James Huntsman's Tithing Refund Lawsuit Thrown Out

[Calm]

Nvm, missed the first line…

https://www.soundclick.com/artist/default.cfm?bandID=282582&content=about

Quote

his show does not mock the faith’s practices or beliefs

I assume he means religious practices, but not financial.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

From the trib article https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/12/26/lds-church-denied-him/

Quote

His business had recently failed. His savings were wiped out when, after insurance wouldn’t cover a rotting exterior wall in his home, he had paid nearly $20,000 to replace it. And he wasn’t sure how he was going to make his next house payment.

Nolan said he went to the bishop of his Latter-day Saint ward, or congregation, for help. He knew that the church sometimes provides financial assistance to those in need, and — given his longtime devotion, including a two-year proselytizing mission and “significant” service positions in his ward — he thought he would find support there.

Instead, Nolan said, the bishop reviewed his finances and authorized him to get $40 worth of food. That was it.

I've seen plenty more than $40 paid for things like rent, car expenses etc.

What in the bishop's analysis caused him to end up at the $40 for food amount?

And I'm not sure what serving a mission or in "significant" service positions has to do with anything.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

What in the bishop's analysis caused him to end up at the $40 for food amount?

 

Does the bishop require documentation of the need or will he take the word of the person sometimes?  Brain fog is high right now, but I remember little description of the process in the couple of articles I read, just that Nolan asked for help and it wasn’t given him except for $40….which could be seen as basically one day’s worth of food. I have never needed luckily help in this way, though when young and struggling the Bishop was the funnel for someone stepping in and seeing our needs. Remembering that we try and do the same, but generally leave it up to the bishop to decide as we aren’t in the position to know others’ struggles generally these days. Anyway, I don’t know the process of getting help, but my understanding is there is an evaluation process.  The person doesn’t go in with a plan and it gets okayed by the bishop if he likes it. Isn’t there a specific evaluation process?  With Bishops being able to add as they see fit ?  Or are there relatively strong limits similar to the temple recommend process? 
 

For those who have been bishops, given the limited info any guessing what occurred so that Nolan went home with the authorization to get $40 from the storehouse? (He lives in Utah, assume he did then).

Edit: just read one that said the bishop looked at his finances. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

nd I'm not sure what serving a mission or in "significant" service positions has to do with anything.

Conveys the sense that he deserves it without question is my guess for the story, though at times in wards I have been to the best of my awareness, the ones who received the most were often inactives, often poverty level with health and other issues whose only interaction with the Church was to request welfare.
 

 In one case the family was pretty screwed up and the focus of leaders were on helping the kids be decently prepared for the early adulthood that was coming for them.  In that situation one might say the family didn’t deserve it as all…except because they were part of our family they did. Just because the parents are locked into dysfunctional behaviour does not absolve us of trying to help.

[Calm]

Quote

The show’s story follows four young professionals excited to land their dream job at Mormon Inc.

However, “after finding out that their fellow church workers are quite obsessed with hoarding insane levels of stock, land, and other investments (while giving very, very little to outside charities)” , the production website says, “some of these new hires have changed their minds.”

The style of the music is a mixture of hip-hop, pop and rock. Songs like “Let’s buy floridaLaugh at the church’s huge landholdings (“We’re about to hit a million acres / Because you know God loves this beach vacation”) while others love “Looking down on me”Take a more serious tone (“ That ‘rainy day’ you’ve been waiting for? / I have news for you, it’s raining to death outside ”).

 

Quote

Richardson said most of the music he helped Nolan produce for “The Good Shepherds” was for the main character, who acts as a fictitious whistleblower in the story.

Richardson spent a lot of time understanding this character, he said, ultimately tapping his emotions to bring “a little grime and a little grit” to the person….

“Here, they demand that members panic every year and tell the bishop, ‘Yes, I’m paying tithing fully,’” Nolan said. “It’s just an insane level of financial accountability.… The church demands it of us, demands it of us, and denies us our blessings if we don’t. And yet, they don’t give any transparency.

