Tithing Slip Change

[Thinking]

The disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip used to read, "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

I just noticed that it has been changed to, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Why would the Church eliminate the "reasonable efforts" part of the disclaimer?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Lawyers.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip used to read, "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

I just noticed that it has been changed to, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Why would the Church eliminate the "reasonable efforts" part of the disclaimer?

To reduce or eliminate the risk of litigation.

Please note that I am not saying "reduce or eliminate the risk of liability."  The law is pretty clear that charitable contributions, once made, become the property of the Church, to be used within its reasonably-exercised discretion.  Courts are, in the main, constrained from adjudicating religious disputes, which I think would extend to disputes as to how a religious group spends donated funds.  Theoretically, there are circumstances in which a charitable institution might use fraudulent representations to encourage/solicit donations.  See, e.g., this story from 2002:

Quote

A jury has sided with two former members of an apocalyptic church who sued seeking repayment of nearly $300,000 they had made in contributions to the 7-year-old church that endorses polygamy and preaches that the world will soon end and only its members will be saved.

The jury in 6th District Court awarded Kaziah Hancock a total of $270,000 and Cindy Stewart $20,325, with separate amounts to be paid to them by the church for fraud, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Counts against the church of racketeering and unjust enrichment were dismissed.

The jury upheld the women's contentions that the church's founder, Jim Harmston, swindled them out of money and failed to fulfill several promises including a face-to-face meeting with Jesus Christ.

Hancock and Stewart maintained Harmston had taken advantage of their spiritual needs. Hancock also has said that church members were taught they could meet Christ if they turned over all their possessions to the church.

The church, meanwhile, plans to appeal.

And this KSL article:

Quote

Two women who gave their life savings to an apocalyptic religious group say they are victims of fraud.

Now, Kaziah Hancock and Cindy Stewart took their lawsuit against The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of The Last Days to the Utah Court of Appeals.

They claim the church failed to make good on promises that the women get land and see Christ in return for their money.

Stewart turned over her life savings to the church. Hancock sold her farm and gave the church the proceeds.

In return, church leader Jim Harmston allegedly promised the women membership in the "Church of the Firstborn," that they would see Christ face-to-face, and be given land.

And here:

Quote

News of the Weird

Staff

Thursday January 31, 2002

Women decieved by the church awarded by jury  

SALT LAKE CITY — A jury awarded $290,000 to two women who said they were deceived by a fundamentalist church whose leaders promised to produce Jesus Christ in the flesh. 

The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of the Last Days was ordered Monday to pay $270,000 to Kaziah Hancock and more than $20,000 to Cindy Stewart for fraud, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

As a condition of church membership, Hancock gave 67 acres of her farm and shares of water rights to the church for redistribution among members. Stewart contributed money from her retirement plan, attorney Don Redd said. 

In return, church founder Jim Harmston promised payments on other property, membership in heaven’s elite and the chance to meet Christ on earth, Redd said. 

The eight-member jury threw out complaints of racketeering and unjust enrichment against the church and Harmston. 

And here:

Quote

Kaziah Hancock and Cindy Stewart won almost $300,000 in damages in January from a breakaway Mormon sect in Manti, Utah, based on their lawsuit for fraud. The suit charged self-proclaimed prophet Jim Harmston of failing to keep several promises, including one to produce Jesus Christ in the flesh. Hancock also claimed that Harmston had persuaded her to donate 67 acres of land to the church, promising that it would give her a new place to live. The church did make one payment toward a new home for Hancock, but then Harmston informed her that God had told him to stop paying.

As you can see, the news coverage tends to focus on the religious quid pro quo (donation of land now in exchange for other land later and a face-to-face meeting with Jesus).  

From one of the appeals of the foregoing case:

Quote

B. No Adjudication of Church Doctrine Necessary to Grant Relief

 ¶ 15 The trial court's second reason for denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend was that the Third Amended Complaint would require the fact finder to impermissibly judge the Church's religious doctrines.   Civil actions that “require the courts to review and interpret church law, policies, or practices in the determination of the[ir] claims are barred by the First Amendment under the entanglement doctrine.”  Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001 UT 25,¶ 15, 21 P.3d 198.

 ¶ 16 Here, Plaintiffs are alleging a variety of causes of action arising from the same set of decidedly secular facts.   Both of the Plaintiffs assert that they gave money to the Church in exchange for promises of future earthly benefits.   Hancock alleges that she was promised land and support;  Stewart alleges that she was promised repayment of her retirement funds including the costs and penalties of early withdrawal.

 ¶ 17 “[C]hurches must have ‘power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ ”  Id. (quoting Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952)).   But here, Plaintiffs' claims do not necessarily implicate the Church's government, faith, or doctrine.²  Rather, each of the claims stated in the Third Amended Complaint is supported by allegations of secular activity potentially amounting to violations of generally applicable civil law.   Cf. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (upholding criminal laws of general applicability even though those laws interfere with sincerely held religious beliefs).   Accordingly, the trial court erred when it relied on the entanglement doctrine to deny Plaintiffs' motion to amend.
...
2.   This is not to say that every allegation in the Third Amended Complaint avoids conflict with the First Amendment.   For example, Plaintiffs' allegation that Hancock “never met Christ face to face as promised” appears to be an entirely religious matter beyond the courts' ability to adjudicate.

Note that the Utah Court of Appeals allowed the litigation to proceed based on "decidedly secular facts" (that is, Hancock claimed "she was promised land and support," and Steward claims she was promised repayment of her retirement funds").  However, the Court describes that "face to face" meeting promise as apparently "an entirely religious matter beyond the courts' ability to adjudicate."

