James Huntsman's Tithing Refund Lawsuit Thrown Out

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

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. 

Sorry but in my experience almost every bishop I audited and worked with had unfair biases to certain people in the ward.  Sure 90% of the time many bishops got it right but each one I was personally exposed too made mistakes.

 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Quote

 

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. 

You just agreed with my point.  Active members just assume all is well and if anyone who is inactive raises a complaint or tries to point it out as something they disagree with about the Church, they are dismissed with no consideration at all.

 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

$40 is an offer of aid?

 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

And you are happy to pile on with everybody else when no one on this thread really knows anything about the true facts of the story.  You made all your conclusion based on a newspaper article and every conclusion was negative.  If you can't admit your own biases, I can't really say anything else.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

on'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?

 

Very interesting catch. 
 

Maybe a rich uncle died.
 

Added:  Or someone who owed him for work in his old business finally paid him off as the judge insisted (remembering something that happened to an uncle, took forever to get paid and they lost their business while waiting, but eventually the court came through with some. Not enough to cover actual damage though). 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Sorry but in my experience almost every bishop I audited and worked with had unfair biases to certain people in the ward.  Sure 90% of the time many bishops got it right but each one I was personally exposed too made mistakes.

How do you define "unfair biases?" Because certain checks you spot checked at random in a stake audit appeared to you to be "identical" cases, but not identical amounts covered by the Church? There are a zillion variables you wouldn't know as the stake auditor. That is something you can't go by "on paper," in a vacuum. You would have to know the families' actual circumstances --- and track record and history. Just for starters.

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by rongo

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Sorry but in my experience almost every bishop I audited and worked with had unfair biases to certain people in the ward.  Sure 90% of the time many bishops got it right but each one I was personally exposed too made mistakes.

When I was a kid, I used to think it was unfair when my parents treated me differently from one of my...shall we say, more troublesome siblings. Now that I'm older (and more mature...and have kids of my own), I recognize that fairness doesn't mean identical treatment. 

 

Quote

Active members just assume all is well and if anyone who is inactive raises a complaint or tries to point it out as something they disagree with about the Church, they are dismissed with no consideration at all.

No, not with no consideration at all. But, sure, I'll agree that there is a justified belief held by many members - including myself - that the church's welfare program is being operated acceptably well.  

And if 90% of the time bishops are getting right (which is down from the 95% number you tossed out earlier, I might add), when someone comes forward and claims the church done them wrong, well, yeah - there's a chance they are part of that 5-10%, but there's a bigger chance that they are part of the majority and are just whining because they didn't get what they wanted.

 

Quote

$40 is an offer of aid?

Yes, it is. 

Do you have any evidence that it wasn't a sufficient offer of aid?

 

Quote

And you are happy to pile on with everybody else when no one on this thread really knows anything about the true facts of the story.  You made all your conclusion based on a newspaper article and every conclusion was negative. 

If you think I've made my conclusions based on one single newspaper article then you haven't been following what I've been posting. 

I've primarily been looking at his own website and his own words. And the portions of his story that can be verified show that many of his words are...misleading. 

 

Quote

If you can't admit your own biases, I can't really say anything else.

And if you continue to take the word of someone who has been proven to stretch the truth, then pot, meet kettle. 

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Amulek

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

How do you define "unfair biases?" Because certain checks you spot checked at random in a stake audit appeared to you to be "identical" cases, but not identical amounts covered by the Church? There are a zillion variables you wouldn't know as the stake auditor. That is something you can't go by "on paper," in a vacuum. You would have to know the families' actual circumstances --- and track record and history. Just for starters.

I'm also trying to figure out how an auditor would know that funds were being unfairly withheld. After all, no funds expended = nothing to audit, right?

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Amulek

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It was Mar 21, 22, 23rd I believe,

If it was already three days, then don’t know why it would need to be changed unless like someone suggested they lost the dates due to not enough ticket sales and had to reschedule and find a way to up them. 
 

Anyone know if ticket sales are generally better in summer than spring?  Just wondering if that might have had anything to do with it, but he makes is sound like the choice to change was not his. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

8 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? 

Not actually that way as I tend to expect bishops screwing up to a certain extent being human and all.  But I am sensitive to language choices and may read too much into them when it is secondhand and may not be original. The wording about the review felt off to me and so I went exploring to see if I could find more background to the story, including more detail about what went down with the bishop, which seems to me the key issue of the story and therefore one that would have significant details given to document as much as possible the unfairness.  But there isn’t much info there and since he doesn’t have a confidentiality issue, I wonder why. It could just be sloppiness or it could be avoiding details that make his story less dramatic. 
 

Quote

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

Definitely not me.  
 

