Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Teancum]

On 4/5/2024 at 12:54 PM, Tacenda said:

I wonder, if anyone has the where with all, how much money does the church earn from interest alone from the Ensign Peak account. And if it's a lot, could that possibly go to feed the poor and hungry or provide shelters, or more help for those that are in extreme poverty. Or even, helping keep the world from destruction. 

If you go the The Widow's Mite here https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/2023update/ you can glean a lot of info.  I think these people are pretty reliable. They estimate the church increased its wealth by $29 billion.  That is a combination of excess tithes, growth in value of stock portfolio and likely some interest and dividends.  But as @Benjamin McGuirenote a lot of the investments are in equities and bonds.  Though those are easily liquidated to make cash available for humanitarian aid.  So out of the growth last year the church gave about $1.2 billion to relieve human suffering while their non operating assets grew to $182 billion.

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/5/2024 at 12:49 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

That would be the idyllic rolling hills of Kentucky!   Does Kentucky have idyllic rolling hills?   @Bernard Gui?  "Bueller?  Bueller?"   Perhaps Kentucky has hills, but they are not idyllic.  Or perhaps Kentucky has idyllic hills, but they do not roll.   Perhaps I shall have, one day, to visit the hills of Kentucky to determine whether they are idyllic and whether they roll!

Kentucky indeed has idyllic rolling grassy green hills with beautiful horses galloping around and fiddlers playing sweet tunes in the hollers. 

Edited April 7, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Kentucky indeed has idyllic rolling grassy green hills with beautiful horses galloping around and fiddlers playing sweet melodies in the hollers. 

Amongst whom, of course, no doubt, would be you!  

[manol]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Kentucky indeed has idyllic rolling grassy green hills with beautiful horses galloping around and fiddlers playing sweet melodies in the hollers. 

Welcome back!  Haven't seen you in a while, must admit I was concerned. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Welcome back!  Haven't seen you in a while, must admit I was concerned. 

Taking an extended time out, thank you.

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Kentucky indeed has idyllic rolling grassy green hills with beautiful horses galloping around and fiddlers playing sweet tunes in the hollers. 

Hey, my favorite inquisitor!!

Check this out. It ain't got a fiddle, but you might like it:

"I'd rather be in some dark holler, where the sun don't ever shine, than to be in some big city, in a small room with a girl on my mind."

 

Ok, now we've got to listen to Vassar Clements on fiddle and Jerry Garcia on banjo singing about those old Kentucky hills (thank you Bill Monroe):

@pogi, you familiar with Old and in the Way?

(dang, this is much better than arguing about money)

[Amulek]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:51 AM, Teancum said:

An honest question for the believers.  Why do you object to more financial transparency for the church? Is it simply because that is what the church does now? 

I've been meaning to say something in response to this but I've been super busy at work and haven't had much time to keep up with the board (let alone post much).

As a believer, I would say that I'm not inherently opposed to more financial transparency, per se. But neither am I bothered by the church's decision to not disclose more than the minimum amount required by law.

And I can kind of understand the church's reticence to say more about its wealth than it does - especially if it's increasing. After all, remember that one time the US government disincorporated the church and seized its assets? So, if one believes popular opinion about religious organizations in general - and the church, in particular - is going to decline in the future, then perhaps it makes sense to play things close to the vest.

Also, if I'm being completely honest, I strongly suspect that a non-zero proportion of critics who want more information about the church's finances are pressing for that information precisely because they want to use it to influence public opinion about the church. Whether that be to try and raid the church's coffers...I mean, reform the tax law with respect to 'large religious organizations,' or some other means.

And I also suspect critics would like to have the information readily available so it can be referenced, without discovery, when individuals or groups bring suit against the church. I believe this would both incentivize more people to bring suit against the church and put additional pressure on the church to settle early.

At the end of the day, I am comfortable with the church exercising it's right to disclose information as it sees fit within the confines of the law. In other jurisdictions where the church is required to disclose more information, they do so (see, e.g., here for info about the church in the UK).

