James Huntsman's Tithing Refund Lawsuit Thrown Out

[The Nehor]

Sorry, I should point out that the church welfare system is also a source of joy to many with real gratitude and progress made with the assistance. I have seen people go from regularly needing help for every small emergency since they really couldn’t save anything to improving their skillset and getting to more solid financial ground. Sadly some situations are just demoralizing.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

*I have a hard time using the word "poor" to describe someone with approximately $20K in savings which he was able to draw upon.

I agree chances are he had been in a decent (maybe even rather nice as he never describes his family as struggling before) place to have that much saved up to draw on as a young family (looking at age of kids, my guess is he was either young or mid thirties at the time) with as many kids and therefore expenses as he had (lovely family, btw, kids look like they were spaced every two years and mom looks great, so that was sweet to see, hopefully not just a look for the social media pictures) but he had to use it and that meant savings were no longer available as a backup.  His company had also failed, so the income that got him there might have been missing for a significant time.  While the $20,000 suggests he may have been previously well off, it doesn’t mean he was at the time.  Otoh, he hadn’t had to use his savings it appears until the insurance fell through, so it honestly sounds like he was managing fine until then…and a $20,000 bill to someone who has enough assets they can pay it off outright vs someone who is struggling to pay bills each month is a very different thing.  My husband works with some entrepreneurs who come in to tell their story to the class and many times there is a cycle of well off, then scrambling to pay the bills until they hit the right combination of idea, financing, and workable production of product/service.   My guess is he had assets and income, but was cash poor and would have to take a penalty to free up cash, such as perhaps going into the bank and getting a mortgage that was easier in the short term to pay off, but cost a lot more in the long term…as there was nothing said about a risk he was going to actually lose his house or any actual risks iirc…I should review just in case I forgot.  Guessing not a lot of equity in his house yet…unless his company did quite well before it failed.  Is there any information on what that company was?  Be interesting to see its history, how big, how long it lasted, why it failed etc.

This $20,000 savings being gutted just due to the emergency rather than being described as whittled away by monthly expenses since the failure of his company suggests to me he was likely cash poor at the moment and usually was meeting expenses at least and not asset poor…what is missing in the story is the loss of his house or other disaster stemming from not being able to get help from the Church or manage it himself even if it meant three jobs for awhile.  I think any major suffering would have been included in the story to add punch if it had occurred.  But inconvenience, even significant inconvenience is not a reason that qualifies one for fast offerings.  And instead the punch of the story is just he writes a musical.  Perhaps he didn’t want to publicly share the struggles of his family, but that seems contrary to the whole presentation/promotion choice for the musical.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

didn't see anywhere explicitly saying that the bishop actually reviewed his finances

I saw one, but it looked like it was just derived from another iirc (I will see if I can find it again) in that no other original info was included and all it said was something like ‘after looking at his finances’ and I wonder if that was an assumption by the reporter given it is the only one.  Surely a reporter would ask for clarifying details like that, as in ‘take me through step by step what happened with the bishop’.  It honestly seemed weird to me that it wasn’t explicitly said that the bishop did the comprehensive review and in fact felt carefully worded to make it easy to infer it was without actually saying the review occurred, but rather that he requested a comprehensive review and it makes me wonder if he had just made the request and then given the food order as immediate help while waiting to give any more until after the review or if Nolan hadn’t had the chance or the desire to bring all the necessary documents and had only the basics for that interview and Nolan decided to go a different route after that as there is no further interviews describing working with the bishop in any way, such as may happen with an ongoing problem as I understand.  However, the weird wording could have been the poor choice of the reporter and repeated by those who borrowed it.  Poor, unclear reporting is not that uncommon.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

As an attorney who has been involved in hundreds of foreclosures, I feel fairly confident in stating that if someone is "about to lose their home" to foreclosure, they will almost certainly be in arrears on their mortgage payments for several months, and more likely several years. 

Popular notions about banks are a bit inconsistent.  On the one hand, banks are often characterized as heartless, soulless corporations focused solely on making money.  On the other hand, banks are also portrayed as salivating at the prospect of hurriedly foreclosing on some hapless person who, due to little Timmy's medical bills, has fallen behind on their monthly mortgage payments.  The reality is, I think, a bit different:

First, residential mortgage lending is a hugely regulated sector of the economy, with quite a few regulatory incentives for banks to work with a borrower, usually for many months, even years, prior to foreclosing.

Second, banks would generally prefer to have a mortgage as a "performing asset," that is, "an asset that provides a dependable annual financial return."  If you scrutinize an amortization schedule on, say, a 30-year loan, you will see that the bulk of the monthly payments is going toward payment of interest.  For the first 3.5 years or so, the amount going to interest is above 70% of each payment amount, and the next roughly 6.4 years the amount going to interest remains above 60% of each payment.  By way of example, a $500,000 loan at 4.5% would, in the first ten years of payments, yield principal payments of about $98,500, but would yield interest payments of about $203,000, which is nearly half of the total interest collected over the life of the loan ($412,000).  In other words, banks are making bank by collecting monthly mortgage payments.  Very little work (by the bank) is involved in simply collecting monthly mortgage payments, and the time period in which most foreclosures happen (the first ten years) are also the most lucrative for the bank in terms of collecting interest.  In other words, the banks have an incentive to keep the mortgage payments up and running.  Each payment is the laying of a golden egg by the goose, the substantial majority of which is gobbled up by the bank as interest.