Quote

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

Nothing I can think of. From what little I know, I kind of wish he had, but I don’t know the details of the way the welfare program works and what limits and guidance is given and why they are given, so I can’t judge if the Church is being effective as much as it could be in its approach to helping people become self reliant (not to make it easier on the Church, but because people generally are happier when more in control of their lives and less dependent on others or at least have a choice to be dependent or not). I see the purpose of welfare aid for those who have a sudden crisis who are generally financially stable (as it appears this man and his family were in this situation even with an unstable job the past several years given the ability to save $20,000 on a single income with at least 4 kids) as preventing a cascade of events leading to them becoming financially unstable (fines and late fees and interest payments, etc can move an income from being in the black at the end of the month to being in the red and then too often the methods used to delay the axe falling make the axe larger).  Also to prevent significant trauma to the family, though a little may help kids and parents learn to be sympathetic to others in greater need or dependent on others for survival. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm

[mrmarklin]

I was a stake auditor for many years. IMHO if anything, the Bishops were too generous .  I made a note in an audit report that a bishop put down a deposit for an apartment that was out of the ward for a member who was moving. I noted, and said to the bishop, you realize that this money belongs to the church but when this person moves, it’s unlikely to be refunded to the church. The member will keep the money. 
 

The bishop said it was worth it to get rid of a freeloader. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I was a stake auditor for many years. IMHO if anything, the Bishops were too generous .  I made a note in an audit report that a bishop put down a deposit for an apartment that was out of the ward for a member who was moving. I noted, and said to the bishop, you realize that this money belongs to the church but when this person moves, it’s unlikely to be refunded to the church. The member will keep the money. 
 

The bishop said it was worth it to get rid of a freeloader. 

We'll, there is that. 

Realistically, that person is likely to lose the entire deposit because of repair/cleaning needs. So, no free money to the person.

I've helped people move out of the ward financially (moving, and getting set up), not only for those reasons, but also to genuinely get them to a situation where they have a fighting chance of being self-reliant (lower rent, walking distance to jobs, etc). It often makes sense from a self-reliance standpoint.

[kimpearson]

 

2 hours ago, rongo said:

How do you define "unfair biases?" Because certain checks you spot checked at random in a stake audit appeared to you to be "identical" cases, but not identical amounts covered by the Church? There are a zillion variables you wouldn't know as the stake auditor. That is something you can't go by "on paper," in a vacuum. You would have to know the families' actual circumstances --- and track record and history. Just for starters.

 

Spoken by someone who is totally ignorant to what a trained auditor can find when questioning certain expenditures.  In every case I am referring to, when I questioned the Bishop about the expenditure, they always got uncomfortable and evasive.  As a trained auditor, you can see patterns and methodology to how payments are being made.  Your eyes are naturally drawn to those that are outside of the pattern.  The easiest being bishop's approvals without the proper documentation, large dollar amounts, odd payee's and payments for items not usually covered by fast offering like large medical bills.  Each of which I would question further and about half the time would lead to a payment that was made wholly on the attitude of the bishop toward the person outside of any guidelines from the Church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

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

Mate, you're not wrong! 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[rodheadlee]

20k to get a wall replaced,  it  must be one heck of a wall .

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

20k to get a wall replaced,  it  must be one heck of a wall .

Exterior wall of a decent size, probably two storied (assuming the address is correct though those houses are aren’t that old, so rot seems unlikely) house down to the studs and including a number of the studs assuming that is what he meant by rot.  That would include having to refinish the outside of the house on the one side decently.  Assume windows could be reused though. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Exterior wall of a decent size, probably two storied (assuming the address is correct though those houses are aren’t that old, so rot seems unlikely) house down to the studs and including a number of the studs assuming that is what he meant by rot.  That would include having to refinish the outside of the house on the one side decently.  Assume windows could be reused though. 

Yeah, at today's materials prices I guess you could eat that money up. At pre covid prices I'm skeptical. We do a lot of that sort of thing. I guess by the time you refinish the drywall and replace all the electrical blah blah yeah. The outside is siding I'd assume? 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, at today's materials prices I guess you could eat that money up. At pre covid prices I'm skeptical. We do a lot of that sort of thing. I guess by the time you refinish the drywall and replace all the electrical blah blah yeah. The outside is siding I'd assume? 

There wasn’t a specific address, just a street given…I need to look again if I really care, but I think there was siding.  It may have been adobe though with partial brick.  The street looked pretty much like the newer homes (as in past 25 years for sure, but probably 10-15 years) in my neighbourhood.  Nothing stood out, some rather large homes, some not so large, quite large lots, not so many trees.  Not a lot of landscaping iirc, so may haven been a newer development when they took the picture.  How often do they update google streetview?

Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

 How often do they update google streetview?