If critics in the US want to see the church report more information, they are more than welcome to make their case in the court of public opinion. And if enough people agree, that's what we'll do - though I am doubtful this will change anytime soon.

 

Quote

If tomorrow the church decided to hire PWC to audit their financial and publish an annual report, would you object or support it?

I would object. But only because, in my experience, PwC has got the highest jerk ratio among the big four, hands-down.

Now, if Deloitte or KPMG (or even EY) were hired to perform an external audit and then produced essentially the exact same report as what we get in Conference now (only, unlike what we currently have, specifically indicated that US GAAP was being followed) I would be more than satisfied. And I believe our critics, at least the ones who know better, would be too.

But I can understand why they don't. It really comes down to it being a business decision on the church's part, one that they are entitled to make - and one we are entitled to either tolerate or take issue with, whichever the case may be.

 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

I've been meaning to say something in response to this but I've been super busy at work and haven't had much time to keep up with the board (let alone post much).

As a believer, I would say that I'm not inherently opposed to more financial transparency, per se. But neither am I bothered by the church's decision to not disclose more than the minimum amount required by law.

Ok.  I suspect most believing members would agree with you.

 

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

And I can kind of understand the church's reticence to say more about its wealth than it does - especially if it's increasing. After all, remember that one time the US government disincorporated the church and seized its assets? So, if one believes popular opinion about religious organizations in general - and the church, in particular - is going to decline in the future, then perhaps it makes sense to play things close to the vest.

So you think because people have a lot opinion of religious groups, and that such opinions will continue to be negative and become more so.  Because of that the Church should keep its finances secret?  I am not sure why it matters either way does it?

 

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

Also, if I'm being completely honest, I strongly suspect that a non-zero proportion of critics who want more information about the church's finances are pressing for that information precisely because they want to use it to influence public opinion about the church. Whether that be to try and raid the church's coffers...I mean, reform the tax law with respect to 'large religious organizations,' or some other means.

You may be correct. And in some cases I am sure you are.  But not all. Really there seems to be a lot of info out their on the church finances. It seems to me that the would  be better off to control the message and data rather than letting others expose what they can.

 

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

And I also suspect critics would like to have the information readily available so it can be referenced, without discovery, when individuals or groups bring suit against the church. I believe this would both incentivize more people to bring suit against the church and put additional pressure on the church to settle early.

That could be true. I do not know what the legal rules are for discovery and what the church would have to disclose in a law suit about its wealth.  But most people already assume the church is incredibly wealthy so to me it seems that they may be better off to disclose and control the message themselves.

 

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

At the end of the day, I am comfortable with the church exercising it's right to disclose information as it sees fit within the confines of the law. In other jurisdictions where the church is required to disclose more information, they do so (see, e.g., here for info about the church in the UK).

If critics in the US want to see the church report more information, they are more than welcome to make their case in the court of public opinion. And if enough people agree, that's what we'll do - though I am doubtful this will change anytime soon.

Probably no change for churches not having to file a Form 990 or anything anytime soon.

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Amulek said:

Now, if Deloitte or KPMG (or even EY) were hired to perform an external audit and then produced essentially the exact same report as what we get in Conference now (only, unlike what we currently have, specifically indicated that US GAAP was being followed) I would be more than satisfied. And I believe our critics, at least the ones who know better, would be too.

One more point.  You do not get an annual report from the church. Their two paragraph commentary at one GC per year is not an annual report.  So if KPMG audited the church it would be totally different. And internal auditors roles are very different from the role of an independent auditing firm.

[smac97]

Tribune: LDS Church can’t hide behind religion in Huntsman’s tithing lawsuit, lawyers argue

Quote

New legal salvos in James Huntsman’s fraud lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are attacking arguments that the Utah-based faith is legally shielded by religious protections.

Invoking church autonomy to let the global religion avoid a reckoning in court over Huntsman’s assertions he was misled by its top leaders about tithing would jeopardize other religions and threatens the idea that faith groups are equally subject to civil law, warn the latest briefs at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's an interesting argument.

