Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/us/federal-appeals-court-reconsiders-tithing-fraud-case-against-lds-church-and-james-huntsman

 

Federal Appeals Court Reconsiders Tithing Fraud Case Against LDS Church and James Huntsman

In a pivotal legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court will rehear the tithing fraud case involving the LDS Church, spotlighting financial transparency.

In a significant legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the tithing fraud lawsuit involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and former member James Huntsman. This decision vacates a prior ruling that had revived Huntsman's case, setting the stage for a comprehensive en banc review with oral arguments slated for June in Seattle.

...

The decision for an en banc review underscores the complex intersection of religious freedom, financial transparency, and the autonomy of religious organizations. Church attorneys have argued that the case threatens to undermine constitutional protections for all religious entities by inviting unwarranted legal scrutiny into their financial practices. This rehearing may also influence the outcome of similar "copycat" lawsuits, which like Huntsman's, do not target religious doctrines but rather the financial operations of the church.

I think it only fair, that churches with tax exempts do all they can to be transparent, and honest in all their dealings with member's contributions.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's how I understand it:

1. In September 2021, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Church.  See, e.g., this thread.  See also here.  The trial judge's reasoning was

• A) the fraud claim as to City Creek fails because "no reasonable juror" could find that the Church made a "misrepresentation" (which is the sine qua non of a fraud claim);
• B) because the fraud claim (as to City Creek) failed on its face, the court "need not" reach the First Amendment / Ecclesiastical Abstention issue; and
• C) Huntsman's fraud claim as to Beneficial Life failed because
• -C1) Huntsman did not allege that the Church made a "misrepresentation" about it, and
• -C2) Huntsman frame this claim as being based on "Sunday school manuals" and/or "the Church's teachings," which meant that this claim is barred by the First Amendment (IOW, the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine).

As the lawsuit was filed in federal court in California, Huntsman filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

2. In August 2023, the Ninth Circuit (specifically, a three-judge panel from the Circuit) reversed the trial court's decision.  From the very first post in this thread:

3. A week or so later, also in August 2023, the Church's attorneys requested a rehearing of the appeal by the entire ("en banc") Ninth Circuit.  See here and here.

4. On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted the Church's request and scheduled the matter for oral arguments in June in Seattle.  Here is a link to the order.

The Church's request was, basically, that the three-judge panel's decision be set aside ("vacated"), and that the appeal be heard again, this time before the "entire" Ninth Circuit.  I say "entire" because that's not technically accurate.  Because the Ninth Circuit is so large in jurisdictional terms (nine states, nearly 62 million people, or nearly 18% of all Americans), it has a large number of appellate court judges, 29 to be exact.  In other circuits, an en banc rehearing would typically take place before all active appellate court judges, per this article, the Ninth Circuit's en banc hearings are heard by 11 appellate judges (the chief appellate judge and ten others).

The en banc decision will, therefore, replace the vacated one made by the three-judge panel last August.

5. I came across an interesting 2020 article suggesting that the Ninth Circuit's en banc procedures are being "gamed."  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Isn't the 9th Circuit reported as the circuit most frequently reversed by SCOTUS?

Also,why hasn't the 9th been split into two or more, so as to make it more similar to other circuits?

Edited March 3 by Stargazer

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Isn't the 9th Circuit reported as the circuit most frequently reversed by SCOTUS?

Yep.

[Stargazer]

Just now, smac97 said:

Yep.

You answered before I could edit to add:

Also,why hasn't the 9th been split into two or more, so as to make it more similar to other circuits?

[JustAnAustralian]

This makes things interesting. We saw one of the justices given a dissenting opinion when it was the three judge panel. Eleven opens it up a lot more to multiple dissenting opinions (both joint or individual) and multiple consenting opinions (both joint or individual).

[smac97]

21 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

This makes things interesting. We saw one of the justices given a dissenting opinion when it was the three judge panel. Eleven opens it up a lot more to multiple dissenting opinions (both joint or individual) and multiple consenting opinions (both joint or individual).

From the Tribune: LDS Church wins a round in tithing fight with James Huntsman. What comes next?

Quote

Federal appellate judges have granted a rehearing in the sensitive tithing case brought against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by former member and prominent Utahn James Huntsman.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late Friday in favor of the church’s request for what is called an en banc review in the latest twist in Huntsman’s fraud lawsuit, with fresh oral arguments in the high-profile case now scheduled for June before a full set of the court’s judges.

In a short order with no comment, Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia said a majority of the court’s judges had voted to vacate a split ruling issued last August by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. That 2-1 decision had revived Huntsman’s tithing case and returned it to a lower court, which previously had thrown it out.

Murguia set the 9th Circuit’s heftier review to start with oral arguments in a Seattle courtroom the week of June 24, likely before as many as 18 judges.

I will be curious to see how many judges end up participating in the en banc review.

June 24 in Seattle.

Quote

“These are important matters the church is following carefully,” church spokesperson Doug Andersen said in a statement Sunday. “The church appreciates the 9th Circuit’s ruling setting aside the three-judge panel’s opinion and agreeing to give this case further consideration. We look forward to presenting our case to the full court.”

Friday’s ruling is a win for the Utah-based faith with more than 17 million members worldwide.

I don't know if it's a "win."  It's basically a do-over, this time involving 11-18 judges instead of three.

Quote

Tithing is considered a sacred practice for Latter-day Saints, and church lawyers have vigorously invoked religious liberty and church autonomy concerns in defending against Huntsman’s allegations of fraud and deceit against top church leaders, including former President Gordon B. Hinckley.

I wonder if the Ninth Circuit will address the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  I think it will be hard to avoid it, frankly.

Quote

After the case was reinstated, the faith’s attorneys filed lengthy briefs in October and November, arguing the decision violated free speech and religious protections, and threatened to expose it and other churches, nonprofits, colleges, universities and other groups to unwarranted, unconstitutional legal intrusions.

Its lawyers rang legal alarm bells with the 9th Circuit in late January, filing another brief urging an en banc review in light of a spate of new “copycat” lawsuits seeking class-action status by targeting the church and its investment firm, Ensign Peak Advisors.

Church lawyer Paul Clement said that continued class-action assaults against the church and other religions “are inevitable” as long as the decision to resurrect Huntsman’s personal fraud case remained on the books.

In nearly identical language, a series of recent suits filed by plaintiffs in Utah, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington and California contend, like Huntsman, that their allegations don’t implicate religious beliefs, doctrines or how the church is organized or governed — but rather the faith’s financial practices.

All the "copycat" lawsuits must say this, as otherwise these suits would be summarily dismissed.  As it happens, though, courts are fairly aware that intra-religious disputes are often couched in secular terms in an attempt to avoid the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  Most of the time, these lawsuits fail at or near the outset.  

Here, the dispute is about the Church's statements about "tithing."  These lawsuits only work if the Courts define "tithing" in ways that the Church does not (that is, that "tithing" includes both charitable donations from members and earnings from invested reserve funds).  I think the very act of a secular court defining "tithing" in substitution of the Church's definition/meaning/usage, and then imputing and imposing that new-and-secular definition on the Church for the purposes of Huntsman's lawsuit, is  necessarily going to run afoul of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

From the Deseret News: 9th Circuit grants church new hearing, vacates ruling that would reinstate tithing suit

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will now be able to make its argument that decisions related to tithing funds are protected by the First Amendment in an upcoming hearing before a larger group of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
...
A church spokesman said the church welcomed the court’s decision.

“These are important matters the church is following carefully,” spokesman Doug Andersen said. “The church appreciates the 9th Circuit’s ruling setting aside the three-judge panel’s opinion and agreeing to give this case further consideration. We look forward to presenting our case to the full court.”

A good response, this.

Quote

A U.S. District Court judge tossed out Huntsman’s lawsuit in September 2021.

But a 2-1 vote in August by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed part of that decision and reinstated pieces of Huntsman’s suit, saying that the issue in question was secular, not religious.

The church appealed that ruling in September.

Other faiths signed a friend-of-the-court brief in October, stating, “If a court can reframe an inquiry into the meaning of a religious term, as indicated by a church’s highest ecclesiastical leader, as purely ‘secular’ in nature, then there is no sacred ground left under the First Amendment for religious organizations.”

I think this issue - the Church Autonomy / Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine - is probably why the Ninth Circuit agreed to an en banc review.

The link in the last paragraph above leads to this D-News article from October 2023, which discusses the friend-of-the-court brief at length.  An excerpt:

Quote

What does the amicus brief from other faiths argue?

The amici (friends) represent about 24 million Americans of faith who are not in theological agreement with Latter-day Saints about tithing, the brief said.

But if the panel’s decision stands, it added, “no religious organization within the Ninth Circuit — the nation’s largest circuit, both geographically and demographically — will be safe from judicial or jury intrusion into internal religious issues.”

The panel’s decision represents a broad threat, the brief said, because it would require that every time a disgruntled former church member or employee raised an allegation, a judge or jury would be asked to decide who had more theological understanding, the religious organization or the person.

I think this is a very valid point.  Secular courts cannot get into the business of adjudicating internal religious disputes.