Fairly often. When I look here I saw my car in the driveway and the storage unit we put in recently and crops ready to plant. Maybe every 6 months or so? Just guessing. Down in Ensenada or not so much, I notice a lot of dirt lots that are filled in with buildings.

Edited January 1, 2022 by rodheadlee

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

20k to get a wall replaced,  it  must be one heck of a wall .

Says the carpenter, who oughtta know!   

[SkyRock]

Someone in my family, who was inactive  confided in me that she had gone to her Bishop, while inactive, and demanded he pay $400 in bills.   He told her no. 

It was a good thing for her and led to growth and self improvement.   She eventually went back to church and has been fully active for the last decade. 

He could have been inspired to tell her no.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

How often do they update google streetview?

It depends on the area.  My house in Utah was last updated in June 2019.  My parents house in Wyoming was last updated in September 2007.  You can look up your address to see when it was last updated.  They put a timestamp in the left corner.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

How do you define "unfair biases?" Because certain checks you spot checked at random in a stake audit appeared to you to be "identical" cases, but not identical amounts covered by the Church? There are a zillion variables you wouldn't know as the stake auditor. That is something you can't go by "on paper," in a vacuum. You would have to know the families' actual circumstances --- and track record and history. Just for starters.

 

 

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm also trying to figure out how an auditor would know that funds were being unfairly withheld. After all, no funds expended = nothing to audit, right?

 

 

13 hours ago, kimpearson said:

 

Spoken by someone who is totally ignorant to what a trained auditor can find when questioning certain expenditures.  In every case I am referring to, when I questioned the Bishop about the expenditure, they always got uncomfortable and evasive.  As a trained auditor, you can see patterns and methodology to how payments are being made.  Your eyes are naturally drawn to those that are outside of the pattern.  The easiest being bishop's approvals without the proper documentation, large dollar amounts, odd payee's and payments for items not usually covered by fast offering like large medical bills.  Each of which I would question further and about half the time would lead to a payment that was made wholly on the attitude of the bishop toward the person outside of any guidelines from the Church.

Did it occur to you that perhaps the reason the bishop seemed uncomfortable or evasive was that you were pressing him on matters that, as a bishop, he is duty bound to keep confidential? Being a stake auditor does not put one in the role of a stake president. 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, kimpearson said:

As a trained auditor, you can see patterns and methodology to how payments are being made.  Your eyes are naturally drawn to those that are outside of the pattern.  The easiest being bishop's approvals without the proper documentation, large dollar amounts, odd payee's and payments for items not usually covered by fast offering like large medical bills. Each of which I would question further and about half the time would lead to a payment that was made wholly on the attitude of the bishop toward the person outside of any guidelines from the Church.

Meh. Church guidelines aren't sacrosanct. 

You don't call leaders who will just blindly follow the rules. You call leaders who you trust, so you can feel confident that they will exercise good judgment about when it is okay to make exceptions to the rules. 

I remember one time, back when I was first called as a financial clerk, where the bishop wanted to spend fast offering funds on something specifically proscribed by the handbook. I pointed out that we would get dinged on our audit, but the bishop, his counselors, and the entire ward council were adamant it be done and were all in agreement. I didn't feel the least bit bad about it. It was a completely justified use of funds. 

 

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did it occur to you that perhaps the reason the bishop seemed uncomfortable or evasive was that you were pressing him on matters that, as a bishop, he is duty bound to keep confidential? Being a stake auditor does not put one in the role of a stake president. 

Once again ignorance speaks.  As an auditor you are required to establish if there was proper documentation and a proper reason for the payments made.  Stake auditors have confidentiality requirements too because an auditor is looking at all the finances of a ward and the documentation and reason behind every payment in your sample set.  Several times, Salt Lake actually asked me to make further inquiries on certain payments.

Once again I am not saying there are massive problems with fast offerings but that I saw a fairly consistent pattern of almost all Bishops making payments that were very questionable as to why they were made.  I also experienced a consistent pattern as I sat in audits talking to clerks, counselors and bishops about payments, documentation, processes and outstanding checks of comments that demonstrated clearly that some members were favored while others were viewed very negatively.  The most troubling instances where when examining documentation, I found notes written by the bishop that were just horrible in the attitude they conveyed toward the recipient.   Anything that I found that clearly documented a problem was noted in my reports and shared in a personal meeting with the stake audit committee.  I was never challenged by the stake audit committee and was often asked to do followup work on the issue.