Quote

And under California’s legal definition of fraud, scholars and civil rights advocates contend that federal judges can and should decide Huntsman’s case without delving improperly into religious doctrines or beliefs, including the Latter-day Saint practice and teaching of tithing.

“Murder would still be murder if committed by a group that deems it a sacrament,” says one of the latest friend-of-the-court briefs filed Friday in support of Huntsman’s lawsuit. “And fraud is still fraud if clothed in religious vestments.”

This is true (albeit a bit bombastic).  However, the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine doesn't work this way.  It does not stand for the proposition that a religious group can commit wrongdoing by "clothing" the wrongdoing "in religious vestments," and the Church has not suggested that.  Indeed, the doctrine has built-in mechanisms to address this point.  A good summary is found in El Pescador Church, Inc. v. Ferrero, 594 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App. 2019) (previously discussed here).

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. amend. I. The First Amendment governs conduct of the several states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). Aside from interfering with an individual's observance or practice of a particular faith, government action can burden the free exercise of religion by encroaching on a church's ability to manage its internal affairs. See, e.g., Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952); Westbrook v. Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Tex. 2007). Accordingly, the Free Exercise Clause "severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes[.]"  Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969).

Specifically, civil courts cannot inquire into matters concerning "theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them." Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for U. S. of Am. and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713-14, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976), quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 733, 13 Wall. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871). We follow this same limitation in Texas under a doctrine referred to as ecclesiastical abstention.  Masterson v. Diocese of N.W. Texas, 422 S.W.3d 594, 601 (Tex. 2013); Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth v. Episcopal Church, 422 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. 2013).

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is more than just a limitation on a court's actions, it is a limitation on its subject matter jurisdiction. Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 605-06. And courts are "obligated to review sua sponte issues affecting jurisdiction." M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004); see also Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 103 (Tex. 2012) ("Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement, can be raised at any time, and must be considered by a court sua sponte."). This would include the question of ecclesiastical abstention. Singh v. Sandhar, 495 S.W.3d 482, 491 n.8 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (trial court could have correctly dismissed claims covered by ecclesiastical matters even if not raised by the parties); Thiagarajan v. Tadepalli, 430 S.W.3d 589, 596 n.3 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) ("[T]his court is obligated to address the existence of  subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte regardless of whether the parties challenged it.").

Yet while ecclesiastical abstention prevents us from resolving some disputes, it does not shield all suits simply because a parishioner or church is a party-litigant. Courts also have an obligation to resolve disputes and "cannot delegate their judicial prerogative where jurisdiction exists." Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 606 (courts must "fulfill their constitutional obligation to exercise jurisdiction where it exists, yet refrain from exercising jurisdiction where it does not exist."). Moreover, churches and their congregations "exist and function within the civil community," and therefore they are "amenable to rules governing property rights, torts, and criminal conduct." Williams v. Gleason, 26 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); see also Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2008) ("[R]eligious practices that threaten the public's health, safety, or general welfare cannot be tolerated as protected religious belief.")

For those disputes that we can resolve, Texas courts must apply a "neutral principles methodology" meaning they "apply neutral principles of law to non-ecclesiastical issues involving religious entities in the same manner as they apply those principles to other entities and issues." Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 606; Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, 422 S.W.3d at 650 ("But courts applying the neutral principles methodology defer to religious entities' decisions on ecclesiastical and church polity issues such as who may be members of the entities and whether to remove a bishop or pastor, while they decide non-ecclesiastical issues such as property ownership and whether trusts exist based on the same neutral principles of secular law that apply to other entities."). For property ownership disputes, neutral principles "will usually include considering evidence such as deeds to the properties, terms of the local church charter (including articles of incorporation and by laws, if any), and relevant provisions of governing documents of the general church." Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 603.