Third, in contrast with the loan as a performing asset, the loan becomes quite a burden and a chore and expense once it goes into default.  The bank has to start paying more attention, and spending more money, on the loan.  Per this article, here are the six general phases of a foreclosure:

• Phase 1: Payment Default - The borrower misses payments (typically at least three months worth, but often more than that).  At this point the additional expenses incurred by the bank start in the form of administrative efforts, customer service, loan modification applications and reviews, etc.  This can all be quite time-consuming and expensive for the bank.
• Phase 2: Notice of Default - The formal commencement of the foreclosure process.  In Utah, there is a minimum of 90 days between the recording of the Notice of Default and the date of the actual foreclosure sale.  In other words, the borrower is going to be at least six months behind on his mortgage payments prior to the actual sale, and in virtually all instances in my experience the arrears are considerably more than that (2 or more years behind is not unusual).  In Utah and most other jurisdictions, foreclosures are conducted nonjudicially, meaning a foreclosure trustee - usually a law firm or a title company - is paid to prepare the Notice of Default, do title work, order or prepare a title insurance policy, confer with the borrower, and so on.  Again, this is work - and money - that the bank is spending, as opposed to passively receiving income from a performing loan.
• Phase 3: Notice of Trustee’s Sale - This is the part of the process where might start to be plausibly said that the borrower is "about to lose their home," as the notice is typically given at least thirty (30) days prior to the sale date.  However, it is quite common for sale dates to be postponed.  In Utah, the sale date can be postponed an indefinite number of times, but only up to within 45 days of the original sale date, after which a new sale date must be published.  
• Phase 4: Trustee’s Sale - This is never a surprise or an emergency to the borrower.  By the time the sale is scheduled the bank will have spent many, many months, and often years, working with the borrower.  So a wardmember coming to the bishop with an "I'm about to lose my home to foreclosure" story is either A) not telling the truth, since foreclosure is likely way down the road, or B) is so far in arrears that it would be pretty difficult for a bishop to justify the use of tithing funds to step in and stop the foreclosure by paying many months, or even years, of missed payments (whereby the default could be "cured" and the foreclosure process cancelled).  Also, it is also quite common for the bank to be obligated to, prior to the sale, fight the borrower in bankruptcy court, and/or in civil litigation.  I spent a decade of my life litigating these sorts of cases, and I feel reasonably confident in telling you that banks hate having to spend money litigating a to-be-foreclosed-on loan as opposed to passively receiving income from a performing loan. 
• Phase 5: Real Estate Owned (REO) and Phase 6: Eviction - If at the sale the property is sold to a third party, then the bank is done.  It has been paid off from the proceeds of the sale and can move on to other things.  However, it is not uncommon for the home to be "under water," for the amount owed to the bank to exceed the amount a bidder at the auction is willing to pay for it.  In such instances, the bank acquires ownership of the house and becomes an unwilling landlord.  It has to insure the property, evict the (former) owners, secure the property, remediate (fix up) the property, hire a realtor to market and sell the property, and so on.  Lots and lots of time and effort and money is involved in these processes, as opposed to - you guessed it - passively receiving income from a performing loan. 

In other words, the banks are mercenary.  They loan money with the intention of making money on the transaction.  But a foreclosure represents a failure, a non-performing asset.  The bank generally has to work less, and earns more, by letting the borrower stay in the property, take care of it, and make payments on it for decades.  Conversely, the significant expense and added work involved in foreclosure creates a fairly strong disincentive to foreclose.

If a wardmember is 1-3 months behind on their mortgage obligations, I could conceivably see a bishop helping in a stopgap sort of way.  But I think this would almost never happen in an "I'm about to lose my house to foreclosure!"-style scenario.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As an attorney who has been involved in hundreds of foreclosures, I feel fairly confident in stating that if someone is "about to lose their home" to foreclosure, they will almost certainly be in arrears on their mortgage payments for several months, and more likely several years. 

This is all true but doesn’t apply as much to renters and most (though by no means all) of those coming for financial aid are renting. Most bishops are a little more reticent about helping someone long-terms with a mortgage.

This paradigm relies on the rental market being well saturated where the landlord can expect to get someone else to take the spot if they boot the current tenant asap but that is the current market in most (though not all) of the United States. How quickly you can move against a renter depends heavily on state and local laws. I know that a few years ago there were apartment complexes in my area that had a policy of posting an eviction notice as soon as the person is late on rent at all to get the clock started on eviction and it usually takes about 2-4 months.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

Human nature being what it is, I can envision someone being in denial, thinking he can pull himself out of a financial tailspin before, as a last resort, he has to turn to the Church for assistance. Human pride is a powerful force to overcome. 

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen a bishop deny financial aid for someone who claimed they were about to lose their home several times. They never did.

Same. As smac explained, it's actually a fairly involved process to evict someone from their home. Nobody's going to be put out on the street for missing (or merely being late on) a single payment.

I get that it might feel like an urgent situation, but it really isn't anything close to being a crisis. 

 

Quote

Sorry, I should point out that the church welfare system is also a source of joy to many with real gratitude and progress made with the assistance. I have seen people go from regularly needing help for every small emergency since they really couldn’t save anything to improving their skillset and getting to more solid financial ground. Sadly some situations are just demoralizing.

Same again. Some situations took (literally) years for things to improve, but it was really rewarding to have been able to witness the entire journey from start to finish. 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Amulek

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Same. As smac explained, it's actually a fairly involved process to evict someone from their home. Nobody's going to be put out on the street for missing (or merely being late on) a single payment.

I get that it might feel like an urgent situation, but it really isn't anything close to being a crisis. 

 

Same again. Some situations took (literally) years for things to improve, but it was really rewarding to have been able to witness the entire journey from start to finish. 

 

I’ve seen a man publicly recount his own and his family’s being blessed by Church assistance until they could get back on their feet. At the time of this recounting, his family was among the more well-to-do in the ward to which we belonged. He eventually became bishop of that ward. 

[Calm]

I wonder if Nolan considered there might be a risk publicizing the marketing business he owned failed (LinkedIn has him describing himself as a successful former owner) given his current job is dependent on him being a financial solutions guy…(rapid no less).  I suppose he can say when the Church turned him down, he had to figure out how to make it work on his own and he did.

So I am looking at LinkedIn and it appears he always had another job even while he had his own business except for when he was going to UofU for his bachelor’s, with awards for being the top sales rep for at least one of the other businesses and the last two years, so am wondering just how successful it had been (lasted 12 years).  Can’t find anything on his company though.

If he lived then where he allegedly lives now, my guess is his home was worth around $300,000 to $400,000 based on property value in the neighbourhood back then.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidbnolan

Edited December 31, 2021 by Calm

[kimpearson]

I thought I would chime in with 15 years as being a stake auditor and what I have personally seen in my audits of probably 40 or 50 bishops, 2 stakes and a mission.   10 years of being a ward clerk/finance clerk.  I am also a CPA with 35 years of experience in corporations, small business and individual finances.