I am just trying to say the bishops are not perfect and almost every bishop will make mistakes in his handling of fast offering.  In my view of the discussion in this thread, many are very unwilling to admit that those mistakes occur as often as they do and that it some cases those mistakes have very bad results.  I am pretty sure I could find thousands and thousands of individuals willing to testify that they have been mistreated by bishops relating to fast offerings.  I am also pretty sure that many in this group would go to great lengths to argue that each and every one of these individuals was a bad person with evil desires to destroy the Church.  Many have left the church over this issue and I have listened to their stories.  Many are credible, some are clearly exaggerated and some very dubious.  No where can I find that the Church will admit that such problems exist.  In fact I haven't really heard the Church admit that any problems occur in it's fast offering processes. 

One point I have found interesting is that unlike any other large organization and many religions, the Church has no valid process for a member to pass on concerns about a bishop's actions.  You might say that a member can go to the Stake President but that is a violation of any valid reporting system.  The Stake President likely called the bishop, has a very personal relationship with each bishop and has an incredible incentive to protect bishops.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Once again ignorance speaks.  As an auditor you are required to establish if there was proper documentation and a proper reason for the payments made.  Stake auditors have confidentiality requirements too because an auditor is looking at all the finances of a ward and the documentation and reason behind every payment in your sample set.  Several times, Salt Lake actually asked me to make further inquiries on certain payments.

Once again I am not saying there are massive problems with fast offerings but that I saw a fairly consistent pattern of almost all Bishops making payments that were very questionable as to why they were made.  I also experienced a consistent pattern as I sat in audits talking to clerks, counselors and bishops about payments, documentation, processes and outstanding checks of comments that demonstrated clearly that some members were favored while others were viewed very negatively.  The most troubling instances where when examining documentation, I found notes written by the bishop that were just horrible in the attitude they conveyed toward the recipient.   Anything that I found that clearly documented a problem was noted in my reports and shared in a personal meeting with the stake audit committee.  I was never challenged by the stake audit committee and was often asked to do followup work on the issue.

I am just trying to say the bishops are not perfect and almost every bishop will make mistakes in his handling of fast offering.  In my view of the discussion in this thread, many are very unwilling to admit that those mistakes occur as often as they do and that it some cases those mistakes have very bad results.  I am pretty sure I could find thousands and thousands of individuals willing to testify that they have been mistreated by bishops relating to fast offerings.  I am also pretty sure that many in this group would go to great lengths to argue that each and every one of these individuals was a bad person with evil desires to destroy the Church.  Many have left the church over this issue and I have listened to their stories.  Many are credible, some are clearly exaggerated and some very dubious.  No where can I find that the Church will admit that such problems exist.  In fact I haven't really heard the Church admit that any problems occur in it's fast offering processes. 

One point I have found interesting is that unlike any other large organization and many religions, the Church has no valid process for a member to pass on concerns about a bishop's actions.  You might say that a member can go to the Stake President but that is a violation of any valid reporting system.  The Stake President likely called the bishop, has a very personal relationship with each bishop and has an incredible incentive to protect bishops.

As a Ward Clerk I would be defensive in an audit if you started demanding information beyond the basics. I am not surprised they were evasive. Most auditors don’t want to know specifics about why people are approved or denied. They just want the documentation.

I have been through over a dozen audits under multiple bishops. I know the financial inputs and outputs of the ward and have prepared reports for the bishop. Many bishops make decisions I disagree with. I sign the check anyways. I have never gotten a note about how horrible someone is. I have at times been someone the Bishop can vent to about some problems but even there they avoid specifics.

Mistreatment? What does that even mean in this context? Saying no?

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Someone in my family, who was inactive  confided in me that she had gone to her Bishop, while inactive, and demanded he pay $400 in bills.   He told her no. 

It was a good thing for her and led to growth and self improvement.   She eventually went back to church and has been fully active for the last decade. 

He could have been inspired to tell her no.

+1!  Hurry up and get those 25 posts so I can upvote you for real!!!

[mrmarklin]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As a Ward Clerk I would be defensive in an audit if you started demanding information beyond the basics. I am not surprised they were evasive. Most auditors don’t want to know specifics about why people are approved or denied. They just want the documentation.

I have been through over a dozen audits under multiple bishops. I know the financial inputs and outputs of the ward and have prepared reports for the bishop. Many bishops make decisions I disagree with. I sign the check anyways. I have never gotten a note about how horrible someone is. I have at times been someone the Bishop can vent to about some problems but even there they avoid specifics.

Mistreatment? What does that even mean in this context? Saying no?

Other than the incident I mentioned, I have never questioned a bishop’s judgement about how money was spent. I’ve had many eye-rolling chats with financial clerks about certain names that would be recurring beyond a semi annual audit period. But really, it’s up to the bishop. The clerks have opinions and are willing to share them, so one gets an idea of what’s happening. But it’s down to the person who’s privy to ALL the facts in the end. As an auditor there’s no reason to challenge that judgement.