---

The Utah Court of Appeals provides a similarly concise summary of the law here:

Quote

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

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

"[C]hurches must have 'power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.'"  Id. (quoting Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952)).  But here, Plaintiffs' claims do not necessarily implicate the Church's government, faith, or doctrine.  Rather, each of the claims stated in the Third Amended Complaint is supported by allegations of secular activity potentially amounting to violations of generally applicable civil law.  Cf. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (upholding criminal laws of general applicability even though those laws interfere with sincerely held religious beliefs).  Accordingly, the trial court erred when it relied on the entanglement doctrine to deny Plaintiffs' motion to amend.

If Huntsman could rely on a "set of decidedly secular facts" to "{support} allegations {against the Church} of secular activity potentially amounting to violations of generally applicable civil law," then I think his case could proceed.  But I don't think he can.

One of the core factual issues here is the meaning of "tithing."  This alone is enough to raised red flags because Huntsman is essentially asking the Court to define it.  See, e.g., Hawthorne v. Couch, 911 So.2d 907, 910 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (“The issue of tithing is at its core a purely ecclesiastical matter.”); Glass v. First United Pentecostal Church of DeRidder, 676 So.2d 724, 735 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1996) (“{T}ithing is at the root of ecclesiastical doctrine. If these complaints are in any way related to discipline on such, they would fall outside of the Court's jurisdiction.”).  Can civil courts identify and utilize "neutral principles of law to non-ecclesiastical issues" when defining "tithing" and ascertaining Pres. Hinckley's intent when he used that word?  I don't think so.

For example, a 2009 Texas case, In re Godwin, is quite similar to the Huntsman lawsuit.  In Godwin, a former church member alleged that the church had misused church funds, which formed the basis of a fraud allegation.  Some of the disputed financial expenditures, however, were approved by a committee based on the church's doctrine. Necessarily, the determination of whether the financial expenditures were proper would have required an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified by the church's religious doctrine and practices. Accordingly, the court lacked any jurisdiction to hear the fraud claim upon which the challenged expenditures was based. 

Some excerpts:

Quote

Nail's fraud claim, which alleges Godwin and ENCF used church funds for improper purposes, also appears to concern an ecclesiastical matter. In Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 643 S.E.2d 566, 571 (2007), plaintiffs alleged a church pastor, secretary, and chairman of the church's board of trustees made improper financial expenditures. Upon reviewing the plaintiffs' allegations, the court stated "[d]etermining whether actions, including expenditures, by a church's pastor . . . were proper requires an examination of the church's view of the role of pastor,  staff, and church leaders, their authority and compensation, and church management." Id. The court explained:

[b]ecause a church's religious doctrine and practice affect its understanding of each of these concepts, seeking a court's review of the matters presented here is no different than asking a court to determine whether a particular church's grounds for membership are spiritually or doctrinally correct or whether a church's charitable pursuits accord with the congregation's beliefs. None of these issues can be addressed using neutral principles of law.

Id.

Similarly, in Wolter v. Delgatto, No. 14-05-00055-CV, 2006 WL 664214, *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), the plaintiff accused her former church of conversion and misusing church funds in connection with a development project. The plaintiff argued the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims against the church because they related to financial and not doctrinal matters. Id. The court of appeals, however, disagreed. Id. The Wolter court explained the plaintiffs case concerned whether the church followed its constitution when it became involved with a housing and urban development project. Id. The court emphasized that "[t]his is true despite [the plaintiff's] attempt to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction by framing her claims in civil terms." Id. The court therefore concluded the plaintiffs "claims, viewed substantively and considering the effect of their resolution by a civil court, relate to how and when [the church] may spend its resources and are thus ecclesiastic in nature." Id.

"The plaintiff argued the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims against the church because they related to financial and not doctrinal matters.  The court of appeals, however, disagreed ... {explaining that} the plaintiff's case concerned whether the church followed its constitution when it became involved with a housing and urban development project ... The court emphasized that '[t]his is true despite {the plaintiff's} attempt to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction by framing her claims in civil terms.'"

This is what Huntsman et al. are doing.  They are "attempt{ing} to invoke" the jurisdiction of secular courts by framing their disagreements with the Church as "claims in civil terms" (that is, as "fraud" claims).  Interestingly, the Tribune article above accuses the Church of improperly framing the factual predicate of Huntsman's case in religious terms.  Of these dueling characterizations, I think the one in Godwin is more apt.  