• Almost every bishop seemed to have 1 or 2 people that they treated differently from everyone else.  Either they were especially generous or especially stingy.  If I happened to pick one of those payments for further indication, I got a strong sense of a bishop's personal bias in those payment of either like or dislike.

 

• Every and I mean every ward had several families that for all intents and purposes looked to the Church for financial support every month for years on end.  Some stories were understandable while others seemed less so.  It was always jarring to hear comments from bishops and their councilors/clerks about families being unworthy of help while I would see the evidence of another family in similar situations being helped.

 

• I constantly had bishops telling me they would no longer help someone because they weren't doing what the bishop thought they should be doing.  This usually centered around the fact the person had a low paying job and wasn't doing enough in the bishop's eye's to improve their situation.  I knew several of these families and each one had a breadwinner or winners that simply did not have skill sets to get higher paying jobs.  They couldn't afford training because they were working so hard to just survive.  I have never met a poor bishop and I have never met a bishop who seemed to grasp the hardships of being poor with limited options.  I have taught the Church's self reliance classes which bishop's often refer people too.  Those classes work wonderfully with members who have a good income or marketable skill set but do not manage money well or credit well.  The very poor have no money to manage and credit is something they have never experienced.  The classes do not help the very poor.

 

• I observed bishops handle a number of cases of crisis such as lost jobs, spousal abandonment and sudden death.  Stake presidents were often involved in these situations.  While most of the time, they tried their best to help, they had very little knowledge of what happens in such crisis.  They didn't understand how bank accounts can be drained very quickly with no access to cash from investments that are not easily liquidated as an example.  Several times I was asked to help and do a review of the situation.  Each was unique, each had it's own possible resolutions and each had a critical role the Church could play.  The oddest was the former bishop, stake presidency councilor and high councilor that everyone thought was going straight to the celestial kingdom that died and turned out to be a tax evader and slumlord who faced criminal charges at the time of his death.  His own family had no idea.  All of his money was frozen and the Church was the only viable option for help for a month or two.

 

• Almost every year I would run into 1 or 2 payments that were obviously outside of church guidelines.  They always involve large sums and were very easy for a trained auditor to find.  I always brought these to the attention of the stake audit committee and filed my reports electronically with the Church.  I was always assured that the proper response and actions would occur.  Several times I got questions from Church headquarters that indicated the matter was noted.  To my knowledge no action was ever taken and several times the same incident would occur again and I would point that out.  I was always told that the situation was being dealt with.  I also got the strong impression from leadership that other stake auditors didn't typically find these problems but when I talked to several other stake auditors, they had seen and experienced the same thing but started avoiding auditing those items has it just cause uncomfortable feelings.

 

• I would say 95% of all payments made from welfare to budgets were made appropriately and I never had to question them.  In the professional audit world, a 95% pass rate would merit a negative audit opinion or the refusal to issue an audit opinion while your average person would think that is a very good rate.  

 

What am I trying to say about this particular individual in this thread?  He could very likely be misrepresenting what actually happen.  But he could be telling the truth as I have seen a number of situations personally handled by a bishop just as the individual represents.  This is a very big Church with the vast majority of its local, regional and general leadership lacking in financial training.  Most stake auditors, ward and stake financial clerks and councilors have very limited financial training and really do a poor job of understanding what is going on in my experience.  That is why the Church has put everything online it can because I was a ward clerk in the old days of papers reports and the reality was that most wards had a mess but no one knew it.  One of the reasons that Church's finances got in such good shape over the last 25 years is that online reporting systems and centralized banking cleaned up an incredible amount of waste but there is still plenty there.  It is just the nature of the beast when you have so many untrained people who also don't have a financial skill set.

[rchorse]

Deleted

Edited December 31, 2021 by rchorse
changed my mind

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

His company had also failed, so the income that got him there might have been missing for a significant time.  While the $20,000 suggests he may have been previously well off, it doesn’t mean he was at the time.  Otoh, he hadn’t had to use his savings it appears until the insurance fell through, so it honestly sounds like he was managing fine until then…and a $20,000 bill to someone who has enough assets they can pay it off outright vs someone who is struggling to pay bills each month is a very different thing.

The timeline on his failed business venture doesn't track, at least not in terms of relevance.

According to the LinkedIn profile you found earlier, the media company he founded went under in November 2016. 

But, if the letter posted on the website he created for the musical is accurate, the meeting with his bishop took place "[j]ust a few...months" before the WSJ published their article about the church's investment portfolio. 

The WSJ article was published in Feb 2020 though, so that means his encounter with the bishop happened sometime near the end of 2019. 

But by the end of 2019 he had been working for his then (and still current) employer for almost a year - having started working there in Jan 2019.

 

Quote

I saw one, but it looked like it was just derived from another iirc (I will see if I can find it again) in that no other original info was included and all it said was something like ‘after looking at his finances’ and I wonder if that was an assumption by the reporter given it is the only one.  Surely a reporter would ask for clarifying details like that, as in ‘take me through step by step what happened with the bishop’.  It honestly seemed weird to me that it wasn’t explicitly said that the bishop did the comprehensive review and in fact felt carefully worded to make it easy to infer it was without actually saying the review occurred, but rather that he requested a comprehensive review and it makes me wonder if he had just made the request and then given the food order as immediate help while waiting to give any more until after the review or if Nolan hadn’t had the chance or the desire to bring all the necessary documents and had only the basics for that interview and Nolan decided to go a different route after that as there is no further interviews describing working with the bishop in any way, such as may happen with an ongoing problem as I understand.  However, the weird wording could have been the poor choice of the reporter and repeated by those who borrowed it.  Poor, unclear reporting is not that uncommon.

It was from the SLT article: 

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.

 

Reading over the SLT article though it doesn't sound like the author actually conducted any sort of meaningful interview. It does appear that she contacted (or was contacted by) Nolan because there are a couple of unique quotes that aren't on the musical's website (though I didn't bother to look through his social media), but the majority of the content - and this portion, in particular - looks to be sourced straight from his website. I believe the wording there - from this former media guy - is intentionally misleading. YMMV.