Huh?  Taking a person’s word is an insane level of accountability?  Red flag on the play. 

Quote

If enough people are talking about the fact that the church should be doing more with its insane fortune,” said Nolan, “… it has the power to literally save human lives.”

He likes the word insane it would seem. .  
 

This is apparently the SL Trib story, there is a blurb at the top this for subscribers only. If I see it on another website, does that mean they stole it? If so, will be deleting the above, I was assuming someone was sharing it as often do. But perhaps I am wrong or maybe they were lazy in their editing. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

https://thegoodshepherds.net/show-background-and-history
 

Quote

At it's core, The Good Shepherds is an immersive musical journey centered around Humanity and Redemption and how hoarding unimaginable levels of wealth takes tragic precedence over human lives, especially within ultra-rich Christian churches.  A line during a pivotal point in the production asks, "who will be a voice for the forgotten?"  The production wrestles with dire societal needs which go hauntingly unanswered by these Christian organizations. 

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Most of the world knows us by our nickname, "Mormon."  Let me start by stating the fact that there is absolutely nothing in this production that "pokes musical fun" at things which the Mormon church considers to be sacred.  All "General Authorities" (the top church leaders) past and present are never once mentioned, depicted, or used in any of the songs or dialogues. 

Forgive me for being a bit personal here (just stick with me for a minute).  Around 3 years ago, I cried myself to sleep wondering how, as a young father, I would make ends meet with 6 kids to feed and a recently failed business, combined with severe full-time job instability, combined with totally wiped-out savings (due to being forced to replace an entire, rotted exterior wall of our home, which insurance refused to cover), all within a single-income household.  It was truly the “perfect financial storm” for our young family.  In difficult situations such as mine, the Mormon church will occasionally offer a very small amount of financial help to a family in desperate need (only after all other financial options/connections are completely exhausted by that same family).  Thus, I decided to confide in the local leader of our congregation (commonly called the "Bishop") to discuss our family's situation.  After the Bishop required a comprehensive financial reckoning of our family finances, I became very discouraged.  I told the Bishop that the business which we poured our hearts and savings into failed and we were forced to spend nearly $20k on the wall of the home, resulting in not quite enough money for the next house payment.  In the end, the Bishop authorized a $40 food order.  After a literal lifetime of service and dedication to the Mormon church, a spit in the face would have felt much more satisfying at that low, low point in my life.

There is quite a bit more which appears to be pretty much the Church is greedy and hoarding and because of that millions are dying unnecessarily. 
 

Well either he didn’t do any research into the Church’s work or he is sadly misrepresenting what the Church does.

Quote

As compared to the ludicrous wealth level of the church, Mormon HQ sadly gives seemingly nothing to worthy external charities; charities who are better-poised to help the immediate, dire needs of God’s precious children.

Wow, has he paid no attention to the Church efforts? How can we trust anything he says when he gets this fact so glaringly wrong?

Quote

As a lifelong member, these realities (combined with how my family was treated for "having the audacity" to ask for help) are so sad to me personally, that I just had to utilize musical satire to overcome/offset the shock. Despite my vehement disagreement with its hoarding blatantly unnecessary levels of wealth while millions of God’s children are literally starving to death, it is ultimately up to the Mormon church to decide who to bless (and not bless) with its vast, vast fortune. 
 

Lastly, I do not hold any negative feelings against that Bishop. His actions were simply a result of the overall leadership culture of the church (where it is imperative for Bishops worldwide to preserve every penny of church funds, despite urgency & despite desperation). Or perhaps I didn’t beg properly? 

Not impressed. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

After the Bishop required a comprehensive financial reckoning of our family finances, I became very discouraged.  I told the Bishop that the business which we poured our hearts and savings into failed and we were forced to spend nearly $20k on the wall of the home, resulting in not quite enough money for the next house payment.

