The results were published in an obscure BYU journal.  The single most significant factor to predict activity was whether one was educated at a Church university.  As a result, the Church increased its emphasis on spending on church schools, it changed the mission of Ricks College, it created the perpetual education fund, and lifted enrollment caps. It also complated building additional BYUs; although it acquired property for that (BYU-Riverside County) it never followed through.  Some day, maybe. These are very costly endevours but fulfill the mission of the church.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

There it is!  I knew I had posted something on this topic, but couldn't find it in my post history.  I like my older comment better than the one I made yesterday.

Glad to help. It was a notable comment in a long thread. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization. 

Wait, have I lost track of claims?  Wasn’t it that $7 billion was taken in with $1 billion of that going to EPA?  So $6 billion was used on expenses first?

From the original Washington Post article:

Quote

The church typically collects about $7 billion each year in contributions from members, according to the complaint. Mormons, like members of some other faith groups, are asked to contribute 10 percent of their income to the church, a practice known as tithing.

While about $6 billion of that income is used to cover annual operating costs, the remaining $1 billion or so is transferred to Ensign, which plows some into an investment portfolio to generate returns, according to the complaint.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization.

That is false. The Church proper has its own treasury and operates nicely on about 80% of the tithing revenue. Tithing revenue above and beyond what the Church needs to operate is what's transferred to EPA. It is considered the "reserves on the reserves." The funds that get transferred to EPA stay there, with two exceptions.

 

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wait, have I lost track of claims?  Wasn’t it that $7 billion was taken in with $1 billion of that going to EPA?  So $6 billion was used on expenses first?

From the original Washington Post article:

 

Exactly. Bob's impression of how it works is based on his imagination.

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is false. The Church proper has its own treasury and operates nicely on about 80% of the tithing revenue. Tithing revenue above and beyond what the Church needs to operate is what's transferred to EPA. It is considered the "reserves on the reserves." The funds that get transferred to EPA stay there, with two exceptions.

 

You did not read my entire post.  I acknowleged that.  Read my posts. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  For all the hyperventilating about how much money the Church collects (as tithes and via prudent investments), there is precious little discussion about how much it spends.  On church buildings, on missionary work, on temple work, on educational institutions, on charitable and philanthropic efforts, and on and on.

The issue people are concerned with on this thread isn't how much it collects, nor how much it spends. Rather, it is the difference between the two. 

If the Federal Government was only spending 80% of its tax revenue and was the using the additional 20% to save for a "rainy day" when it already had $72 trillion in the rainy day fund (i.e. enough money saved to operate the federal government tax free and interest free for 20 years, which is commensurate how much money the Church has saved up), would you really be ecstatic with all the good it was doing with the 80% of tax revenue it was spending, or would you think there were other issues that needed to be addressed?

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You did not read my entire post.  I acknowleged that.  Read my posts. 

You said, "I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization."

That simply isn't true. I hope you can understand why your humble reader might be confused.

[Bob Crockett]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You said, "I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization."

That simply isn't true. I hope you can understand why your humble reader might be confused.

Try to acknolwedge my entire statement:

Quote

Well, I think that nearly all church tithing receipts are transferred to EPA, a 501(c)(3) organization.  The exception as I understand it is that the Church funds current operations out of tithing receipts before transmitting them to EPA.  That didn't happen one recent year; there was a shortfall and EPA had to make up the shortfall.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think this deserves more emphasis and attention than it gets.

Yep.  The Parable of the Talents comes to mind.  Moreover, the fact that the Brethren are not enriching themselves or anyone else out of the Church's coffers is a huge point, but one that seems to get lost in the discussion.  What is the difference between Pres. Nelson and Jeff Bezos?  Both have direct control of tens of billions of dollars.  But Jeff Bezos owns his money.  He can do with it whatever he wants, including live a super-rich, jetset lifestyle.  Conversely, Pres. Nelson holds the Church's funds in trust, is not enriching himself, is not living a profligate lifestyle, and is working with the other leaders of the Church to ensure that the funds are being properly managed.

The four-fold mission of the Church:

1. Perfect the Saints
2. Proclaim the Gospel
3. Redeem the Dead
4. Care for the Poor and Needy

Missionary work and redemption of the dead are, in my view, "charitable causes."  The purpose of these things is to improve lives and serve others, not to make money or any other telestial motive.  However, I could see those not of our faith would disagree.

"Perfect{ing} the Saints" would also seem to be a "charitable cause."  Church services, educational services, Fast Offerings, etc. are all intended to help people with no thought of a financial ROI.

"Car{ing} for the Poor and Needy," though, seems to fall quite neatly into "charitable causes."  Would you agree?

Yep.  For all the hyperventilating about how much money the Church collects (as tithes and via prudent investments), there is precious little discussion about how much it spends.  On church buildings, on missionary work, on temple work, on educational institutions, on charitable and philanthropic efforts, and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do you think there is "precious little discussion about how much" the church spends? Could it have something to do with a lack of transparency by the church about how it spends its money?

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The issue people are concerned with on this thread isn't how much it collects, nor how much it spends. Rather, it is the difference between the two. 

If the Federal Government was only spending 80% of its tax revenue and was the using the additional 20% to save for a "rainy day" when it already had $72 trillion in the rainy day fund (i.e. enough money saved to operate the federal government tax free and interest free for 20 years, which is commensurate how much money the Church has saved up), would you really be ecstatic with all the good it was doing with the 80% of tax revenue it was spending, or would you think there were other issues that needed to be addressed?