If this case was about, say, Huntsman suing the Church for a breach of contract, or a property line dispute, then such things almost certainly are within the province of the secular courts, since no matter of religious doctrine or internal governance is at issue.  Huntsman, however, has filed a lawsuit that would require a judge to decide what "tithing" means, and then impute that definition onto the Church, and to apply that definition to, inter alia, Pres. Hinckley's 2003 remarks.  That just doesn't work.

Quote

“And, in attempting to redefine a theological dispute as a secular one, the panel misunderstood the very type of inquiry in which it engaged: interpreting the words of the church’s highest spiritual leader who was, in turn, providing a doctrinal interpretation of religious term based on church scripture and his theological understanding

“It is hard to see an issue that is less secular than that,” the brief said.

Yep.  A religious leader speaking to religious members about a religious concept.  That is not a secular issue.

Quote

President Hinckley declared that “tithing funds” and “reserve funds” were not the same, and that tithing funds were not being used on the mall project, the brief said.

“The Constitution prohibits any further inquiry, even if there are secular dimensions to the case, because the ultimate inquiry is a theological one,” it said.

Quite so.  The "further inquiry" would necessarily involve defining what is, and what is not, "tithing."

Quote

The amicus brief also took issue with the panel’s conclusion that it was common usage in the church to consider tithing principal and earnings on tithing principal to be “tithing funds.”

“How did the majority determine this ‘common usage?’” the brief asked. “The only evidence cited was usage by some employees in a single church-directed entity that only handled financial matters.”

The real questions, the brief said, are whether tithing is still called tithing after receipt by the religious organization, and if tithing refers just to the original donation or any interest that may accrue afterward.

“Both across faiths and within faiths, there are a host of opinions on these issues,” the brief said. “Yet somehow the panel majority deemed a district judge or jury to possess sufficient theological prowess to answer the last of these questions, which is the religious dispute at the heart of this case. In so doing, however, the panel ran through the guardrail of the First Amendment — a collision the majority’s decision cannot survive.”

Solid writing, this.

Quote

The brief said the panel’s decision ran through that guardrail in three ways:

• “First, it authorizes a jury or judge to decide what amounts to an intra-church dispute between the top leader and employees of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the meaning of tithing.
• “Second, and perhaps alternatively (it’s not clear), the decision authorizes a government decisionmaker to determine which of two possible religious meanings of tithing church leaders were invoking when they made the statements challenged by Huntsman.
• “And third, the decision allows a jury to interpret the church’s scripture.

“In all three respects, the decision gravely offends the First Amendment.”

It does indeed.

Quote

Who signed the amicus brief supporting the Latter-day Saints?

• Agudath Israel of America.
• The Christian and Missionary Alliance.
• The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
• The California Southern Baptist Convention.
• The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
• The General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church.
• The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
• The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.
• The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
• The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

All of these folks have doctrinal disagreements with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but they also see that encroachments against the Church's religious liberty is also an encroachment against theirs.

Anyway, back to the first article:

Quote

Next up is a rehearing of Huntsman’s request to reinstate the case, which will take place the week of June 24 in Seattle. The 9th Circuit consists of more than two dozen judges, so rather than a customary en banc hearing, which customarily includes all judges from an appellate court, the 9th Circuit’s procedure is to convene a limited en banc court of the chief judge and 10 randomly selected judges, according to the court’s website.

Some judges may recuse themselves.

Two judges recused themselves from the vote that overturned the August split decision.

Hadn't heard about that last part.

Quote

“Under the panel’s decision, any disillusioned former adherent who finds his way to the 9th Circuit can sue for a refund and attempt to get civil authorities to label their former church a liar,” lawyers for the church wrote in their appeal of the now-vacated split decision in Huntsman’s favor. “It is hard to imagine a greater threat to religious liberty or a better reason to grant en banc review.”

Yep.  This is what Huntsman is doing.  It's gratifying to see that other groups are recognizing this.

Quote

Typically, rulings by three-judge panels are the final say in a case, making en banc reviews relatively rare. The 9th Circuit received 886 requests for a rehearing en banc in 2021, for example, and only seven en banc hearings were granted, according to court records.

Wow!  7 out of 886 requests were granted?  That works out to a raw percentage of .8%.  I suspect the Church's request was able to thread this needle because the split decision by the three-judge panel is seen as potentially problematic.

Kudos to the Church's lawyers for threading the needle!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 3/3/2024 at 12:32 PM, smac97 said:

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/us/federal-appeals-court-reconsiders-tithing-fraud-case-against-lds-church-and-james-huntsman

 

Federal Appeals Court Reconsiders Tithing Fraud Case Against LDS Church and James Huntsman

In a pivotal legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court will rehear the tithing fraud case involving the LDS Church, spotlighting financial transparency.

In a significant legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the tithing fraud lawsuit involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and former member James Huntsman. This decision vacates a prior ruling that had revived Huntsman's case, setting the stage for a comprehensive en banc review with oral arguments slated for June in Seattle.

...

The decision for an en banc review underscores the complex intersection of religious freedom, financial transparency, and the autonomy of religious organizations. Church attorneys have argued that the case threatens to undermine constitutional protections for all religious entities by inviting unwarranted legal scrutiny into their financial practices. This rehearing may also influence the outcome of similar "copycat" lawsuits, which like Huntsman's, do not target religious doctrines but rather the financial operations of the church.

What is your prediction?

[smac97]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:53 PM, Teancum said:

What is your prediction?

I predict that the en banc review will contravene the three-judge panel's decision and affirm the trial court's decision, with the only issue being whether it does so with or without addressing the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

This is the same sort of prediction I had when SCOTUS agreed to review the Colorado Supreme Court's removal, on constitutional grounds, of Donald Trump from the ballot in that state.  The state supreme court's decision touched on such serious issues (centering on the 14th Amendment), and was decided on such tenuous grounds (bordering on wrongheadedness), and the rarity of SCOTUS review being granted (around 1% of all requests are granted) being noteworthy in itself, I think the announcement of SCOTUS review was, for many observers of the Court, a pretty clear indicator that the state supreme court had messed up and would be getting reversed.  From what I read, the only question amongst most observers was whether the reversal would be unanimous or by majority opinion.  It turned out to be the former.

The Huntsman lawsuit likewise touches on serious constitutional issues (centering on the First Amendment and the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine), and the three-judge panel's decision was decided on grounds that - in my view - are pretty tenuous (as, for example, is argued in the amicus briefs), and en banc review by the Ninth Circuit is also quite rare (.8%), that I think the granting of en banc review is itself an indicator that the rehearing will result in the Ninth Circuit affirming the lower court's granting of summary judgment (the three-judge panel's decision was "vacated," so it is not really part of the equation anymore).  Put another way, if the Ninth Circuit wanted to affirm the three-judge ruling, it could have simply denied the request for en banc review, which would have let the ruling stand.  

One other potential factor is that the trial court granted summary judgment without reaching the constitutional issues (for the most part, anyway).  The Ninth Circuit is already the most frequently reversed federal appellate court in the country.  During the October Term for 2022-2023, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed 11 of the 14 cases from the Ninth Circuit (it's year-over-year average reversal rate is 79%).  It may be that the Ninth Circuit judges are aware of their rather dubious reputation for getting reversed.  It may also be that they feel that the three-judge panel's decision has too many flaws in it, and also that its serious First Amendment implications would increase the likelihood of it being reviewed and reversed by SCOTUS.  The Ninth Circuit can avoid such risks by reversing the three-judge panel's decision and affirming the trial court's decision on summary judgment (which, again, did not involve much in the way of First Amendment issues).  

I think the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine is already a pretty sturdy thing, and the Ninth Circuit is probably not in the mood to tinker with its parameters, which is what would be happening if the three-judge panel's decision is allowed to stand.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited March 7 by smac97

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

One other potential factor is that the trial court granted summary judgment without reaching the constitutional issues (for the most party, anyway).  The Ninth Circuit is already the most frequently reversed federal appellate court in the country.  During the October Term for 2022-2023, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed 11 of the 14 cases from the Ninth Circuit (it's year-over-year average reversal rate is 79%).  It may be that the Ninth Circuit judges are aware of their rather dubious reputation for getting reversed.  It may also be that they feel that the three-judge panel's decision has too many flaws in it, and also that its serious First Amendment implications would increase the likelihood of it being reviewed and reversed by SCOTUS.  The Ninth Circuit can avoid such risks by reversing the three-judge panel's decision and affirming the trial court's decision on summary judgment (which, again, did not involve much in the way of First Amendment issues).  

It should be pointed out that 79% number is 79% of the cases SCOTUS decided to hear, not 79% of cases decided by the 9th circuit. From the site you referenced the supreme court only reverses 2.5 out of every thousand cases heard by the 9th circuit or a small .25% of its case.  In other words, 99.75% of the time,  the decision of the 9th circuit court is going to be the final decision. 

[smac97]

An update: Faith groups team up, argue Huntsman’s tithing case against the LDS Church endangers religious freedoms

Quote

Top U.S. religious groups say a lawsuit alleging fraud by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a danger to all faiths and violates the U.S. Constitution.

In new legal briefs, lawyers for the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and those representing 11 major faith groups filed briefs urging a federal appeals court to reject James Huntsman’s legal accusations that the Utah-based church misused tithing.