So this implies but doesn’t come right out and say he actually gave the bishop the comprehensive financial reckoning and it gets followed by him summarizing the need to the bishop, which if the bishop had the info, why would he feel the need?  So I am wondering how much info he actually gave the bishop. It seems clear he is willing to slant the story to favour his view (don’t we all?) in that he presents what happens at tithing settlement inaccurately, imo, s maybe he left something out of his story as he did his description of tithing settlement while inflating others. 
 

If he did jump through all the hoops the bishop required, I wish he specified both what they were and how he met that requirement instead of just portraying the Church as having its bishops only giving money to those in need kicking and screaming if they can’t avoid it and only after humiliating them or perhaps playing power games. 

I don’t think he does himself a favour by not being very specific here so there is no wiggle room if that is what actually happened.

I have known of bishops who imo failed in their duty to care for their flock, but I have also known members who expected the bishop would just give them the money when asked based on trust or when the bishop shared he believed they needed to make some drastic changes in their lives rather than just depend on the Church to pay rent until something lucky happened, were offended the bishop was tying strings to welfare instead of allowing them their agency. 
 

At this point in time it is hard for me to tell which category he likely falls into or if in another. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

So this implies but doesn’t come right out and say he actually gave the bishop the comprehensive financial reckoning and it gets followed by him summarizing the need to the bishop, which if the bishop had the info, why would he feel the need?  So I am wondering how much info he actually gave the bishop. It seems clear he is willing to slant the story to favour his view (don’t we all?) in that he presents what happens at tithing settlement inaccurately, imo, s maybe he left something out of his story as he did his description of tithing settlement while inflating others. 
 

If he did jump through all the hoops the bishop required, I wish he specified both what they were and how he met that requirement instead of just portraying the Church as having its bishops only giving money to those in need kicking and screaming if they can’t avoid it and only after humiliating them or perhaps playing power games. 

I don’t think he does himself a favour by not being very specific here so there is no wiggle room if that is what actually happened.

I have known of bishops who imo failed in their duty to care for their flock, but I have also known members who expected the bishop would just give them the money when asked based on trust or when the bishop shared he believed they needed to make some drastic changes in their lives rather than just depend on the Church to pay rent until something lucky happened, were offended the bishop was tying strings to welfare instead of allowing them their agency. 
 

At this point in time it is hard for me to tell which category he likely falls into or if in another. 

I believe you're right, it's a bishops' roulette sort of thing. Just depends on the bishop, and that does make sense because the bishop usually knows his flock. But the guy is right that the church needs to give more to charity or Ensign Peak does. But I've been around the block with this over and over with members on this board. I hope it's okay to have my opinion. And hopefully not get bashed in the head for it. Even my TBM good friend thinks the same about the church's wealth. And I hadn't brought it up either, she saw/read/heard it from somewhere. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

From the trib article https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/12/26/lds-church-denied-him/

I've seen plenty more than $40 paid for things like rent, car expenses etc.

What in the bishop's analysis caused him to end up at the $40 for food amount?

 

It makes me wonder what his other expenses are.  I know that bishops are generally not excited to give people a lot of money when they have an expensive $200 a month cable plan or brand new iphones they are paying for, etc.  Also, bishops are supposed to have the person requesting funds go to family first.  If that's not an option ok but if it is then most will require it before they proceed.  If someone doesn't want to go that route (to ask for help from family first), they might not get much from the church either.

I'm not saying this guy was in either boat; only pointing out that we have very little information to make any kind of judgement on how things went down and that there are legitimate reasons a bishop might not feel it's appropriate to pay someone's bills.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

believe you're right, it's a bishops' roulette sort of thing. Just depends on the bishop, and that does make sense because the bishop usually knows his floc

I am not actually saying the roulette thing, but agree that much depends on the bishop’s knowledge of his ward.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Calm

[maj]

The purpose of the fast offering donated by members is to sustain life, not lifestyle. It is to meet immediate needs and to help a person become self reliant in the longer term.

I feel that the individual may be slightly disingenuous in his account, in as much as we are only getting his perception of his interaction with his bishop.