I think that's a good point. For a non-church business the investors/shareholders might really like that 80/20 ratio and the chances are pretty good they would receive a healthy dividend. But in the case of a church, the difference between income and expenses is important because it represents missed opportunities for the church to spend in a way that more fully realizes the 4 fold mission of the church. The opportunity cost of charitable work, or even building a Riverside BYU in favor of saving more money in an already flush endowment feels to many like favoring the creation of wealth for the supposed rainy day, instead of spending the money on good causes while it's also raining today. And unlike a non-church business, the shareholders/stakeholders don't see any particular benefit to missing the present opportunities. They don't receive a dividend, only the continued expectation of 10% tithing + additional charitable donations to the church  Ensign Peak Advisors.

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The issue people are concerned with on this thread isn't how much it collects, nor how much it spends. Rather, it is the difference between the two. 

If the Federal Government was only spending 80% of its tax revenue and was the using the additional 20% to save for a "rainy day" when it already had $72 trillion in the rainy day fund (i.e. enough money saved to operate the federal government tax free and interest free for 20 years, which is commensurate how much money the Church has saved up), would you really be ecstatic with all the good it was doing with the 80% of tax revenue it was spending, or would you think there were other issues that needed to be addressed?

I think it would be awesome if the Federal Government was only spending 80% of its tax revenue.  Having a $72 trillion rainy day fund for the government would be awesome as well.  It would then be able to utilize that money during crisis, like we just had.

Also, we have no idea how much the Church spends of its tithing.  The whistleblower's statement is not first hand, second hand, or any hand.  It is a quote of a statement from someone who is guessing.  Using the numbers that are calculated in the whistleblower's exhibits, I think it actually points towards the church saving less than 10% a year.

Edited August 20, 2021 by webbles

[mgy401]

On 8/18/2021 at 11:55 PM, secondclasscitizen said:

[1]First the church isn’t honorbound to save beneficial life. It was a for profit separate entity of the church. Likely it was bailed out to save face for the church so it didn’t have to explain why inspired financial advisors and insurance salesmen got the whole thing wrong. That is what happens when you sell rip-off whole life insurance and ripoff annuities and guarantee a ridiculous return. The whole industry got caught with its pants down and the churches own guys did too.

these are the products that generate the most complaints in the industry and our good ole Mormon boys are selling them too. Just like our mlm “financial advisors” we have in many wards working for trans America and primerica rah rah mlms. 
 

[2]why should some African or Brazilian family who can’t feed their kids subsidize a failing for profit insurance company with their tithing? They can’t even feed themselves and yet the church is using their tithing and gold teeth to bail out their failure. 
 

[3]same goes for tithing subsidizing BYU. Over  80% of the students are white and about 60-70% are from Utah, Texas, California, az and idaho. Why are poor members tithes being used to subsidized the college education of a bunch of white kids from five states and for all mission presidents kids and the kids of GAs? The same people who can afford the college.
 

[4]all a load of crap. Jesus would not be happy with this. 

1.  In the same paragraph you complain about the Church ripping people off through valueless products and then complain that the Church actually made sure that the products did indeed have value so that the customers got their money’s worth.

In short—you are raving.

2.   American tithes prop up the operations of the Church in the third world (and much of the first world), not the reverse.

3.  Cool numbers, bro.  Now give the futures on what percentage of tithing receipts come from those same demographics.  

And:  a private nonprofit college costs $30-40K per student per year.  Very, very few of BYU’s (or any university’s) student body could come up with that kind of cash. 

It’s certainly fair to ask whether the caliber of students we’ve been seeing in the limelight at BYU lately, deserve the Church’s largesse (Calvin Burke?  Madi Barney?  Et cetera, et cetera).  But to suggest that BYU focuses as an unmitigatedly poor-to-rich wealth transfer, is to demonstrate that one is simply blind to the data.  In fact, shunting these students off to state-run university systems—which are funded through property, sales, and other taxes on all of the citizenry and which do represent a poor-to-rich resource transfer—exacerbates the very problem you claim to want to solve.

4.  I have it on excellent authority that Jesus is duly pleased with what the Church has done.  What He thinks about uninformed, untrue, bile-filled accusations, on the other hand . . . 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I think it would be awesome if the Federal Government was only spending 80% of its tax revenue.  Having a $72 trillion rainy day fund for the government would be awesome as well.  It would then be able to utilize that money during crisis, like we just had.

Write your congressman and demand they double your taxes! 

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Also, we have no idea how much the Church spends of its tithing.  The whistleblower's statement is not first hand, second hand, or any hand.  It is a quote of a statement from someone who is guessing.  Using the numbers that are calculated in the whistleblower's exhibits, I think it actually points towards the church saving less than 10% a year.

The whistleblower says, "I learned that the [Church] brings in around $7 billion per year in tithing donations and stockpiles $1–$2 billion in its reserves each year." That means it is saving between 14% and 28% per year.

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

"I guess?"

You quote David Nielsen's say-so as if it is unassailable, etched-in-stone fact, but the court just has "an opinion?"  About a legal question that boils down to "semantics" about whether there is a reasonable distinction between A) charitable donations and B) subsequent interest/profit generated by investing those donations?

Yes. The question is whether the specific dollars spent on the mall and insurer are really "tithing dollars." I find that question to be religious, nonlegal, nonsensical, and irrelevant to the case.

If the judge ever writes something to the effect, "This court rules that the dollars spent on the mall and insurer were NOT tithing dollars," I'll feel inclined to eat my hat.

Based on my layman understanding of the law, if I were on the jury I'd boil this down to two questions.

1- Was the church being deceitful to its members when it said "tithing dollars" would not be used?

2- If so, was Huntsman's decision to pay tithing predicated on this deceit?

My answers to those questions are yes on question 1, no on question 2. Victory to the defendant.

But that's just me.