Wow.  This case is getting a lot of attention.

Quote

Huntsman’s high-profile case is now set for September oral arguments before the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as part of an “en banc” rehearing granted earlier this month.

The high-profile case “is infused with religious significance,” opponents to Huntsman’s lawsuit argue in their latest pleadings, stating that the First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom and church autonomy bar legal review and should derail his challenge.

“Fundamentally religious issues, in which secular courts may not become entangled, underlie every aspect of Huntsman’s claims,” Becket contends in its brief filed Friday.

"Fundamentally religious issues" = the definition of tithing, using civil fraud as a pretext and cover to advance intra-religious disputes, probably a few more.

Quote

“Just because there may be secular aspects to a religious dispute, that does not open the door to turning the dispute into a secular one for courts or juries to resolve,” echo attorneys arguing on behalf of an array of faith groups, including a variety of Christian and Jewish faith organizations.

The U.S. Supreme Court, they contend, “has consistently refused to allow courts to hide theological elephants in secular mouse holes.”

Parties behind the filing include the Christian and Missionary Alliance; the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty; Church of Scientology International; the General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church; and others.

I think the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine is about to get a lot of attention in the Ninth Circuit.

Quote

Legal analysis in Huntsman’s lawsuit has come to center on comments made by Hinckley, who told attendees at April 2003 General Conference that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for City Creek Center. Hinckley said the money instead came from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.” Much may hinge on what exactly the Latter-day Saint prophet-president meant by those and other terms.

I think this last sentence ("Much may hinge on what exactly the Latter-day Saint prophet-president meant by those and other terms") is wrong.  The "meaning" of these terms all center on and derive from "tithing."  Huntsman's lawsuit only works if the Courts proceed with defining "tithing," and doing so in ways that the Church does not (that is, that "tithing" includes both charitable donations from members and earnings from invested reserve funds).  I think the very act of a secular court defining "tithing" in substitution of the Church's definition/meaning/usage, and then imputing and imposing that new-and-secular definition on the Church for the purposes of Huntsman's lawsuit, is  necessarily going to run afoul of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

I've been saying this for a while, but I'm not alone in it:

Quote

Deciding even basic questions as to what Hinckley meant, and how Huntsman interpreted those statements, according to the latest two briefs, would require an impermissible review of basic ecclesiastical questions by the courts. Opponents say letting Huntsman’s case proceed also endangers faith groups by opening religious practices to being second-guessed by aggrieved members and illegally putting courts in charge of deciding internal faith questions.

“Any time a religious organization, via one of its leaders or an official publication, says something about the religious status and use of donated funds that can be contradicted by an allegation from a disgruntled former employee or member,” one of the latest filings contends, “a jury or judge (under the panel’s reasoning) will now get to decide which party has the better theological understanding.”

They also point to a series of nearly identical lawsuits filed since Huntsman’s case was revived last summer, each of them alleging fraud and seeking the return of tithing funds. The 2-1 ruling that reinstated his case, faith groups say in their new brief, “has spawned copycat litigation throughout the nation — posing an additional risk to all organizations of faith.”

Five recent suits — in Utah, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington and California — have since popped up. They seek class-action status over allegations that tithing was spent contrary to how Latter-day Saint leaders said the money was being used.

In nearly identical language, plaintiffs argue that their allegations don’t implicate religious beliefs, doctrines or how the church is organized or governed, but rather the faith’s financial practices.

"In nearly identical language."  LOL.  

This hopping-on-the-Huntsman-bandwagon lawsuits are starting to look more and more like the Church's (and other religious groups') concerns about this case are warranted.  Malicious intent often causes its carrier to shoot himself and/or his compatriots in the foot.  

IOW, Théoden was right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

The fact that the Ninth Circuit, of all places, is rehearing this en banc is wild to me. The Fifth or Eleventh, makes sense...but the Ninth?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The fact that the Ninth Circuit, of all places, is rehearing this en banc is wild to me. The Fifth or Eleventh, makes sense...but the Ninth?

Yeah, Huntsman was playing around with this, I think. 

Per this article, Huntsman "stopped paying tithing in 2017 and sought the return of previous donations after a 2019 report that a former employee for the church's investment arm had filed an IRS complaint alleging the church should be forced to pay taxes on returns made from invested tithing funds."  The dissenting judge on the three-judge panel made specific note in his dissenting opinion about the oddity of applying California law to this action:

Quote

Why California law applies in this case is perplexing.  The Church, according to the complaint, “is a corporation duly organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Utah.”  And Huntsman only moved from Utah to California on October 31, 2020.  His complaint was filed less than five months later.  But I apply California law nonetheless, as the majority does, because the parties have proceeded under California law.  See Montana Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty., 587 F.2d 1019, 1022 n.1 (9th Cir. 1978).  

Per this article he moved back to Utah from California around September of last year.  So Huntsman

• A) Stopped paying tithes in 2017,
• B) "discovered" the putative misconduct giving rise to his fraud claim in 2019,
• C) moved from Utah to California in October 2020,
• D) filed the lawsuit in California in March 2021, and
• E) moved back to Utah in September 2023.

So the nexus between the "fraud" and California is . . .?

Even the Tribune (!) admits that Huntsman was probably forum-shopping.  From June 2021: Here’s why James Huntsman may have filed his LDS tithing lawsuit in California

Quote

Huntsman, a 50-year-old California resident, is accusing Latter-day Saint leaders of fraud, alleging they “repeatedly and publicly lied” about billions of dollars in member donations, including at least $5 million of his own tithing, money that was meant for missionary work, temple building and charitable projects.

Records show Huntsman has maintained residences in Beverly Hills and the resort community of Coronado in Southern California, making federal courts in the Golden State a logical legal venue for filing a claim involving parties in several states. But there may be additional reasons Huntsman filed there.

“Juries in California’s Central District are liberal in my experience,” said Salt Lake City attorney Kay Burningham, who is pursuing a lawsuit in Utah against the LDS Church on behalf of a North Carolina woman and former member.

The district is also part of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, viewed by some as more liberal and dominated by nominees from Democratic presidents.
...
Huntsman is represented by a Los Angeles law firm, Lavely & Singer, which has an advertised specialty in entertainment litigation. Church officials have also hired L.A. lawyers, from the international firm Jenner & Block, as opposed to handling the matter through the church’s usual law firm, Salt Lake City-based Kirton McConkie.
...
Several tax attorneys have questioned the suit’s merits and likelihood of prevailing, given that Huntsman initially agreed to make his charitable gifts without preconditions. One has called the legal action “performative,” meant more to garner media attention than pressing a legal case.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27 by smac97

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"In nearly identical language."  LOL.  

This hopping-on-the-Huntsman-bandwagon lawsuits are starting to look more and more like the Church's (and other religious groups') concerns about this case are warranted.  Malicious intent often causes its carrier to shoot himself and/or his compatriots in the foot….

I see it in the opposite way. To me, multiple tithe payers all feeling they were defrauded in the same way is smoke that there is a real problem with the Church’s communication with its members.

The Church worrying that there will be a tidal wave of copycat lawsuits is a tacit admission that there is a tidal wave of people who paid tithing and now regret it.

Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I see it in the opposite way. To me, multiple tithe payers all feeling they were defrauded in the same way is smoke that there is a real problem with the Church’s communication with its members.

The Church worrying that there will be a tidal wave of copycat lawsuits is a tacit admission that there is a tidal wave of people who paid tithing and now regret it.

Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Truth.  Take my upvote.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"In nearly identical language."  LOL.  

This hopping-on-the-Huntsman-bandwagon lawsuits are starting to look more and more like the Church's (and other religious groups') concerns about this case are warranted.  Malicious intent often causes its carrier to shoot himself and/or his compatriots in the foot….

I see it in the opposite way. To me, multiple tithe payers

Former tithe-payers.  Some former/estranged/disgruntled Latter-day Saints choose to vent their hard feelings in a variety of ways.  Huntsman introduced a "lawfare" angle that some very few (by my count, less than a dozen out of a church of many millions) have decided to give a go.

The "nearly identical language" bit is, to me, telling.  It indicates that these cases really are "copycat" lawsuits, not organic-in-and-of-themselves instances of independently-formulated grievances.  It indicates that the attorneys filing them probably do not have much faith in their merits, and so are not putting much time or effort into drafting these pleadings, and are instead copying/pasting Huntsman's or each other's briefs (or using "PDF-to-Word" conversion software). 

Even the Trib (!) has noted this: LDS Church slapped with a string of new ‘copycat’ tithing lawsuits

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sounding alarm bells about a spate of new class-action lawsuits filed recently against the Utah-based faith and its investment firm over tithing.

Similar federal complaints filed in Utah, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington and California aim to recover donations made by former Latter-day Saints in light of allegations that the church fraudulently used tithing funds to finance City Creek Center, a luxury mall in downtown Salt Lake City.

The latest of these suits surfaced Monday in U.S. District Court in California, seeking a refund of $40,000 on behalf of an elderly couple living in San Leandro, near Oakland. The church and its investment arm, Salt Lake City-based Ensign Peak Advisors, “now face a reckoning in a multitude of jurisdictions,” attorneys for Gene and Michelle Judson wrote.