"The court therefore concluded the plaintiff's 'claims, viewed substantively and considering the effect of their resolution by a civil court, relate to how and when {the church} may spend its resources and are thus ecclesiastic in nature.'"

I think this is how Huntsman and its progeny will turn out.

Quote

Like the plaintiffs in Harris and Wolter, Nail raises allegations about misuse of church funds. Nail asserts Godwin and ENCF were poor stewards of church funds and failed to use the church's resources for "good church purposes." From the mandamus record before us, it appears some of the disputed financial expenditures may have been approved by ENCF's Finance Committee, which, under ENCF's belief system, owes a responsibility to God to ensure the church is run properly. In addition, it appears a biblical basis may exist to support some of the other disputed financial expenditures. The determination of whether Godwin and ENCF's financial expenditures were proper in this case requires an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified in light of ENCF's religious doctrine and practices. Because this is the type of ecclesiastical inquiry courts are forbidden to make, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Nail's fraud claim.

"The determination of whether Godwin and ENCF's financial expenditures were proper in this case requires an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified in light of ENCF's religious doctrine and practices. Because this is the type of ecclesiastical inquiry courts are forbidden to make, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Nail's fraud claim."

Yep.  Huntsman's legal theory puts his lawsuit is a much more precarious position than the Church's.  I think Huntsman will have to show that no part of the the judicial inquiry into his claims will require any incursion into territory protected by the First Amendment (via the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine).  In contrast, the Church's position is that any such incursion precludes judicial inquiry.  Metaphorically speaking, Huntsman's lawsuit is a big balloon, and the Church only needs one tiny little needle to pop it.

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

Among the latest parties joining the case on Huntsman’s side are Interfaith Alliance, a national group of faith group based in Washington, D.C.; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which advocates for the civil rights of LGBTQ communities; the National Women’s Law Center, pushing for gender justice; and the Sikh Coalition, a Sikh American advocacy group.

Attorneys for the Salt Lake City-headquartered church, these groups assert in a joint filing, are seeking unfair and unworkably wide protections in advance of judges rehearing the case.

The groups argue that civil courts are obliged to hold the church and other religious organizations to the same laws as others in such legal disputes and not to defer to church authority solely because Huntsman’s allegations touch on a religious practice.

“If the church’s legal theory were correct,” their lawyers, based in Durham, N.C., argue, “religious organizations could insist that they were free from all possible liability, as long as there was some religious component or label to their conduct.”

This is not a very good characterization of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  Godwin and other cases do a substantially better job.  And it sounds like these groups are arguing against the doctrine itself (as opposed to the Church's invocation of it).  If so, I think they will have a hard time persuading the Ninth Circuit to abandon or substantially modify the doctrine.

Quote

Too much deference by civil courts to religious authority threatens to treat faiths with different rules, they argue, with the potential to favor more traditional, top-down religions over their members and others with less-conventional faith views. That, in turn, risks creating doubt about the fairness of their operations and deterring donations, “while also depriving those who have been injured by religious entities of a venue to seek legal remedies.”

Oi.  I think this is a really bad argument.  These groups are asking the Ninth Circuit to do what the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine (and, by extension, the First Amendment) prohibits, which is to have secular courts adjudicate disputes between religious organizations and "their members and others with less-conventional faith views."  The United States has robust religious liberty provisions in its laws.  We do not have a state religion.  We do not allow religious tests for political office.  Religious liberty allows individuals to both association and not associate with a religious group.  All this religious liberty involves a mostly "hands off" approach by secular authorities as to religious disputes (as opposed to purely secular disputes, for which the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine provides no protection).