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Amulek

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The timeline on his failed business venture doesn't track, at least not in terms of relevance.

According to the LinkedIn profile you found earlier, the media company he founded went under in November 2016. 

But, as the letter posted on the website he created for the musical is accurate, the meeting with his bishop took place "[j]ust a few...months" before the WSJ published their article about the church's investment portfolio. 

The WSJ article was published in Feb 2020 though, so that means his encounter with the bishop happened sometime near the end of 2019. 

But by the end of 2019 he had been working for his then (and still current) employer for almost a year - having started working there in Jan 2019.

 

It was from the SLT article: 

Reading over the SLT article though it doesn't sound like the author actually conducted any sort of meaningful interview. It does appear that she contacted Nolan because there are a couple of unique quotes that aren't on the musical's website (though I didn't bother to look through his social media), but the majority of the content - and this portion, in particular - looks to be sourced straight from his website. I believe the wording there - from this former media guy - is intentionally misleading. YMMV.

 

I bought tickets to the play, because I happen to love going to plays, and was curious what the play would be like. I got an email today that they've changed the dates and it's moved to August now. I wonder if it had anything to do with his standing in church or the publicity he's getting. Here's a c/p of the email I got:

Happy New Year from The Good Shepherds production team!

 

The Good Shepherds is now gaining National News attention!  We are thrilled that so many people (and even major, national news organizations) are interested in the production and its worthy cause.  We sincerely thank you for supporting it. 

https://thegoodshepherds.net/in-the-news

 

You are receiving this email because you are an existing ticket holder.  Due to some unforeseen circumstances out of our control, we will unfortunately need to postpone the production debut by a few short months.  We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience and certainly would never have done this if there was any other way around it.  

 

The new, confirmed show dates (as verified on the Egyptian Theatre's Event Calendar) are Thurs, Fri, Sat (Aug 18, 19, 20), 2022.

Rest assured, the show will NOT be pushed further into the future.  The social cause is too important for further delays. 

 

The recent regional and national news attention has dramatically increased demand (which means ticket prices will very likely be going up shortly).  Thus, you have a few different options:

 

1. Full, immediate refund (your newly-vacated seat will be re-sold at a higher price to someone else)

2. Keep your seat and enjoy the show in August

3. Think about it until mid June (we will happily give you a full refund anytime up to June 15, 2022)

 

WHAT TO DO: 

**Sometime before 5 pm 12/31/2021 you will receive your new "preferred date and time" ticket info via email.  You will be automatically reassigned to the 8pm show on either Fri or Sat Aug 19 or 20.  If you need a different day or time, please let us know ASAP.   

**The 8pm weekend shows will absolutely sell out the fastest, so you truly are getting the best available days/times. 

 

2021 was a very difficult year for many of us (including many on the production team) and we look forward to a wonderful 2022 and wish you the BEST OF SUCCESS in 2022!

 

Lastly, please help us spread the word.  We can't do it without you!  Share a news article or a YouTube video or a Spotify song.  It would mean so much to us!

 

Sincerely,

The Good Shepherds production team

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

But, if the letter posted on the website he created for the musical is accurate, the meeting with his bishop took place "[j]ust a few...months" before the WSJ published their article about the church's investment portfolio. 

Quote

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.

Quote

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 to cover the full house payment that same month.

Can’t insert between the quotes.  Feb 2020 is almost two years ago, so if we say the “few” was 12 months….quite a stretch, we are talking Feb 2019.  So maybe another company he started?  Unless it was the Fundracer company, but his bio certainly doesn’t sound like the owner and there are a couple of possibilities that are still going strong (nearest…https://archerytag.com/fundracer-events ).  The only one he founded listed was shut down in 2016 and that is too early as you pointed out.

Quote

But by the end of 2019 he had been working for his then (and still current) employer for almost a year - having started working there in Jan 2019.

And had been working for his previous employer since the folding of his company (Nov 2016-Dec 2018).  There is no break in his employment record…is that for real or a fudge to make him look good? 
 

Quote

combined with severe full-time job instability, 

My guess is he is stretching the “recently failed marketing business”…the recent was actually three years prior, his Fundracer job wasn’t that great, maybe he earned by commission?  The wall being damaged and draining their savings is last straw and he finds another job.
 

This seems too much of a gap to misremember if it truly was recently failed, but it is much more dramatic to say “just a few months” than “just a few years” or “recently failed” vs “several years ago”.  Better to pack in his issues as an unusual circumstance of combined disasters taking place over a few months rather than an ongoing few years one of failed company and poor job which makes him look more accountable than just the stars misaligning and justifies either way the difficulty still being sharp in his mind rather than a thing of the past and he and his family are nicely back on their feet again, so he is now really writing from a comfortable place, not a stressed one.

This is the part that makes it sound to me like the bishop said if you want help with your mortgage, I need to do a comprehensive finance review with you and he was overwhelmed by the thought of going through that (man, that thought would kill me, pulling it all together when already stressed, I am flashing back to some stuff I had to do for Mom financially) and he then shared with the bishop the specifics of why he was asking, the failed business and damaged wall.  To which the bishop responded, “I can give you a $40 voucher for food from the storehouse immediately without any documentation needed, but if you want more, I need to do that review.”  After all, one of the big points of his musical apparently is the transparency…if the Church expects to be trusted when it says pay your tithing, why don’t they trust members in the same way or to put it another way, if the Church is going to demand transparency to share its funds, it should provide transparency when it takes ours.

I don’t agree when it comes to tithing, part of the sacrifice is to let it go to God for whatever his purpose is.  Fast offerings, again a show of gratitude.  Other donations for humanitarian purposes, including possibly missionary work (have to think about that)…then it is about the charity and being sure it gets to the right place, so I wouldn’t have an issue with the Church becoming transparent with that as long as they don’t spend too much money on it.

Quote

the bishop reviewed his finances 

So it is the Trib and those who cloned the article that said there was some sort of review, but not how detailed.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if it had anything to do with his standing in church or the publicity he's getting.