The couple’s case, their lawyers added, seeks to hold high-ranking church leaders and Ensign Peak officials “accountable for their misconduct and hubris.”

Like the others, this suit alleges that church leaders, including then-President Gordon B. Hinckley, misled members with statements from the pulpit and in news outlets that tithing was used only for specific religious purposes, while $1.4 billion was transferred from Ensign Peak investment accounts and spent on City Creek.

There were also legal moves afoot as of last month to consolidate these separate class-action suits into one nationwide case against the church, either in Utah or California.

Church attorneys warn the new string of court actions — with five of them filed since late October — signals a wave of legal peril headed toward the faith and other religious groups.

The cases confirm their assertion, the lawyers contend, that a prior ruling in the high-profile case brought by Utahn James Huntsman “would open the floodgates for ‘copycat’ suits endangering religious liberty and church autonomy.”
...
The lawsuit brought by James Huntsman, shown in October 2023, is helping to trigger additional legal actions against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
In a Jan. 22, 2024, letter to 9th Circuit Court Clerk Molly Dwyer, church lawyer Paul Clement said that continued class-action assaults against the church and other religions “are inevitable” as long as the decision to resurrect Huntsman’s personal fraud lawsuit remained on the books.

“While Huntsman dismissed those prognostications as ‘catastrophizing,’” Clement wrote, the “copycat suits filed in four months and the looming prospect of [consolidation] make clear that the threat is real.”

The church argues that Huntsman’s case lures the courts into legal territory shielded by the First Amendment’s protections of the free exercise of religion, adding that it threatens to erode church autonomy by subjecting the actions and statements of faith leaders to legal review.

In nearly identical language, the recent class-action suits contend that none of their allegations implicate religious beliefs, practices, doctrines or how the church is organized or governed.

Instead, the plaintiffs in Utah, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington and California maintain that, in effect, theirs is a solely secular dispute, stemming from statements made by church leaders that tithing was not used for commercial, for-profit business purposes while, they contend, evidence suggests otherwise.

“In other words,” many of the lawsuits state, “this case has nothing to do with, and does not implicate, the First Amendment and/or the free exercise clause in the Constitution.”
...
With the same wording, four of the class-action suits contend “[t]he SEC action against the LDS Church and Ensign Peak reveals a pattern of conduct and corporate culture that valued dishonesty and concealment over honesty and transparency.”
...
The latest plaintiffs, Gene and Michelle Judson, say they watched the “60 Minutes” episode live. One of their lead attorneys, Los Angeles-based David Jonelis, is also Huntsman’s lawyer in his personal case against the church.

The lawsuits all follow Huntsman's.  They use "nearly identical language" to assert the same legal theory (fraud), to cite the same factual basis (Pres. Hinckley's 2003 comments, Nielsen's claims, the SEC matter, etc.), to assert the same preemptive defenses (to avoid the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrines), and so on.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

all feeling they were defrauded in the same way is smoke that there is a real problem with the Church’s communication with its members.

I could just as easily point to the many, many millions of Latter-day Saints who have not filed lawsuits against the Church as evidence that the members are, in the main, pretty satisfied with how the Church handles its finances.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Church worrying that there will be a tidal wave of copycat lawsuits is a tacit admission that there is a tidal wave of people who paid tithing and now regret it.

AFAICS, "tidal wave" is a characterization of your own fabrication.  If I am in error, please provide a reference for the Church expressing "worry" about such a thing.

The Tribune references a "spate" (that is, "a large number of similar things or events appearing or occurring in quick succession"), and that too seems a bit much, since "federal complaints filed in Utah, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington and California" do not seem to amount to "a large number."  Nevertheless, every one of them is very expensive.  Every one of them creates a risk of this or that court might create a precedent that runs afoul of the First Amendment by circumventing or diminishing the proper scope and application of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue.

These lawsuits are not based on claims of fraudulent nondisclosure, but about "fraud."  Affirmative fraud.  

Also, gotta love the "actually transparent" bit.  A preemptive taste of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Geoff Openshaw's 2015 article, "The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency" remains a worthwhile read.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Keep that story in mind while we discuss one of the big criticisms that has been floating around the internet for at least the past couple years: whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I’ll go with LDS Church from now on) should make their financials public.

Since I’m an accountant and a CPA (necessary legal disclaimer: in the state of Colorado only), I’ve felt the need to opine on a few of those Facebook discussions using my personal experience. Despite my best efforts, they always end up way longer than I intend. Below is a (really long) summary of some of the main points.

Financial Statements – A Review

Since I’ve only seen non-accountants request that the LDS Church spill their financial guts (there’s probably accountants who want it too, I just don’t know them), I’m going to assume that many of the people wanting this change have little to no financial background. If you’re already a financial expert, feel free to skip this section, where I briefly review the secular doctrine of financial statements.
...
Keep in mind that financial statements are at a painfully high level. Ask any auditor and they’ll tell you the same thing until they’re blue in the face. It doesn’t tell most of the transactions. It’s not a blueprint on how to run a company. It’s not designed to detect fraud. Although our accounting overlords continually add new rules to try to prevent the next Enron or WorldCom, neither a thorough, expensive audit nor the resulting financial statements are a guarantee to that.

Financial Statements are a snapshot into the financial health of a business or organization, designed to allow stakeholders (i.e. a person who has a stake in a business. Not like “Stake Boundary” stake, more like “interest” stake) to determine, on a macro level, the well being of the company.

"{F}inancial statements are at a painfully high level ... {they do not} tell most of the transactions ... {they're not} designed to detect fraud ... {they are, instead,} a snapshot into the financial health of a business or organization, designed to allow stakeholders ... to determine, on a macro level, the well being of the company."

"Transparency" is a remarkably nebulous and elastic word.  Folks like Roger can stretch or compress it to mean what they want it to mean, which is pretty much guaranteed to never coincide with the Church's efforts.  Any efforts by the Church can be preemptively and summarily and unilaterally declared to "lack transparency" or, with a hat tip to the No True Scotsman fallacy, not "really" or "actually" transparent.  Openshaw addresses this well:

Quote

Church Financial Statements – What Would It Accomplish?

Before you answer that, want to see what you’ll be getting? I found the financial statements for the Episcopal Church, which happened to be put together by my former employer. Go ahead, read through the 2013 report.

So what did you learn? I learned that the Episcopal Church is financially sound right now. And…that’s about it.

How much do they donate to the poor? How much to give in foreign relief? How much do they use on buildings? I have absolutely no idea. The best we get is this scant breakout here:

http://thisweekinmormons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/episcopal_breakout.png

What do they consider to be “Canonical and missional programs”? Is “General convention” a euphemism for the priests heading to ComiCon on the church’s dime? And what’s with this “other” amount grouped in with Grants?

In other words, we’re almost exactly where we started. We know how much money they brought in and how much money went out, but they grouped their expenses based on arbitrary categorizations invented by whichever accountant implemented Quickbooks for them.

Unfortunately, their grouping totally fails for me, because those Episcopal financials don’t allow me to voyeuristicly understand how they use their money. Heck, it doesn’t even tell me how much they spent on Communion Crackers!

For them, though, it works. Their goal was likely to prove that they are spending less than they make, and on that point, mission accomplished.

I think the Church already does a pretty good job of explaining and demonstrating that it is spending less than it takes in, particularly in recent years.

Quote

If we were to get public financial statements for the LDS Church, this is about as good as we could expect. Want proof? Turns out the LDS Church has financial statements in the UK (required by UK law). And considering that I haven’t heard a single person mention how great it is that the Church practices financial transparency overseas, I’m guessing the number of people demanding US financial statements that know about the UK financials are in the single digits.

What do we learn from the UK financial statement, anyway?  Well, the Church brings in more than it spends, and 97.66% of their expenses are related to “Charitable Activities.” It doesn’t tell us the most basic things us financial voyeurs need to know, like how much is spent on those amazing red and blue cleaning supplies.

Either that, or the "people demanding US financial statements" are conveniently ignoring the UK disclosures because they tend to contravene the preferred narrative (e.g., "Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue").

Quote

I Want Transparency, Not Your Accounting Nonsense

Okay, so you’re not an accountant, and you’re not interested in stuffy financial statements made up by overweight accountants with little green visors and even smaller personalities. You just want more transparency.

But why?

What are you going to do with that information? Do you honestly believe that knowing how much the LDS Church depreciates the Salt Lake City Temple renovations every year will convince you that what goes on inside is sacred? Will seeing how much the LDS Church sends to Africa in financial aide have one bit of bearing on whether Joseph Smith talked with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove? Does the amount spent on basketballs each year have any relevance on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true?

These are fair questions.

I submit that what "people demanding US financial statements" are not going "to do with that information" is acknowledge it and be satisfied with or placated by it.

Quote

But Look At the Suffering

If the LDS Church isn’t true, why would it matter one whit how transparent they are? They are not claiming to be a “good” organization. They’re not trying to be the United Way or March of Dimes. They proclaim to be the only true and living Church on the face of the Earth. If they are not that, there are much more significant problems to address than whether they could have gotten a better deal on the roof of the new ward building. Or even if those tithing dollars are being fraudulently spent.