Here, these groups are speaking of people "who have been injured by religious entities."  If they "have been injured" in purely secular ways, then they already have "a venue to seek legal remedies" because, per these cases, "religious practices that threaten the public's health, safety, or general welfare cannot be tolerated as protected religious belief," and are not protected by the First Amendment.  However, if they claim to have "been injured" in a way that requires the courts to act in ways that, per these cases, "burden the free exercise of religion by encroaching on a church's ability to manage its internal affairs," or "inquire into matters concerning 'theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government,'" 

To differentiate between "purely secular" (that is, non-ecclesiastical) and ecclesiastical disputes, "courts must look to the substance and effect of a plaintiff's complaint to determine its ecclesiastical implication, not its emblemata."  Claims which are "inextricably intertwined with inherently ecclesiastical issues" will fail.  Per Godwin, the determination of whether a church's financial expenditures were proper would have required an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified by the church's religious doctrine and practices, which inquiry is barred by the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  From Godwin:

Quote

In Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 643 S.E.2d 566, 571 (2007), plaintiffs alleged a church pastor, secretary, and chairman of the church's board of trustees made improper financial expenditures. Upon reviewing the plaintiffs' allegations, the court stated "[d]etermining whether actions, including expenditures, by a church's pastor . . . were proper requires an examination of the church's view of the role of pastor,  staff, and church leaders, their authority and compensation, and church management." Id. The court explained:

[b]ecause a church's religious doctrine and practice affect its understanding of each of these concepts, seeking a court's review of the matters presented here is no different than asking a court to determine whether a particular church's grounds for membership are spiritually or doctrinally correct or whether a church's charitable pursuits accord with the congregation's beliefs. None of these issues can be addressed using neutral principles of law.

Id.

Similarly, in Wolter v. Delgatto, No. 14-05-00055-CV, 2006 WL 664214, *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), the plaintiff accused her former church of conversion and misusing church funds in connection with a development project. The plaintiff argued the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims against the church because they related to financial and not doctrinal matters. Id. The court of appeals, however, disagreed. Id. The Wolter court explained the plaintiffs case concerned whether the church followed its constitution when it became involved with a housing and urban development project. Id. The court emphasized that "[t]his is true despite [the plaintiff's] attempt to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction by framing her claims in civil terms." Id. The court therefore concluded the plaintiffs "claims, viewed substantively and considering the effect of their resolution by a civil court, relate to how and when [the church] may spend its resources and are thus ecclesiastic in nature." Id.

Like the plaintiffs in Harris and Wolter, Nail raises allegations about misuse of church funds. Nail asserts Godwin and ENCF were poor stewards of church funds and failed to use the church's resources for "good church purposes." From the mandamus record before us, it appears some of the disputed financial expenditures may have been approved by ENCF's Finance Committee, which, under ENCF's belief system, owes a responsibility to God to ensure the church is run properly. In addition, it appears a biblical basis may exist to support some of the other disputed financial expenditures. The determination of whether Godwin and ENCF's financial expenditures were proper in this case requires an inquiry into whether the expenditures were justified in light of ENCF's religious doctrine and practices. Because this is the type of ecclesiastical inquiry courts are forbidden to make, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Nail's fraud claim.

I just don't think Huntsman will be able to avoid entangling the secular federal court in California in the Church's doctrines, governance, financial decisions, etc.

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

In a separate filing, legal scholar Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University Law School, argues that Huntsman’s lawsuit can be resolved under long-standing “neutral principles” in U.S. law that don’t need to involve questions of religion.

“Churches,” Tuttle wrote, “have never received a blanket exemption from secular law.” And courts do not inhibit free exercise of religion “merely by opening their doors to disputes involving church property.”

Again, this is poor reasoning.  Nobody is arguing that churches "have {} received a blanket exemption from secular law."

Quote

A neutral-principles approach, the professor argues, “frees civil courts from the danger of entanglement in church affairs and better protects the religious liberty of denominations and congregations alike.”