So as regarding funds donated to a religious group, "secular" disputes can be adjudicated, but "religious" ones cannot.  The Church is already well insulated from most "secular" disputes because it makes no contractual arrangements with donors, and any promised blessings would, I think, all end up being properly characterized as "entirely religious matter{s}."

This is why James Huntsman took the "fraud" approach in his lawsuit against the Church.  He was trying to characterize his tithes as being solicited based on assurances as to how the Church would and would not spend tithed donations, and that the Church's involvement in the City Creek project constituted a form of fraud.  

From the outset I anticipated that Huntsman would lose his case.  Nevertheless, the litigation process itself is time-consuming and expensive, and meanwhile Huntsman got a lot of news coverage casting the Church in the worst possible right (which, I think, was one of his primary objectives).  The Laura Gaddy lawsuit has been proceeding along these same lines, with the same unpleasant consequences (legal fees, bad press, etc.).  

Anyway, as regarding the changed text in the donation slip, I see it as a likely attempt to inoculate the Church from future frivolous litigation, and perhaps to provide even further clarity as to how tithes are spent.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Lawyers.

More specifically, lawyers representing former members of the Church who use litigation about such matters to attempt to extract a pound of flesh from the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

20 hours ago, Thinking said:

The disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip used to read, "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

I just noticed that it has been changed to, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Why would the Church eliminate the "reasonable efforts" part of the disclaimer?

I wonder if money was building up in some categories faster than it could be used.  PEF, Book of Mormon, temple construction, temple patron assistance, etc, have all gone away.  If too much money was in one fund it would make sense to shift it to another where is was needed, rather than having it sit unused. 

[JAHS]

On 11/6/2022 at 9:50 AM, Thinking said:

The disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip used to read, "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

I just noticed that it has been changed to, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Why would the Church eliminate the "reasonable efforts" part of the disclaimer?

"reasonable efforts"  takes too much effort? Easier to just put it all in one bucket at the start and use it wherever it is needed.

[Teancum]

On 11/6/2022 at 12:50 PM, Thinking said:

The disclaimer at the bottom of the tithing slip used to read, "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

I just noticed that it has been changed to, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Why would the Church eliminate the "reasonable efforts" part of the disclaimer?

As someone who no longer believes I continued to contribute to FO and humanitarian aid.  But with this nonsense I stopped giving to the LDS Church. If they are not going to use my $$ I give for the designated purpose they will not get my $$.  

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As someone who no longer believes I continued to contribute to FO and humanitarian aid.  But with this nonsense I stopped giving to the LDS Church. If they are not going to use my $$ I give for the designated purpose they will not get my $$.  

Seems reasonable.

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As someone who no longer believes I continued to contribute to FO and humanitarian aid.  But with this nonsense I stopped giving to the LDS Church. If they are not going to use my $$ I give for the designated purpose they will not get my $$.  

It seems to me the different donation categories are meaningless, except to note how much tithing one has paid. I'm with you. I'm far less inclined to give fast offerings anymore.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As someone who no longer believes I continued to contribute to FO and humanitarian aid.  But with this nonsense I stopped giving to the LDS Church. If they are not going to use my $$ I give for the designated purpose they will not get my $$.  

It seems to me the different donation categories are meaningless, except to note how much tithing one has paid. I'm with you. I'm far less inclined to give fast offerings anymore.

The church does keep track of how much a ward donates in FO and pays out for members. So it's not completely meaningless. The money still has to come from somewhere.

[Teancum]

On 11/7/2022 at 4:05 PM, jkwilliams said:

It seems to me the different donation categories are meaningless, except to note how much tithing one has paid. I'm with you. I'm far less inclined to give fast offerings anymore.

I always have been a big fan of FO contributions.  The idea is 100% goes directly to assist those in need.  as a former bishop I saw this in action.  But then the change on the donations slip.  I was a big FO contributor even after I became disaffected.  But no longer.  I will give what I used to give to FO to a local foodbank.  At least I know they will use it to feed those who need it.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Teancum

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I always have been a big fan of FO contributions.  The idea is 100% goes directly to assist those in need.  as a former bishop I saw this in action.  But then the change on the donations slip.  I was a big FO contributor even after I became disaffected.  But no longer.  I will give what I used to give to FO to a local foodbank.  At least I now they will use it to feed those who need it.

I'm just thinking how at one point in my life I was completely ok with an organization that would not tell me where my donation money was spent and that did not allow me to publicly question any of its decisions. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

As someone who no longer believes I continued to contribute to FO and humanitarian aid.  But with this nonsense I stopped giving to the LDS Church. If they are not going to use my $$ I give for the designated purpose they will not get my $$.  

Just to let you know - the charity I am with is in the Giving Machine this year.  We just got training info for it. 100% will be given to the charities.  The church is taking care of all costs and credit card fees. If a charity gets too many of one "item" then the charity can use the money for another item, but it must be in the same category - so if someone bought a chicken the money could go to perhaps a pig instead, but not to dance lessons. I love that the church is taking care of the credit card fees.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Rain

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just to let you know - the charity I am with is in the Giving Machine this year.  We just got training info for it. 100% will be given to the charities.  The church is taking care of all costs and credit card fees. If a charity gets too many of one "item" then the charity can use the money for another item, but it must be in the same category - so if someone bought a chicken the money could go to perhaps a pig instead, but not to dance lessons. I love that the church is taking care of the credit card fees.

Is there a financial statement filed from last year for the Giving Machine?

[Rain]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there a financial statement filed from last year for the Giving Machine?

 No idea, sorry. I'm not in charge of this, just was able to look at the training info.  

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there a financial statement filed from last year for the Giving Machine?

The only statement I see is what the Church reports on thier website for the effort.
See Where Your Giving Machine Donation Is Going (churchofjesuschrist.org)