The thing is, I get what many people are trying to say. It’s easy to look around the world and see all the suffering, then look at the (non-released) financial situation of the LDS Church and think, “surely we can do better.”

Whether we can or can’t, I really don’t know. As individual members of the Church and followers of Jesus Christ, especially ones living in the wealthiest country in the world (or wherever you are on that list if you’re not in the the US), absolutely. I throw myself into that bucket for sure. All of us can get a little caught up in what should be considered a “want” and what should be considered a “need,” forgetting that the amount we spend on those alleged needs could be better served helping those with real needs.

But can the actual organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better allocate it’s resources to give more to the poor?

The LDS Church recently included “caring for the poor” among their missions, bringing the total missions to four. I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by saying that this new mission takes money. What about the other three? Proclaiming the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, Redeeming the Dead? All of them take money, too.

Could we ask missionaries to pay a bit more to cover the expenses related to the mission? Maybe, but for many what’s being asked is already a huge burden.

Could we worship in buildings that aren’t quite as nice? Perhaps, but most of the newer buildings are pretty utilitarian, even reusing the same architecture plans to save on costs.

Could we make our temples look a little less nice? On this one, I think not. The new, smaller temples already have several changes to help cut back on expenses, but we can only go so far. This is the Lord’s house, which He has asked us to make them worthy of Him. Going back even to the days of the Tabernacle (Old Testament, not the one on Temple Square), the House of the Lord has always been designed to stand out. Remember, nice stuff for our Lord is good every now and then (see Matthew 26:11).

Solid points, these.  

I submit that what "people demanding US financial statements" either don't really care about the Church's financials, or else they want to use the information to hector and second-guess and find fault with the Church's management of its affairs.  Geoff has reached the same conclusion:

Quote

What Good Would Transparency Do?

Let’s start first with the business side of the LDS Church. Why good would it do to have these financial statements? I can think of only one legitimate reason, and that’s to ensure that they really do keep tithing money separate. But if that’s all we’re after, a credible, independent, third party auditor stating that they’re separate would accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the price. Which I believe is exactly what the LDS Church does right now. Wanting to know the rest of the numbers is like wanting to know the financial standing of a private company like Enterprise Rent-A-Car or Mars Chocolates: it might make an interesting slideshow on Forbes, but it really has no baring on you personally.

Moving on to the religious side of the Church, what good would be accomplished by publicly releasing financial statements? I suppose it could serve as an extra check to make sure the funds are properly treated, but with a multibillion dollar organization, the numbers will be truncated into nearly meaningless oblivion, just like they were in the Episcopal Church example above.

Want to know how easy it would be to hide stolen or misapplied funds in truncated financials? Well, most auditors don’t even consider digging into a number unless it’s “material.” Materiality for a 7 billion dollar company would be AT LEAST $10 million dollars, if not more. So as long as you steal less than $10 million in a not totally obvious way, it won’t even hit the auditing radar.

So, what, then, would transparent financial statements be used for? I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game.

Keep in mind that we’re not shareholders. We’re not getting a financial return on our investments. Our donating of tithing is based on our faith in the Lord, not because we expect a 5% dividend.And if they weren’t truncated into nearly oblivion, what then? Even if you did watch the game, it doesn’t mean you could have done better. If you really think you can, there’s a way to do that without loudly shouting criticisms over the internet.

Heck, we’re not even taxpayers here. We’re not trying to get representation. We’re supposed to give frankly, expecting nothing in return.

"I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game."

I tend to refer to these folks as "Armchair Quarterbacks," but yeah.

Quote

What Would It Cost?

I’m on the tax side of the accounting spectrum, so I haven’t actually priced out an audit, nor do I know enough about the LDS Church’s financial structure to come up with an good price even if I had experience. Based on the many audit bills I’ve seen, though I would expect a full audit to publicly release the LDS Church’s financial statements to cost at least $1 million more than whatever services the LDS Church is already paying for right now. That’s $1 million to, at best, scratch a bit of curiosity. There’s no way you’ll convince me that can’t be better spent elsewhere.

Even if the number is not that high, it would not be zero. From a cost/benefit analysis, I fail to see any benefit generated that would support all but the smallest of costs.

Spending money in an attempt to satisfy people who will, in all likelihood, never be satisfied is a fool's errand.

Quote

So Where Are We?

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret: there’s too many accountants at the LDS Church, including some who have turned against the Church, for unethical dealings to not have been leaked by now. Enron had a much shorter life than the LDS Church, and it was dismantled by someone on the inside, not someone reading financial statements. Considering that Enron was stocked full of self interested employees, not people who grew up believing that their organization should be held to a higher standard than everything else, serious Church financial wrong doing would have come out by now.

I think this is an important point.  I think a primary source of the bombast and teeth-gnashing by Huntsman and his acolytes is the lack of evidence of any substantive financial mismanagement, corruption, etc.  The best legal argument Huntsman can muster is to point to a 2003 statement, label is "fraud," and shop his lawsuit around in a perceived "friendly" forum.  Holy cow, what weak tea that is.  And knowing that only means that Huntsman and his cheerleaders have to resort to even louder harrumphs and histrionics.

Geoff is right.  If there was "serious Church financial wrong doing," the Church has way to many people arrayed against it and salivating at the prospect of scandal.  Such things wouldn't remain a secret.  

Quote

At best, if we had transparency, you’d get a small group of people complaining that the LDS Church is wrong because it does their finances differently than they would do it, while everyone else would get bored before scrolling to the end of the released PDF.

Going back to the cost, that sounds like a pretty low benefit to justify virtually any expense.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

I see it in the opposite way. To me, multiple tithe payers all feeling they were defrauded in the same way is smoke that there is a real problem with the Church’s communication with its members.

The Church worrying that there will be a tidal wave of copycat lawsuits is a tacit admission that there is a tidal wave of people who paid tithing and now regret it.

Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Do they regret it because of how the church used the money or because they don't believe in the truth claims of the church anymore and are hostile to the church and want to see it "suffer"? 

The motive behind their actions in regards to tithing is really what determines whether the smoke means fire or not.  Not the actions themselves.

Even if the church was transparent with their finances, many ex-members would still regret having paid tithing.  They wouldn't have this specific stick to try to use against the church, but for a percentage of them the desire to find a stick somewhere else would still be strong.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Former tithe-payers.

Does the fact that these people are former tithe payors make a difference?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Some former/estranged/disgruntled Latter-day Saints choose to vent their hard feelings in a variety of ways.  Huntsman introduced a "lawfare" angle that some very few (by my count, less than a dozen out of a church of many millions) have decided to give a go.

I do not know the background of those filing additional law suits. Are they all estranged?  By the way I don't agree with the lawsuits and don't think anything will come from them.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The "nearly identical language" bit is, to me, telling.  It indicates that these cases really are "copycat" lawsuits, not organic-in-and-of-themselves instances of independently-formulated grievances.  It indicates that the attorneys filing them probably do not have much faith in their merits, and so are not putting much time or effort into drafting these pleadings, and are instead copying/pasting Huntsman's or each other's briefs (or using "PDF-to-Word" conversion software). 

Even the Trib (!) has noted this: LDS Church slapped with a string of new ‘copycat’ tithing lawsuits

The lawsuits all follow Huntsman's.  They use "nearly identical language" to assert the same legal theory (fraud), to cite the same factual basis (Pres. Hinckley's 2003 comments, Nielsen's claims, the SEC matter, etc.), to assert the same preemptive defenses (to avoid the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrines), and so on.

I am not an attorney so I am not clear with the problem with copy cat lawsuits. Don't legal cases create precedence?  Can't someone rely on a prior case when establishing points in their own law case?  I know when I research a tax issue I often am reading tax cases and looking for themes, positions and precedence that may match the position I would like to take. Or against my position as well.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I could just as easily point to the many, many millions of Latter-day Saints who have not filed lawsuits against the Church as evidence that the members are, in the main, pretty satisfied with how the Church handles its finances.

I think most members are just fine with whatever the church leadership wants to do with financial disclosure. If the church stated publsih8ing financial data tomorrow most would be ok.  I think you would flip your position in an instance.  The only reason you argue about it is because the church is not disclosing.  Like all apologetics you assume that is the correct course of action then find whatever you can to back it up.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Also, gotta love the "actually transparent" bit.  A preemptive taste of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Why is this a No True Scotsman fallacy?  The church most certainly is not financially transparent.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Geoff Openshaw's 2015 article, "The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency" remains a worthwhile read.  Some excerpts:

So now Smac trots out a believing CPA who seems to view what a large part of his profession does with disdain.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"{F}inancial statements are at a painfully high level ... {they do not} tell most of the transactions ...

That is correct. So what? That is not the intent of such statements. What bearing does this have on whether or not it is good to have financial transparency?  Additionally, financial statements that are audited have an abundance of footnotes explaining various issues and financial highlights in extensive detail.  To argue that they do not detail most of an entities transactions is a red herring.  But apparently the SEC thinks they are useful since all public traded corporations must publish an audited financial statement. And banks as well. My client that have us do an attest function for their financial statements do so because a bank requires it in order to provide the financing the business needs.  Apparently bankers find them useful.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

{they're not} designed to detect fraud ...