Probably publicity.  They wanted to do a longer run of three days on a weekend (I am assuming the original were two dates, a Friday and Saturday from how they are doing the reassigning) and that was the first opening of the required length is my guess.  Can’t imagine that his standing would just cause a delay, as if they are still selling tickets he can’t claim to the bishop he is not putting it on so he can get a recommend or be allowed to baptize his kid, but doesn’t care by August…

Do you remember the original dates?

I noticed they plan on raising the price.  It is listed as $19.50 for the cheap seats plus $5 fee.

His publicity worked out well for him and his investors and the theatre, I am guessing,   I really, really, really want to know how many tickets they had sold before this story came out.

You would have to pay me a couple a hundred bucks to go.  Feels too forced a topic and musicals can be so painful if not done well.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Human nature being what it is, I can envision someone being in denial, thinking he can pull himself out of a financial tailspin before, as a last resort, he has to turn to the Church for assistance. Human pride is a powerful force to overcome. 

I would be more sympathetic if I thought it was out of shame. My read though is it is more usually procrastination and laziness.

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

He could very likely be misrepresenting what actually happen.  But he could be telling the truth

Well it's the same with everything. The church isn't going to come out and comment so we get one side of it.

Same thing happened with the Huntsman lawsuit, when the trial started and documents came out, we found out that a lot of what he was publicly claiming was inaccurate.

Edited December 31, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[rongo]

I served as a bishop, in two different wards, in an area that isn't wealthy. Our wards collected between $25,000 and $30,000 in fast offering annually. 

To go along with the excellent experiences and observations already stated in this thread by others who have been bishops, auditors, etc.:

1) In my experience, any help beyond that which is very temporary (and often even then) doesn't really help the individuals or families. That is, many people have a mindset that having utilities disconnected or missing a rent or mortgage payment is a catastrophic thing that must be avoided at all costs. While not good, and to be avoided, I find that it's better spiritually and temporally for people to figure out their own problems rather than have the Church step in and pay for them. Usually, people will find a way, and where and when they don't/can't, they use the resources at their disposal to address it ASAP. When they know that the Church will be a reliable backstop/safety net, they don't do this, and look to the Church.

2) I echo what has already been said about turning to family. People always insist that they can't turn to family, or that they have already exhausted this option, but if the bishop is firm in not extending help, family magically steps in. The reality is that people are embarrassed and don't want to turn to family at all, but oddly, it is less embarrassing to turn to the Church. For me, turning to the Church would be just as embarrassing.

2a) Once people have "broken the ice" and turned to the Church, it becomes exponentially easier to do so again. And again. Most "frequent fliers" with welfare have had a pattern of this across many units over many years.

3) I had the advantage of being more "poor" than those seeking help from me, and they knew it, so they knew that I wasn't asking/requiring anything of them that I didn't do myself. It also helped them to know that I really did know the fear and stress of trying to make ends meet. My family regularly experienced miracles from living the gospel, so it wasn't just "empty words" when I counseled with them about what I would do in their shoes. 

3a) For example, our well pump would go out every 18 months or so and need to be replaced, which meant we had no water for a few days (it takes time to pull 800 feet of pipe and put a new pump 800 feet down in the aquifer with the pipe. And that's if you can get a well company out right away). So, if someone panics because their water is going to be shut off due to non-payment --- well, pay your bill (plus late fees) ASAP and get your water turned back on. Borrow from family, work a side job, whatever it takes. But, I wasn't sitting in an ivory tower with no empathy for what it's like to be without an essential service for even days. I understood what it will be like. 

3b) People would sometimes be manipulative and purposely not come in until utilities were going to be shut off in hours. This is intended to put the bishop back on his heels and make him dance while being pistol-whipped (gotta mobilize and stop it from being shut off!). Sometimes, too, people just put it off until it was "everlastingly too late" because of embarrassment or because they were paralyzed into inaction until it was too late. 

4) Usually, Church assistance (even the "preferred" option of food orders) just freed up limited income for what they wanted to spend it on. That is, for certain people, if the Church would pay utilities, housing, food, and transportation costs (car payments), why then, I can spend money on hobbies and entertainment. That is why it is important to go through bank statements with people, even though this request is usually balked at. 

4a) People don't come to the Church for help with their internet/phone payments. They pay that first, as the top priority, and they don't want the bishop to know how much that is because it's an obvious elephant in the room (iPhones, data plans, top notch internet, etc. --- but ostensibly can't cover basics of life).

4b) It is very common for people seeking help from the Church to do annual Disneyland/Knotts Berry Farm/Six Flags Magic Mountain vacations, expensive purchases, etc. while seeking assistance. Facebook is not their friend, and people are stunned how obvious it is that they are choosing to spend their money on their wants, while expecting the Church to cover their needs.

5) The reality is that some people and families simply are "car" or "house" poor, and will have to move or lose (as in, repossession, eviction, or foreclosure) as part of the self-reliance process. The Church artificially propping up their situation doesn't help them and prolongs the inevitable --- unless the Church is willing to permanently artificially prop them up in their situation. In my experience, frankly and lovingly discussing this and concrete plans of action was more Christlike than helping (as in, paying thousands in payments) when their situation was impossible. Sometimes the best help is covering a deposit and even first/last month's rent in a more reasonable location and situation, instead of propping up when they are just going to be in the same position in another month.

6) Underemployment can be a real issue, and it can be difficult to better one's lot when one has to keep working to keep income coming in. It always fascinated me that Church members are usually unwilling to do "Cinderella Man" - style supplemental work, while non-members are usually much more willing. It was no secret that I supplemented my teacher's salary with day labor construction (unskilled, daily pay) during the summers and during school breaks. I only encountered one Church member who ever registered with the agency and did it. $100 a day seems like a drop in the bucket, but you can get gas, groceries, and pay utilities with just a few days' work --- and it pays at the end of work every day. You could go in and have $100 in eight hours, but you will have to be there at 4:00 AM, and you will sometimes be exhausted. My two missionaries each earned $10,000 over a summer during that (boy and girl), so it is something that wives and mothers could do to help out, depending on the childcare needs of children. Most people consider this beneath them. 