If it was a "comprehensive financial review" then it is possible that the bishop in this instance felt that there were other options available to the member, as has been stated: family, possible change in outgoings etc. none of this was shared in the story.

Yes, each bishop has their own style or way of bishop-ing, but the vast majority are doing their best in a voluntary role.

Note: I may have a slightly biased perspective, having served as a bishop.

[The Nehor]

I know of one family that loudly and publicly left the church because the bishop was willing to let their children starve.

Somehow they left out the fact that they owned unused land worth about a quarter of a million dollars they were unwilling to sell because, by their account, it was certain to continue to go up in value and that would just be wasteful.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I've been a finance clerk for my last 3 bishops.  Two have shared some of the details of the worked-with needy families with me.  I would say, from my limited-but-better-than-any-of-your perspective, probably 90% of the welfare checks they have me write, are covering legitimate short-term emergency needs for folks needing some short-term help.  And that's what the church welfare system is for.  It is not supposed to be long term, or something to help when other means are available.

For that last 10%, there are some recurring themes.  One recurring theme, is that of "they have the resources and/or means, they just don't want to use them."  Folks have stock, or expensive cars, plenty of guns or other hobby-type assets, retirement/401k  plans, and families they could call on for help.  They don't wanna dip into those resources, not when a simple visit to the bishop frees up some easy fast offering money.  Call mom for help?  I hate doing that - can't the bishop just cut a check instead?  Real needs, but quite a lot of "Do you really expect me to cash in some of my retirement to cover my own expenses?"  There are many hard feelings when the answer is no.

Another recurring theme, is the perpetually needy family who simply can't seem to make ends meet - to support them in their chosen lifestyle.  Moving to a cheaper place is hard, getting rent money from the church 4x/year is far less hard.  This or that tax refund or insurance check gets turned into a new car, instead of paying down debt.  "I just got out of college and am looking for work, and you gotta have a cell phone to be available for job interviews, and my dad won't pay for mine any more."

I've seen my bishop wrestle with a situation where a woman had chronic health conditions, and needed extra money for medicinal marijuana.  And if that wouldn't work, could he pay her electric bill, so she could then afford the MMJ?

One bishop told me of his approach, which I consider a best practice.  It looks something like this: "Brother X, I'd like to tell you about sister Y. She lives in the low-income housing complex in our ward.  She's on a fixed social security income.  She struggles at just below the poverty line.  But every month, she really does skip two meals, and gives that portion to the church, to help those who need it more than she does.  Now, can you look me in the eye, and tell me that I should take her money, and the money of countless others like her, and give it to you?  Can you tell me your need is greater than hers?"

That practice has cut substantially down on the griping and groaning when the answer is no.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the vast majority of church aid flowing through my calling, is obviously good welfare, the church is caring for it's poor and needy.  I have seen miracles in my calling, I'll be eternally grateful to be the Lord's agent for some of them.  But boy howdy, that frustrating minority, tries the bishop's patience.

Edited December 29, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon

[LoudmouthMormon]

I think one reason I'll never be bishop, is I'd submit a letter to the editor with a public response to good Brother Nolan, if this was his response after meeting with me.

Edited December 29, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I think one reason I'll never be bishop, is I'd submit a letter to the editor with a public response to good Brother Nolan, if this was his response after meeting with me.

Yep. This whole thing is about his airing of a personal grievance with real, identifiable man. Uncool in every way.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep. This whole thing is about his airing of a personal grievance with real, identifiable man. Uncool in every way.

At least he didn’t do it in Fast and Testimony meeting.

[sunstoned]

I find it hard to believe that he would be surprised by the outcome of this case. 

[JustAnAustralian]

We should be seeing the appeal documents within the next week (5 Jan deadline). Will be interesting to see his arguments.

[Teancum]

On 12/29/2021 at 1:08 AM, katherine the great said:

Interesting. Gutsy. But I predict some form of church discipline.

Probably.  Which reflects poorly on the church.

[Teancum]

On 12/29/2021 at 5:53 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

From the trib article https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/12/26/lds-church-denied-him/

I've seen plenty more than $40 paid for things like rent, car expenses etc.