Well a financial statement alone is not designed to detect fraud.  Nor really is the audit of a financial statement, but such audits at time do detect fraud.

Regardless, this so what?  What does that have to do with the worth of financial transparency?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

{they are, instead,} a snapshot into the financial health of a business or organization, designed to allow stakeholders ... to determine, on a macro level, the well being of the company."\

Yes correct. With footnotes that provide explanations. And for large companies and NFPs they often include additional narratives to explain and highlight financial issues in further detail and depth.  Thy are actually very useful.

And as we have discussed many times before, many church's voluntarily publish financial info and highlight their source and use of funds. They do so because they believe that being good stewards of the sacred trust their believing members show to those who manage the money given is important.  And they trust their membership with the information.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Transparency" is a remarkably nebulous and elastic word. 

No it is not. Well at least not to those who believe in it. Those who oppose it will jump through all sorts of hoops to justify not being transparent.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Folks like Roger can stretch or compress it to mean what they want it to mean, which is pretty much guaranteed to never coincide with the Church's efforts.  Any efforts by the Church can be preemptively and summarily and unilaterally declared to "lack transparency" or, with a hat tip to the No True Scotsman fallacy, not "really" or "actually" transparent. 

This is hilarious. No serious person would argue that the church has any more than a thimble full of financial transparency.  But here are some links to what other religious denominations think about financial transparency:

https://www.9marks.org/article/handling-your-churchs-finances-with-transparency-and-integrity/

https://churchhelper.net/church-finance-transparency/

https://www.letstalkaboutitbytimhill.com/post/financial-transparency-in-the-church

 

By the way I am a CPA but focus on tax work. But I am certainly familiar with financial statements as my firm does a lot of financial statement work. We do such work for closely held businesses, for not for profits, for government entities.  Closely held businesses in the US are not required to have an audited financial statement but often a bank requires it for loan purposes. And some of our clients want one just for good practices and guess what? Financial transparency for the owners of the business.  NFPs of a certain size (not counting churches and many government entities are required by law to have an audited financial statement.  Frankly the CPA SMAC leaned on ought to be embarrassed by his argument.  It was specious and poorly constructed and boiled down to the information from an audited and publicly shared financial statement is not worth much.  Are audits expensive? Yep. Are they worth the cost. Certainly they are.  Do such statements have valuable information? Yes they do.  

 

Edited March 28 by Teancum

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Does the fact that these people are former tithe payors make a difference?

Apparently, yes.  Do any of these lawsuits involve any presently active-and-tithe-paying Latter-day Saints suing the Church?

If these fraud claims are, as I suspect, a pretext for former/estranged/disgruntled Latter-day Saints venting hard feelings, seeking "payback" or some sort of pound-of-flesh punishment against their former faith, then the legitimacy of these lawsuits is reasonably brought into question.  This is particularly in light of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  I think Kathleen Flake, for the most part, correctly characterized things back in 2019, in response to the "whistleblower" story:

Quote

Kathleen Flake, the Richard Lyman Bushman Professor of Mormon Studies at the University of Virginia, falls in the latter group. In an article she penned for the university, she argues, “At some point, even with reliance on investments that augment membership offerings, the Church’s commitments to the members would become impossible to meet. The larger problem is, as any Bible-reader knows, tithing is about faith, not about money.”

Noting that tax law experts have already discredited the claims of a whistleblower alleging the Church of Jesus Christ improperly saves money, Flake highlights a few of the lesser-known aspects of the church’s charitable work:

“That it has an unusually robust welfare and disaster relief system may be known, but its scope can hardly be represented here except in passing: food production and supply centers, immigrant services, employment centers, literacy programs and access to higher education, family counseling, and drug addiction services, as well as its own version of Goodwill.”

Pondering the merit of added transparency for the church’s finances, Flake asks why the church doesn’t simply open up its records.

Her answer: The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, “it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

“In other words,” Flake concludes, “this is a power struggle ... and one that we’ve seen before from those who don’t understand Mormonism and how it handles its money.”

If these lawsuits are, as Flake puts it, about "a power struggle," about "competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so," then the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine is a bar to these lawsuits.

I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for opponents of the Church to characterize these lawsuits as something other than "lawfare" based on punitive, vengeful, "pound of flesh" motives of former/estranged/disgruntled Latter-day Saints (Nielsen, Gaddy, Huntsman, Chappell, etc.).

So yes, the motives of posture of litigants filing suit matter.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do not know the background of those filing additional law suits. Are they all estranged?  By the way I don't agree with the lawsuits and don't think anything will come from them.

AFAIK, none of them involve currently-active-and-tithe-paying Latter-day Saints.  The various news items I have read all characterize the plaintiffs as being former and/or estranged/inactive members.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not an attorney so I am not clear with the problem with copy cat lawsuits.

From our friend, Mr. ChatGPT:

Quote

Why are "copycat lawsuits" problematic?

 

"Copycat lawsuits" refer to legal actions that are filed after a high-profile case has set a precedent, with subsequent plaintiffs seeking similar outcomes. These lawsuits can be problematic for several reasons:

1. Clogging the legal system: Copycat lawsuits can inundate courts with repetitive cases, leading to delays in justice for other litigants and increasing the burden on the legal system.
2. Waste of resources: Both for the courts and the parties involved, copycat lawsuits consume time, money, and energy that could be better allocated elsewhere.
3. Forum shopping: Plaintiffs may file copycat lawsuits in jurisdictions where they believe they have a better chance of success, leading to inconsistent legal outcomes and undermining the principle of equal justice under the law.
4. Diminishing the impact of precedent: High-profile cases often establish legal precedents that are meant to guide future decisions. However, copycat lawsuits can dilute the significance of these precedents by inundating the legal system with variations on the same theme.
5. Encouraging frivolous litigation: The success of a high-profile lawsuit may inspire others to file similar claims, even if their cases lack merit, leading to an increase in frivolous litigation.

Overall, while copycat lawsuits are a natural consequence of legal precedent, their proliferation can pose challenges to the efficient functioning of the legal system and the fair administration of justice.

 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Don't legal cases create precedence? 

I'm not sure what you mean by "legal cases."  Broadly speaking, a case establishes "precedent" in a jurisdiction only if it is appealed to an appellate court, and then the appellate court's decision - more precisely, the ratio decedendi portion of the decision - is what typically becomes precedent.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can't someone rely on a prior case when establishing points in their own law case?

A trial court case?  Typically not.  And certainly not a case (like Huntsman's) that has not even reached a resolution.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think most members are just fine with whatever the church leadership wants to do with financial disclosure. If the church stated publsihing financial data tomorrow most would be ok.  I think you would flip your position in an instance. 

I don't know what you mean here.  What is it that you think my "position" is, such that it might "flip"?

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The only reason you argue about it is because the church is not disclosing. 

Nope.  I have presented a variety of arguments, none of which can be reasonably characterized in the way you do above.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why is this a No True Scotsman fallacy?  The church most certainly is not financially transparent.

Uh-huh.  And "financially transparent" means . . . anything critics want it to mean.  So anything the Church says or does can be dismissed as not being not "really" or "actually" transparent.  Hence the fallacy.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

"{F}inancial statements are at a painfully high level ... {they do not} tell most of the transactions ...

That is correct. So what?

If the Church in the U.S. came out with financial statements akin to the ones in the UK, you and yours would say that doing so is not "really" or "actually" transparent.  Gotta love the No True Scotsman fallacy!  Oh, and the equivocation too.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is not the intent of such statements. What bearing does this have on whether or not it is good to have financial transparency? 

On this issue, you and yours trade on logical fallacies.  You throw out nebulous and elastic terms like "financial transparency," never actually define what this phrase means, never explain what the Church could to do to be sufficiently "transparent," and so on.  You equivocate, and even preemptively use the No True Scotsman fallacy, to fault the Church for not adhering to a behavior standard you have never coherently defined or justified. 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Additionally, financial statements that are audited have an abundance of footnotes explaining various issues and financial highlights in extensive detail.

Some do, yes.  

I think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that setting aside reserve funds and planning for the future does not mean simply stuffing money in a metaphorical mattress, but instead involves prudent use and investment of such funds.  The Parable of the Talents not only lauds such prudent use by the "good and faithful servant{s}," but also condemns the servant who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But apparently the SEC thinks they are useful since all public traded corporations must publish an audited financial statement.

But no such requirement exists for religious organizations.

Are you in the habit of voluntarily complying with laws that have no application to you?

Are you demanding that the Church adhere to a standard that you do not apply to yourself?

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And banks as well. My client that have us do an attest function for their financial statements do so because a bank requires it in order to provide the financing the business needs.  Apparently bankers find them useful.

Well a financial statement alone is not designed to detect fraud.  Nor really is the audit of a financial statement, but such audits at time do detect fraud.

Regardless, this so what?  What does that have to do with the worth of financial transparency?

I think demands of "financial transparency" from antagonists and opponents of the Church are more about trying to make the Church look bad, to embarrass it, to cast it in a bad light, than about the Church's finances.  Lots of special pleading, equivocation, shifting of the goalposts, No True Scotsman, etc.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

"Transparency" is a remarkably nebulous and elastic word. 