7) Two jokers in the deck in the current situation: the Covid unemployment payments, and the housing market. Paying people for a year and a half not to work, at more than they were making, has made many not want to work, or not want to work at conditions and pay that is "beneath them." And, with rents being as much or sometimes more than mortgages, and with a shortage of housing in general, it's more difficult for families to move to be more self-reliant. That would be a difficult problem for current bishops to deal with. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by rongo

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Probably publicity.  They wanted to do a longer run of three days on a weekend (I am assuming the original were two dates, a Friday and Saturday from how they are doing the reassigning) and that was the first opening of the required length is my guess.  Can’t imagine that his standing would just cause a delay, as if they are still selling tickets he can’t claim to the bishop he is not putting it on so he can get a recommend or be allowed to baptize his kid, but doesn’t care by August…

Do you remember the original dates?

I noticed they plan on raising the price.  It is listed as $19.50 for the cheap seats plus $5 fee.

His publicity worked out well for him and his investors and the theatre, I am guessing,   I really, really, really want to know how many tickets they had sold before this story came out.

You would have to pay me a couple a hundred bucks to go.  Feels too forced a topic and musicals can be so painful if not done well.

It was Mar 21, 22, 23rd I believe, with a couple or one of the days with two performances. I'm a big supporter of plays or even those in my town that aren't very big venues. One of them is devoted to help cancer patients and donates percentages and those that want to donate the night of the play, it's called "Hopebox Theatre". The other playhouse is called, OPPA or On Pitch Performing Arts, which actually performed the Broadway show, "Rent" in November. I ordered the tickets for my husband and my anniversary, and didn't even know going in what it was about. But I couldn't have been more impressed if it was the actual Broadway show in New York. It was the most touching play, and the actors were incredible. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I served as a bishop, in two different wards, in an area that isn't wealthy. Our wards collected between $25,000 and $30,000 in fast offering annually. 

To go along with the excellent experiences and observations already stated in this thread by others who have been bishops, auditors, etc.:

1) In my experience, any help beyond that which is very temporary (and often even then) doesn't really help the individuals or families. That is, many people have a mindset that having utilities disconnected or missing a rent or mortgage payment is a catastrophic thing that must be avoided at all costs. While not good, and to be avoided, I find that it's better spiritually and temporally for people to figure out their own problems rather than have the Church step in and pay for them. Usually, people will find a way, and where and when they don't/can't, they use the resources at their disposal to address it ASAP. When they know that the Church will be a reliable backstop/safety net, they don't do this, and look to the Church.

2) I echo what has already been said about turning to family. People always insist that they can't turn to family, or that they have already exhausted this option, but if the bishop is firm in not extending help, family magically steps in. The reality is that people are embarrassed and don't want to turn to family at all, but oddly, it is less embarrassing to turn to the Church. For me, turning to the Church would be just as embarrassing.

2a) Once people have "broken the ice" and turned to the Church, it becomes exponentially easier to do so again. And again. Most "frequent fliers" with welfare have had a pattern of this across many units over many years.

3) I had the advantage of being more "poor" than those seeking help from me, and they knew it, so they knew that I wasn't asking/requiring anything of them that I didn't do myself. It also helped them to know that I really did know the fear and stress of trying to make ends meet. My family regularly experienced miracles from living the gospel, so it wasn't just "empty words" when I counseled with them about what I would do in their shoes. 

3a) For example, our well pump would go out every 18 months or so and need to be replaced, which meant we had no water for a few days (it takes time to pull 800 feet of pipe and put a new pump 800 feet down in the aquifer with the pipe. And that's if you can get a well company out right away). So, if someone panics because their water is going to be shut off due to non-payment --- well, pay your bill (plus late fees) ASAP and get your water turned back on. Borrow from family, work a side job, whatever it takes. But, I wasn't sitting in an ivory tower with no empathy for what it's like to be without an essential service for even days. I understood what it will be like. 

3b) People would sometimes be manipulative and purposely not come in until utilities were going to be shut off in hours. This is intended to put the bishop back on his heels and make him dance while being pistol-whipped (gotta mobilize and stop it from being shut off!). Sometimes, too, people just put it off until it was "everlastingly too late" because of embarrassment or because they were paralyzed into inaction until it was too late. 

4) Usually, Church assistance (even the "preferred" option of food orders) just freed up limited income for what they wanted to spend it on. That is, for certain people, if the Church would pay utilities, housing, food, and transportation costs (car payments), why then, I can spend money on hobbies and entertainment. That is why it is important to go through bank statements with people, even though this request is usually balked at. 

4a) People don't come to the Church for help with their internet/phone payments. They pay that first, as the top priority, and they don't want the bishop to know how much that is because it's an obvious elephant in the room (iPhones, data plans, top notch internet, etc. --- but ostensibly can't cover basics of life).

4b) It is very common for people seeking help from the Church to do annual Disneyland/Knotts Berry Farm/Six Flags Magic Mountain vacations, expensive purchases, etc. while seeking assistance. Facebook is not their friend, and people are stunned how obvious it is that they are choosing to spend their money on their wants, while expecting the Church to cover their needs.

5) The reality is that some people and families simply are "car" or "house" poor, and will have to move or lose (as in, repossession, eviction, or foreclosure) as part of the self-reliance process. The Church artificially propping up their situation doesn't help them and prolongs the inevitable --- unless the Church is willing to permanently artificially prop them up in their situation. In my experience, frankly and lovingly discussing this and concrete plans of action was more Christlike than helping (as in, paying thousands in payments) when their situation was impossible. Sometimes the best help is covering a deposit and even first/last month's rent in a more reasonable location and situation, instead of propping up when they are just going to be in the same position in another month.

6) Underemployment can be a real issue, and it can be difficult to better one's lot when one has to keep working to keep income coming in. It always fascinated me that Church members are usually unwilling to do "Cinderella Man" - style supplemental work, while non-members are usually much more willing. It was no secret that I supplemented my teacher's salary with day labor construction (unskilled, daily pay) during the summers and during school breaks. I only encountered one Church member who ever registered with the agency and did it. $100 a day seems like a drop in the bucket, but you can get gas, groceries, and pay utilities with just a few days' work --- and it pays at the end of work every day. You could go in and have $100 in eight hours, but you will have to be there at 4:00 AM, and you will sometimes be exhausted. My two missionaries each earned $10,000 over a summer during that (boy and girl), so it is something that wives and mothers could do to help out, depending on the childcare needs of children. Most people consider this beneath them. 