What in the bishop's analysis caused him to end up at the $40 for food amount?

And I'm not sure what serving a mission or in "significant" service positions has to do with anything.

The $40 seems odd. When I was a bishop just a storehouse order for a family of his size would have been much more than that.  Additionally I often paid rent/mortgage as well as utilities.  

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, maj said:

The purpose of the fast offering donated by members is to sustain life, not lifestyle. ....

   Ding, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    

"Tell him what he's won, Bob!"

[smac97]

17 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I've been a finance clerk for my last 3 bishops.  Two have shared some of the details of the worked-with needy families with me.  I would say, from my limited-but-better-than-any-of-your perspective, probably 90% of the welfare checks they have me write, are covering legitimate short-term emergency needs for folks needing some short-term help.  And that's what the church welfare system is for.  It is not supposed to be long term, or something to help when other means are available.

For that last 10%, there are some recurring themes.  One recurring theme, is that of "they have the resources and/or means, they just don't want to use them."  Folks have stock, or expensive cars, plenty of guns or other hobby-type assets, retirement/401k  plans, and families they could call on for help.  They don't wanna dip into those resources, not when a simple visit to the bishop frees up some easy fast offering money.  Call mom for help?  I hate doing that - can't the bishop just cut a check instead?  Real needs, but quite a lot of "Do you really expect me to cash in some of my retirement to cover my own expenses?"  There are many hard feelings when the answer is no.

Another recurring theme, is the perpetually needy family who simply can't seem to make ends meet - to support them in their chosen lifestyle.  Moving to a cheaper place is hard, getting rent money from the church 4x/year is far less hard.  This or that tax refund or insurance check gets turned into a new car, instead of paying down debt.  "I just got out of college and am looking for work, and you gotta have a cell phone to be available for job interviews, and my dad won't pay for mine any more."

I've seen my bishop wrestle with a situation where a woman had chronic health conditions, and needed extra money for medicinal marijuana.  And if that wouldn't work, could he pay her electric bill, so she could then afford the MMJ?

One bishop told me of his approach, which I consider a best practice.  It looks something like this: "Brother X, I'd like to tell you about sister Y. She lives in the low-income housing complex in our ward.  She's on a fixed social security income.  She struggles at just below the poverty line.  But every month, she really does skip two meals, and gives that portion to the church, to help those who need it more than she does.  Now, can you look me in the eye, and tell me that I should take her money, and the money of countless others like her, and give it to you?  Can you tell me your need is greater than hers?"

That practice has cut substantially down on the griping and groaning when the answer is no.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the vast majority of church aid flowing through my calling, is obviously good welfare, the church is caring for it's poor and needy.  I have seen miracles in my calling, I'll be eternally grateful to be the Lord's agent for some of them.  But boy howdy, that frustrating minority, tries the bishop's patience.

Experiences like this are, I think, substantially closer to what is happening in the Church.  But the Tribune and other news outlets would not find them nearly as "newsworthy" as a musical about a disgruntled fellow who supposedly had a bad experience.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I've been a finance clerk for my last 3 bishops.  Two have shared some of the details of the worked-with needy families with me.  I would say, from my limited-but-better-than-any-of-your perspective, probably 90% of the welfare checks they have me write, are covering legitimate short-term emergency needs for folks needing some short-term help.  And that's what the church welfare system is for.  It is not supposed to be long term, or something to help when other means are available.

For that last 10%, there are some recurring themes.  One recurring theme, is that of "they have the resources and/or means, they just don't want to use them."  Folks have stock, or expensive cars, plenty of guns or other hobby-type assets, retirement/401k  plans, and families they could call on for help.  They don't wanna dip into those resources, not when a simple visit to the bishop frees up some easy fast offering money.  Call mom for help?  I hate doing that - can't the bishop just cut a check instead?  Real needs, but quite a lot of "Do you really expect me to cash in some of my retirement to cover my own expenses?"  There are many hard feelings when the answer is no.