No it is not. Well at least not to those who believe in it. Those who oppose it will jump through all sorts of hoops to justify not being transparent.

Quote

Folks like Roger can stretch or compress it to mean what they want it to mean, which is pretty much guaranteed to never coincide with the Church's efforts.  Any efforts by the Church can be preemptively and summarily and unilaterally declared to "lack transparency" or, with a hat tip to the No True Scotsman fallacy, not "really" or "actually" transparent. 

This is hilarious. No serious person would argue that the church has any more than a thimble full of financial transparency.  But here are some links to what other religious denominations think about financial transparency:

https://www.9marks.org/article/handling-your-churchs-finances-with-transparency-and-integrity/

From this link:

Quote

1. Lean into transparency. 

Churches should lean into transparency about how money is allocated and spent. A church should be transparent not only about its intentions but its actions. In other words, yes, the budget should be visible to church members. But also should a regularly updated report that offers a snapshot of recent spending and giving. These practices create accountability. Sometimes, there may be a thoughtful reason for not sharing a specific detail; but generally speaking, make as much information available as possible. Transparency is a core building block of trust; it communicates that leaders are committed to faithfully stewarding the church’s resources—not merely saying that intend to. 

This kind of transparency invites everyone to observe how God is advancing his kingdom through faithful giving of your fellow church members. It reminds us that giving is meant to lead to worship. Just as we teach our members how to pray by praying together on Sunday mornings, we also teach our members how to view their money by faithfully spending the resources entrusted to the church. 

When money is handled properly, those handling the finances should count it a joy and privilege to share the details of what the church is doing with spending their money. It’s an incredible opportunity to paint a picture for the entire congregation of how God is using their sacrificial giving in both big and small ways. 

A Litmus Test of Transparency 

For pastors who are committed to building a healthy financial culture, administer a quick litmus test by asking how much your current staff feels they can share about how the church’s money is spent. Do they feel like there are things they need to hide in order to protect the image of one or more of the pastors? If so, that is dangerously problematic. 

Trust starts with transparency. Transparency enables accountability. 

Nothing here which defines or quantifies "transparency."

And this website is apparently for small singular churches, not comparatively huge international churches like ours.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

https://churchhelper.net/church-finance-transparency/

From this website:

Quote

Factors Affecting Church Financial Transparency

Transparency in church finances is crucial, and understanding the factors that influence it is essential. In this section, we’ll dive into the key elements that shape church financial transparency. From laws and regulations to denominational guidelines and internal policies, we’ll uncover how these factors impact the flow of information and accountability within religious organizations. So, buckle up as we explore the various influences on church financial transparency and shed light on this important aspect of faith-based communities.

Laws and Regulations

Church financial transparency is significantly influenced by laws and regulations that govern the financial operations of religious organizations. These laws and regulations have been put in place to ensure accountability, protect the interests of donors, and prevent financial misconduct within churches.

Compliance with laws and regulations: Religious organizations must adhere to specific laws and regulations related to financial transparency. These laws may include requirements for regular financial reporting, disclosure of financial statements, and the filing of tax returns. By complying with these laws, churches demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability.

Protection of donor rights: Laws and regulations aim to protect the rights of donors and ensure their contributions are used appropriately. They may require churches to provide details regarding the use of funds and to maintain clear records of financial transactions. This helps to build trust between the church and its donors, enhancing transparency in financial matters.

Prevention of financial misconduct: Laws and regulations play a vital role in preventing financial misconduct within religious organizations. They may impose penalties for fraudulent activities, embezzlement, or misappropriation of funds. By enforcing strict financial regulations, churches are better equipped to detect and prevent such misconduct, ultimately safeguarding the integrity of their financial operations.

Financial oversight: Laws and regulations often require churches to have independent audits conducted periodically. These audits provide an unbiased assessment of the church’s financial records and practices, ensuring compliance with regulations and validating financial transparency. Audits also help identify any irregularities or deficiencies in financial management.

...

Internal Policies and Procedures

Internal policies and procedures are vital elements in promoting and maintaining church financial transparency. These guidelines and protocols play a crucial role in ensuring that all financial transactions and decision-making processes are carried out in a transparent and accountable manner.

1. Clear Guidelines: Internal policies and procedures establish explicit instructions for handling finances within the church. They outline the specific responsibilities of church leaders and staff regarding financial matters, which include budgeting, expense approvals, and record-keeping.

2. Financial Controls: These internal policies and procedures are designed to prevent and detect any potential financial mismanagement or fraud through robust internal controls. For example, they may require the presence of dual signatures for significant financial transactions or regular reconciliations of bank statements.

3. Consistent Processes: Internal policies and procedures guarantee consistency in financial processes across the entire church. This encompasses protocols for cash handling, reimbursement procedures, and guidelines for financial reporting.

4. Compliance with Laws and Regulations: The alignment of internal policies and procedures with applicable laws and regulations enhances church financial transparency. They serve to ensure compliance with tax laws, reporting requirements, and any other legal obligations.

5. Accountability and Oversight: Internal policies and procedures provide a framework for accountability and oversight. They establish checks and balances within the church, ensuring that all financial decisions are made responsibly and in the best interest of the congregation.

To enhance church financial transparency through internal policies and procedures:

• Regularly review and update policies to reflect any changes in laws or regulations.
• Provide comprehensive training and education to church leaders and staff on financial policies and procedures.
• Foster a culture of transparency by encouraging open communication and accountability among all stakeholders.

By implementing robust internal policies and procedures, churches can cultivate a culture of financial transparency that fosters trust, accountability, and responsible stewardship of church funds.

The Church has oodles of mechanisms in place to ensure "compliance," and to reduce the risks of "financial misconduct," and to provide "{f}inancial oversight," and to sure that "contributions are used appropriately."

In any event, none of this defines or quantifies "transparency."

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

https://www.letstalkaboutitbytimhill.com/post/financial-transparency-in-the-church

This one is a little better, but not much.  

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

By the way I am a CPA but focus on tax work. But I am certainly familiar with financial statements as my firm does a lot of financial statement work. We do such work for closely held businesses, for not for profits, for government entities.  Closely held businesses in the US are not required to have an audited financial statement but often a bank requires it for loan purposes. And some of our clients want one just for good practices and guess what? Financial transparency for the owners of the business.  NFPs of a certain size (not counting churches and many government entities are required by law to have an audited financial statement.  Frankly the CPA SMAC leaned on ought to be embarrassed by his argument.  It was specious and poorly constructed and boiled down to the information from an audited and publicly shared financial statement is not worth much.  Are audits expensive? Yep. Are they worth the cost. Certainly they are.  Do such statements have valuable information? Yes they do.  

The Church already has auditing procedures in place.

Still no coherent definition of "transparency."  No matter what the Church does, you and yours can just move the goalposts and demand more.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do they regret it because of how the church used the money or because they don't believe in the truth claims of the church anymore and are hostile to the church and want to see it "suffer"? 

 

I would imagine that feelings about tithing among disaffected members are all over the place.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The motive behind their actions in regards to tithing is really what determines whether the smoke means fire or not.  Not the actions themselves.

Even if the church was transparent with their finances, many ex-members would still regret having paid tithing.  They wouldn't have this specific stick to try to use against the church, but for a percentage of them the desire to find a stick somewhere else would still be strong.

 

I can only speak for myself. Even as active member I was always wishful that the church was financially transparent. Likely the CPA in me. As for how I feel now, I have mixed feelings. As I have shared, the thing that bothers me most is the church's accumulation of wealth. On the other hand the tithing and fast offerings were part of what I voluntarily did and sort of a "price" of membership. My family and I received benefits from participation. Two of my kids went to BYU and so on. I have no desire or illusions that I should somehow get my tithe dollars back due to some malfeasance or deception.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I can only speak for myself. Even as active member I was always wishful that the church was financially transparent.

And "financially transparent" means . . . what?  Anything outside of what the Church is doing?

The people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  

We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.  We also know that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

"Transparency" is, it seems, an all-or-nothing sort of thing.  The Church is either "transparent" or not transparent at all.  There is nothing in between.  No increments.  And none of the foregoing safeguards, oversights, etc. matters a lick.  None if it amounts in any way to any "transparency" at all.  I think this is because our critics are loathe to admit that their calls for "transparency" are really a matter of degree, a call for more "transparency."  But that concession weakens the narrative and its attendant talking points.  So our critics persist in this inane absolutism.  

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Likely the CPA in me. As for how I feel now, I have mixed feelings. As I have shared, the thing that bothers me most is the church's accumulation of wealth.

If the money was being wasted, I would be more concerned.  But it's not.  Instead, the Church is doing a pretty good job of avoiding graft, corruption, waste, etc.  It does so by carefully vetting both its own humanitarian efforts and its partners and joint projects.  

If you and yours had competent evidence that the Church was being deliberately stingy / parsimonious / greedy / avaricious in its humanitarian efforts, I would be more concerned.  But you don't.  You just have broad accusations, ugly conclusory assertions, and endless exercises in faultfinding and armchair quarterbacking.  Meanwhile, the Presiding Bishopric and the Church have spoken at some length about the the Church's efforts and our desire to increase them.  None of this matters a lick to our opponents, though.  We'll be faulted no matter what we do.