7) Two jokers in the deck in the current situation: the Covid unemployment payments, and the housing market. Paying people for a year and a half not to work, at more than they were making, has made many not want to work, or not want to work at conditions and pay that is "beneath them." And, with rents being as much or sometimes more than mortgages, and with a shortage of housing in general, it's more difficult for families to move to be more self-reliant. That would be a difficult problem for current bishops to deal with. 

My sister was one who routinely (every month) went to her bishop for financial help while being very irresponsible and immature with her money (like spending her $10,000 tax return on clothes and new iphones rather than to pay her rent or past due utilities).  She would always get it, no questions asked.  Then she got a new bishop, who told her that she had to go to my parents for help first before the church could help.  My sister said that wasn't an option.  So the new bishop called my parents.  He knows them well (they all live in the same town, though not in the same ward, and he and my parents are friends).

My parents could definitely help so the bishop told my sister no.  She got the help that was essential but it came with a lot more strings attached.  She stopped using the church as source of money though.  And she got better with her money (for a time) because more was required of her.

Edited December 31, 2021 by bluebell

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I bought tickets to the play, because I happen to love going to plays, and was curious what the play would be like. I got an email today that they've changed the dates and it's moved to August now. I wonder if it had anything to do with his standing in church or the publicity he's getting.

Doubtful. It's likely something much more mundane - like dates being shifted back due to the latest spike of COVID. Or maybe him losing the original dates due to not enough funding or low ticket sales. 

The publicity he is receiving is a very recent development and - quite frankly - seems largely to be of his own making. If you look at the In The News page of his website, you'll notice that the first piece about his play is from 12/11, and it isn't really a news piece at all. Calling it an "NBC Interview" is more than a stretch (which, I'm starting to see as being kind of a trend with this guy). It isn't an NBC interview at all. It is a piece of sponsored advertising content that has been posted on a local NBC affiliate website in Salisbury, Maryland.  

Then there's the Trib article, which I believe he was like the driving force in contacting. This kind of story is right up their alley, so it doesn't surprise me that they slapped something together and put it out. 

To be clear, I don't have a problem with somebody using the media to draw attention to whatever it is they are doing. I'm just pointing out that any attention he's been getting likely isn't the reason why anything is being moved (date wise). 

 

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

His publicity worked out well for him and his investors and the theatre, I am guessing,   I really, really, really want to know how many tickets they had sold before this story came out.

I don't believe he has any other investors. He's advertising to pick up executive producers and sponsors. On the Sponsors & Exec. Producers page, he states that "continuing to "bootstrap" an entire, high-quality original Live Musical Theatre Production with only personal savings from the Producer/Composer is not practical."

Don't get me wrong, maybe the house repair really did wipe out their savings at that time, but just a couple of years later and he's replenished it enough to produce his own musical? How much personal savings does this guy have?

 

Quote

You would have to pay me a couple a hundred bucks to go.  Feels too forced a topic and musicals can be so painful if not done well.

Amen to that. 

I watched a couple of his teaser songs on YouTube, and they were straight up painful.

The best way I could describe them would be unintentionally satirical - as in, they sound like a satire of a musical, not like musical satire. 

Oh, the audio is clear and the production values are fine, but the music and lyrics themselves are like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Just picture any one of those terrible "Mormon cinema" films that used to be a thing years and years ago. Now picture them being made by someone who is trying to criticize the church (poorly). And then turn them into a crappy collection of songs instead of one crappy movie - that's pretty much what you would end up with. 

 

[kimpearson]

To follow up on my previous post.  Why are most of you inclined to believe that bishops are always right and above reproach in their dealings with fast offering?  Why is the first response always a negative assumption about the individual?  Can any of you admit that bishops can and have abused the use of fast offerings by not paying or paying when they clearly shouldn't have?  I don't know if many of you will even acknowledge that attitudes like this is why many are leaving the Church.  Active members tend to deny there is ever any abuse in the fast offering and Church assistance program.  Most active members believe that many of those seeking assistance are there because of their own fault.  There is not one story related above of someone who was truly struggling and denied assistance while I have personally seen it too many times to say it is rare.  Until the members of this Church can fully acknowledge the shortcomings that exist in the Church today and be honest about them, activity rates will decrease, conversion rates will decrease and members will continue to leave.

How quick so many are to just blow off the wise counsel given by King Benjamin to not justify not helping those in need because they brought it upon themselves.  My reading of the scriptures teaches me that aid should always be offered in some form without judgement.  Most of the comments on this thread feel like a general condemnation of many people seeking church assistance.  So what if someone screwed their life up.  So what if they have been unwise with their money.  Show me one scripture or teaching of a modern prophet that says assistance should be denied if someone is stupid, an unwise steward of their money or even a liar.  Yes we believe in helping others to help themselves but that is not an excuse to withhold assistance.  What terrible thing would have happened if the gentlemen in the story above would have received mortgage assistance for one or two months?  Just maybe a heart would have been changed and we might have been reading a story about a play about how the Church blesses lives.  Please tell me what is to be gained by hammering on this man other than to make some of you feel superior or justified in your views?

[BRMC]

18 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

To follow up on my previous post.  Why are most of you inclined to believe that bishops are always right and above reproach in their dealings with fast offering?  Why is the first response always a negative assumption about the individual?  Can any of you admit that bishops can and have abused the use of fast offerings by not paying or paying when they clearly shouldn't have?  I don't know if many of you will even acknowledge that attitudes like this is why many are leaving the Church.  Active members tend to deny there is ever any abuse in the fast offering and Church assistance program.  Most active members believe that many of those seeking assistance are there because of their own fault.  There is not one story related above of someone who was truly struggling and denied assistance while I have personally seen it too many times to say it is rare.  Until the members of this Church can fully acknowledge the shortcomings that exist in the Church today and be honest about them, activity rates will decrease, conversion rates will decrease and members will continue to leave.