Another recurring theme, is the perpetually needy family who simply can't seem to make ends meet - to support them in their chosen lifestyle.  Moving to a cheaper place is hard, getting rent money from the church 4x/year is far less hard.  This or that tax refund or insurance check gets turned into a new car, instead of paying down debt.  "I just got out of college and am looking for work, and you gotta have a cell phone to be available for job interviews, and my dad won't pay for mine any more."

I've seen my bishop wrestle with a situation where a woman had chronic health conditions, and needed extra money for medicinal marijuana.  And if that wouldn't work, could he pay her electric bill, so she could then afford the MMJ?

One bishop told me of his approach, which I consider a best practice.  It looks something like this: "Brother X, I'd like to tell you about sister Y. She lives in the low-income housing complex in our ward.  She's on a fixed social security income.  She struggles at just below the poverty line.  But every month, she really does skip two meals, and gives that portion to the church, to help those who need it more than she does.  Now, can you look me in the eye, and tell me that I should take her money, and the money of countless others like her, and give it to you?  Can you tell me your need is greater than hers?"

That practice has cut substantially down on the griping and groaning when the answer is no.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the vast majority of church aid flowing through my calling, is obviously good welfare, the church is caring for it's poor and needy.  I have seen miracles in my calling, I'll be eternally grateful to be the Lord's agent for some of them.  But boy howdy, that frustrating minority, tries the bishop's patience.

It’s the sort of attitude that comes from viewing the Church of Jesus Christ as the church of deep pockets of Latter-day Saints. When I hear of this sort of thing, it is not hard at all for me to understand why the church does not open its financial records to public gaze. Not hard at all. 

[Amulek]

On 12/29/2021 at 5:18 AM, Calm said:

For those who have been bishops, given the limited info any guessing what occurred so that Nolan went home with the authorization to get $40 from the storehouse? (He lives in Utah, assume he did then).

Edit: just read one that said the bishop looked at his finances. 

I didn't see anywhere explicitly saying that the bishop actually reviewed his finances - only that he was going to require a financial review in order to provide the requested assistance.

And here's the thing that all of these stories seem to be glossing over: So the bishop callously gives this poor* man a mere $40...and then what happens? He isn't able to make his mortgage payment after all, and he - along with his wife and six children - end up being evicted from their home?

I doubt it. And I doubt you'll find any reporter willing to even ask the question. Because this guy is supposed to be the victim in the story here. The bishop is stuck wearing the black hat - even though I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the bishop was 100% right about this guy not needing financial assistance.

 

*I have a hard time using the word "poor" to describe someone with approximately $20K in savings which he was able to draw upon. Sounds like the guy is fairly well off. YMMV.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I didn't see anywhere explicitly saying that the bishop actually reviewed his finances - only that he was going to require a financial review in order to provide the requested assistance.

And here's the thing that all of these stories seem to be glossing over: So the bishop callously gives this poor* man a mere $40...and then what happens? He isn't able to make his mortgage payment after all, and he - along with his wife and six children - end up being evicted from their home?

I doubt it. And I doubt you'll find any reporter willing to even ask the question. Because this guy is supposed to be the victim in the story here. The bishop is stuck wearing the black hat - even though I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the bishop was 100% right about this guy not needing financial assistance.

 

*I have a hard time using the word "poor" to describe someone with approximately $20K in savings which he was able to draw upon. Sounds like the guy is fairly well off. YMMV.

I have seen a bishop deny financial aid for someone who claimed they were about to lose their home several times. They never did. I also know of cases where I print out a check to help pay rent and months later the check is still outstanding and I end up having to void the emergency money that was needed very quickly.

I don’t mean this to be callous. Sometimes the person is on the edge of losing their home. Ideally they aren’t and they come to us before they are several months behind on rent. I admit one thing that sometimes made my blood boil was writing checks out that include late fees because they waited until the eviction notice showed up. So it costs us more, you get more stressed, and the landlord has to do more work. Who is benefitting in waiting this long?

Edited December 30, 2021 by The Nehor