If you and yours had competent evidence that the Church is deliberately withholding funds from carefully vetted partners and programs, I would be more concerned.  But you don't.  Just ugly characterizations, meanspirited insults and taunts, and so on.

If you and yours could meaningfully address and debunk the apparently massive problems and logistical challenges in international humanitarian groups and efforts (which, if debunked, would militate against the Presiding Bishopric's various statements about the challenges and hindrances these issues create for the Church's efforts in this sphere), I would be more concerned.  But you don't.  Just sneers and slanders and conclusory accusations and sidestepping/ignoring.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not perfect.  It makes a good number of mistakes.  Its leaders make mistakes.  But in the end, I think the Church is a wonderful organization, and I am grateful to be a part of it.  I support its leaders, whom I believe are good and decent people trying hard to make the world a better place.  They are not perfect, but I don't need them to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And "financially transparent" means . . . what?

At minimum it means annually publishing financial statements that are audited.  More would be explanation on sources and use of funds.  

And don't whine about the cost. The church I bet spends a lot on its promo piece it now puts out to share about its humanitarian efforts. Such promo pieces are not cheap.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 Anything outside of what the Church is doing?

Bwaaaaahhaaaaa! The church is doing nothing as far a financial transparency goes. 

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  

Great.  That is called internal controls. That is not financial transparency.  The audit committee, the budget committee and so on are all internal type of committees. Most sizable companies and well and NFPs do these types of things. These are common practice. These ARE NOT tools of financial transparancy.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.

What you call an annual report no CPA in the world with their credentials would call that an annual report.  An annual report includes financial statements that are audited.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.  We also know that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

So what?  I am not accusing the church of misappropriating funds or the GAs of living high on the hog.  But apparently the leadership was concerned about optics enough to close the books in 1959 as well as go to great lengths to hide the growth of the funds in EPA. Why is that?

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Transparency" is, it seems, an all-or-nothing sort of thing.  The Church is either "transparent" or not transparent at all.  There is nothing in between.  No increments. 

Huh?  No it does not.  

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

And none of the foregoing safeguards, oversights, etc. matters a lick.  None if it amounts in any way to any "transparency" at all.  I think this is because our critics are loathe to admit that their calls for "transparency" are really a matter of degree, a call for more "transparency."  But that concession weakens the narrative and its attendant talking points.  So our critics persist in this inane absolutism.  

Now you are just going down your typical whinny persecution hyperbole path.  Yawn.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the money was being wasted, I would be more concerned.  But it's not.  Instead, the Church is doing a pretty good job of avoiding graft, corruption, waste, etc.  It does so by carefully vetting both its own humanitarian efforts and its partners and joint projects.  

Yep.  So why are you afraid of more transparency?

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you and yours had competent evidence that the Church was being deliberately stingy / parsimonious / greedy / avaricious in its humanitarian efforts, I would be more concerned.

I have not accused the church or its leaders of malfeasance. But they do hide where the money goes. Else the fabulous success of EPA would not have been a surprise when it was outed. My only complaint has been given the massive wealth the church is accumulating increasing humanitarian aid would be a wonderful thing. I agree with you that it should be gradual, that choices should be vetted and so on and that it is hard to deploy large sums of money responsibly. In fact you have persuaded me that the church over the past few years seem interested in doing more in this space and hopefully we will see that come to fruition over time.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  But you don't.  You just have broad accusations, ugly conclusory assertions, and endless exercises in faultfinding and armchair quarterbacking.  Meanwhile, the Presiding Bishopric and the Church have spoken at some length about the the Church's efforts and our desire to increase them.  None of this matters a lick to our opponents, though.  We'll be faulted no matter what we do.

If you and yours had competent evidence that the Church is deliberately withholding funds from carefully vetted partners and programs, I would be more concerned.  But you don't.  Just ugly characterizations, meanspirited insults and taunts, and so on.

If you and yours could meaningfully address and debunk the apparently massive problems and logistical challenges in international humanitarian groups and efforts (which, if debunked, would militate against the Presiding Bishopric's various statements about the challenges and hindrances these issues create for the Church's efforts in this sphere), I would be more concerned.  But you don't.  Just sneers and slanders and conclusory accusations and Good sidestepping/ignoring.

Good lord your posting has become full of whining, crying and tears.  Are you have a bad few weeks?

I don't owe you lengthy dissertations on every subject that I post on.  I don't have apparently the amount of spare time you do because your length verbose posts that reference all sorts of outside supporting material and also dredges up past posts from yourself and other here has to take a fair amount of time. I have given you some general specifics here and there and tried to give more substance to some of my criticism.  If that is not enough for you tough beans.  And just because YOU SAY I/WE don't give enough substance it does not mean we don't.  Heck @Analyticsgave you tons of substance on the finance and EPA and wealth and humanitarian issues. Recently and historically. Yet you ignore almost every substantive post he makes and accuse him if the crap verbose hyperbole BS that you post above.  What a joke.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not perfect.  It makes a good number of mistakes.  Its leaders make mistakes. 

Never said it is perfect nor have I expected as such.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

But in the end, I think the Church is a wonderful organization, and I am grateful to be a part of it.  I support its leaders, whom I believe are good and decent people trying hard to make the world a better place.  They are not perfect, but I don't need them to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes yes we know how much you love the church.  You say this often.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "nearly identical language" bit is, to me, telling.  It indicates that these cases really are "copycat" lawsuits, not organic-in-and-of-themselves instances of independently-formulated grievances.

Of course they aren’t “independently-forumulated grievances.” They are other incidences of the exact same alleged fraud. You seem to think multiple people feeling they are a victims of the exact same act is evidence that the grievance is made up and invalid. I think the opposite.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

These lawsuits are not based on claims of fraudulent nondisclosure, but about "fraud."  Affirmative fraud.  

And the Church’s defense is that Hinckley told the truth but was simply misunderstood. My point is that if the Church would have honestly and transparently disclosed to its membership the details of its financial situation according to the best practices among churches and other nonprofits, there wouldn’t have been a misunderstanding in the first place.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Transparency" is a remarkably nebulous and elastic word.  Folks like Roger can stretch or compress it to mean what they want it to mean, which is pretty much guaranteed to never coincide with the Church's efforts.  Any efforts by the Church can be preemptively and summarily and unilaterally declared to "lack transparency" or, with a hat tip to the No True Scotsman fallacy, not "really" or "actually" transparent.

You are being fundamentally unserious here. Financial transparency is a well-defined and widely embraced thing. As the National Council of Nonprofits says, "As tax-exempt public charities, charitable nonprofits embrace the values of accountability and transparency as a matter of ethical leadership.” Or as the ECFA says, “Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christ-centered organizations."

If you’d like me to provide you with some examples of what best-practices in financial transparency look like, I’d be glad to do that. I’m not making this up, and I’m not being arbitrary.

The goal here isn’t to meet some arbitrary standard of transparency that personally satisfies me. The goal is to give people like James Huntsman enough information about the financial condition of the Church so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not donating would be a wise allocation of the money they are stewards over. I realize that the Church says we should give them money based on faith, but Huntsman did that and subsequently felt his faith was betrayed.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I submit that what "people demanding US financial statements" are not going "to do with that information" is acknowledge it and be satisfied with or placated by it.

That is pure cynicism on your part.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game."

These are the wrong questions. The issue isn’t about whether the Church is making the right financial decisions. The issue is whether individuals are making the right financial decisions when they consider whether or not to donate to the Church. 

Edited March 28 by Analytics

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Still no coherent definition of "transparency."  No matter what the Church does, you and yours can just move the goalposts and demand more.  

This is simply a fallacious border line lie. But you need to tell yourself this. It plays into your over the top persecution complex and is an attempt to marginalize any and all valid criticism of the church.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do they regret it because of how the church used the money or because they don't believe in the truth claims of the church anymore and are hostile to the church and want to see it "suffer"? 

The motive behind their actions in regards to tithing is really what determines whether the smoke means fire or not.  Not the actions themselves.

Even if the church was transparent with their finances, many ex-members would still regret having paid tithing.  They wouldn't have this specific stick to try to use against the church, but for a percentage of them the desire to find a stick somewhere else would still be strong.

 

Maybe--depends on the individual and the individual circumstances. I will make two points.

First, lets talk about James Huntsman specifically. He is a financially sophisticated guy, and he gave large donations to the Church based on interpreting Hinckley’s remarks the way that you, Kim Pearson, Pahoran, etc. all did. When he found out that the Church used tithing money to fund a hundred-billion-dollar slush fund which never supported any humanitarian issues at all, he felt betrayed. He felt that he gave his valuable money to an organization that was either unwilling or unable to do anything productive with it. If the Church would have been transparent either he would have donated to it knowing that on the margin his money would just been passed through to Ensign Peaks to buy stocks and bonds. Or he would have given it to somebody else that had a vision for it. Either way, he wouldn’t be suing.

Talking about exMormons in general, the Church really needs to take some of the responsibility for people feeling betrayed and being upset about it. If the Church was more honest and transparent with its history and finances, people would feel less lied to and betrayed, even if they stopped believing.