How quick so many are to just blow off the wise counsel given by King Benjamin to not justify not helping those in need because they brought it upon themselves.  My reading of the scriptures teaches me that aid should always be offered in some form without judgement.  Most of the comments on this thread feel like a general condemnation of many people seeking church assistance.  So what if someone screwed their life up.  So what if they have been unwise with their money.  Show me one scripture or teaching of a modern prophet that says assistance should be denied if someone is stupid, an unwise steward of their money or even a liar.  Yes we believe in helping others to help themselves but that is not an excuse to withhold assistance.  What terrible thing would have happened if the gentlemen in the story above would have received mortgage assistance for one or two months?  Just maybe a heart would have been changed and we might have been reading a story about a play about how the Church blesses lives.  Please tell me what is to be gained by hammering on this man other than to make some of you feel superior or justified in your views?

As someone who has been a part of these discussions, things typically aren't as black and white as it may seem.   Sometimes care must be made to provide support while not contributing to other issues (such as addiction).   Other times there are limited resources that must be divided.   Because the goal is usually self-sufficiency, there are also times when stipulations are put in place to work towards that goal.   

Additionally, there is a hierarchy for seeking support and what that support can be used for.   When in need, members are supposed to look for relief from extended family first, then the government, then lastly the Church.  Some members skip the first two steps.  Some members also seek Church assistance for items the Church CAN pay for while using the money it frees up to spend on what some would consider luxuries.   

I've seen Fast Offerings be an incredible blessing to grateful members who develop long-term self reliance.  I've also seen Fast Offerings used to pay rent and utilities, then have the person receive the COVID relief funds and buy luxury items rather than pay back rent.  

 

[JustAnAustralian]

No one is saying that bishops are perfect, or that people shouldn't be able to get financial support from the church, or that he didn't need financial support from the church.

We have multiple bishops and (and clerks who see the expenses go out) giving their personal experience (including you)

We also have people discussing that the way that he has described the situation seems lacking.

45 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Please tell me what is to be gained by hammering on this man

He put his story out there publicly and linked it to his play. Are you saying we should blindly accept one side of a story without hearing the other side first?

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Why are most of you inclined to believe that bishops are always right and above reproach in their dealings with fast offering? 

I don't believe bishops are always right and above reproach w/respect to how they handle fast offerings.

However, I have known and worked closely with a lot of bishops over the years, and my personal experience has been that the overwhelming majority of bishops are good, honest, decent men. 

Based on that experience, yeah, bishops (as a class) start out with a fairly healthy presumption of innocence in my book. 

 

Quote

Why is the first response always a negative assumption about the individual?

About any individual? Or about this particular individual?

Because, from where I'm sitting, this particular individual spouted off a story that didn't really pass the smell test. 

And the more I looked into what he said that could actually be verified the more obvious it became to me that this guy isn't exactly a straight shooter. 

If he's stretching the truth about the things I can check, I'm less inclined to believe he's being completely forthright about everything else he's saying as well. 

 

Quote

Can any of you admit that bishops can and have abused the use of fast offerings by not paying or paying when they clearly shouldn't have?

Sure. I don't believe bishops are infallible. 

 

Quote

I don't know if many of you will even acknowledge that attitudes like this is why many are leaving the Church. 

Is it a proven fact that "attitudes like this" (whatever "this" may be) is the reason why many are leaving the church?

 

Quote

Active members tend to deny there is ever any abuse in the fast offering and Church assistance program.

I suspect that the majority of active members - at least, here in the states - don't think about the inner workings of the church's assistance program at all. 

 

Quote

Most active members believe that many of those seeking assistance are there because of their own fault.

Well, to be fair, many times it is their own fault. That doesn't make them bad people or not worthy of aid, but don't get mad just because some people don't have a problem calling a spade a spade. 

If the root cause of someone's money problems is bad decision making and poor money management, ignoring that reality isn't going to help anyone. 

 

Quote

There is not one story related above of someone who was truly struggling and denied assistance while I have personally seen it too many times to say it is rare. 

If you say so. My experience has been that bishops frequently err on the side of being too generous.

In all the cases I have seen where I had enough information to truly know what was going on, I have never seen an example of assistance being denied unjustly.

 

Quote

My reading of the scriptures teaches me that aid should always be offered in some form without judgement. 

In the case in question, the bishop did offer some form of aid - just not in the form the petitioner wanted.

 

Quote

Most of the comments on this thread feel like a general condemnation of many people seeking church assistance. 

I don't have a problem with people seeking church assistance. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And I don't think anyone on this thread has said differently. 

I think what you are seeing, however, is that a lot of people who are involved in 'making the sausage' (so to speak) have seen plenty of cases where people abuse the church's generosity. If they were engaging in that sort of behavior with the government it would be called welfare fraud. If they do it to the church though, we're just supposed to ignore it? I don't think so.

 

Quote

What terrible thing would have happened if the gentlemen in the story above would have received mortgage assistance for one or two months? 

I guess he would have had to have an honest conversation with his kids about how they weren't going to have a huge Christmas that year because they had to get their house fixed. 

Frightening, I know. 

I'm sorry, but this is like the very definition of a first world problem.

[Edited to add: I see now that I kind of whiffed it here. But I'm going to leave my inapt answer resulting from my misreading of your question in place, because I too am fallible. ]

 

Quote

Just maybe a heart would have been changed and we might have been reading a story about a play about how the Church blesses lives. 

I've listened to this guy's songs. Trust me, the church is better off with him not making any musicals for us. 

 

Quote

Please tell me what is to be gained by hammering on this man other than to make some of you feel superior or justified in your views?

Someone else mentioned it first, but I'll second it: we aren't the ones who put this man's story into the public eye - that was something he did.

On his own. 

Intentionally.

He's the one who is trying to monetize his angst by making a musical criticizing the church and then went out of his way to publicly promote it.

That's what brought it up for discussion (and scrutiny).

Look, it's not my fault that the the only thing this guy appears to be worse at than telling the truth is writing songs. #OhSnap  

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Amulek