The "neutral-principles approach" is contemplated in and part of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  And yet Huntsman's lawsuit will still likely run afoul of the doctrine:

Quote

Nail's fraud claim, which alleges Godwin and ENCF used church funds for improper purposes, also appears to concern an ecclesiastical matter. In Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 643 S.E.2d 566, 571 (2007), plaintiffs alleged a church pastor, secretary, and chairman of the church's board of trustees made improper financial expenditures. Upon reviewing the plaintiffs' allegations, the court stated "[d]etermining whether actions, including expenditures, by a church's pastor . . . were proper requires an examination of the church's view of the role of pastor,  staff, and church leaders, their authority and compensation, and church management." Id. The court explained:

[b]ecause a church's religious doctrine and practice affect its understanding of each of these concepts, seeking a court's review of the matters presented here is no different than asking a court to determine whether a particular church's grounds for membership are spiritually or doctrinally correct or whether a church's charitable pursuits accord with the congregation's beliefs. None of these issues can be addressed using neutral principles of law.

Id.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/7/2024 at 9:57 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, my favorite inquisitor!!

Check this out. It ain't got a fiddle, but you might like it:

"I'd rather be in some dark holler, where the sun don't ever shine, than to be in some big city, in a small room with a girl on my mind."

 

Ok, now we've got to listen to Vassar Clements on fiddle and Jerry Garcia on banjo singing about those old Kentucky hills (thank you Bill Monroe):

@pogi, you familiar with Old and in the Way?

(dang, this is much better than arguing about money)

Thanks! I’ve become friends with banjoist Phil Akemon, nephew of “Stringbean” Akemon, banjo player of “Hee Haw” and “Grand Ole Oprey” fame. Stringbean and his wife were murdered in a robbery gone bad back in 1973. Phil, who is LDS,  lives in McKee, about 45 miles away up in the Appalachians.  He and his family own the “Stringbean Memorial Bluegrass Festival.” I get to play with some of the musicians once in a while. They’re the real thing. 
https://www.stringbeanpark.com

“Them Banjo Pickers” (in the style of Mason Williams)

How about them Banjo Pickers, ain’t they raw?

Some usin’ picks, some usin’ claw.

Pickin’ on the five strings, strummin’ on the fours.

Pickin’ on the  front porch, pickin’ out of doors.

 

Look at them Banjo Pickers, ain’t they exceptional?

Learned how to pick that thang in an institute correctional.

Them lickity-splickity Banjo Pickers, ain’t they the slickest?

Pickin’ out them rolls and drones, fingers movin’ quickest.

 

How to be a Banjo Picker? Want some fingerpickens?

Gitcherself a used Gold Tone, then pick it like the ****ens.

Edited April 11, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

An update:

Tithing lawsuits from four states against the LDS Church get transferred. Guess where.

Quote

Tithing lawsuits from four states against the LDS Church get transferred. Guess where.

Cases seeking class-action status are now in the hands of a federal judge in Utah, home to the faith’s world headquarters.

This is not unusual, either to have the lawsuit situated where the defendant resides, or to have cases consolidated to where the defendant resides.

Quote

A series of fraud lawsuits filed in multiple states against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over tithing have now been moved to a single federal courtroom in the faith’s home state of Utah.

In the name of justice and legal efficiency, an esoteric panel of federal judges based in Washington, D.C., has ordered four would-be class-action complaints against the church — filed by former or disaffected Latter-day Saints in Illinois, Washington, Tennessee and California — transferred to the Salt Lake City court of U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby.

Multidistrict Litigation are not really "esoteric" (as in "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest").  Any attorney who has spent any appreciable time in federal court will have encountered it.  From Wikipedia :

Quote

In United States law, multidistrict litigation (MDL) refers to a special federal legal procedure designed to speed the process of handling complex cases, such as air disaster litigation or complex product liability suits.

 

MDL cases occur when "civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts."^[1] In order to efficiently process cases that could involve hundreds (or thousands) of plaintiffs in dozens of different federal courts that all share common issues, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decides whether cases should be "centralized" under the MDL statute ("centralization" is the JPML's term of art for MDL transfers), and if so, where the cases should be transferred.^[2] Cases subject to MDL are sent from one court, known as the transferor, to another, known as the transferee, for all pretrial proceedings and discovery. If a case is not settled or dismissed in the transferee court, it is remanded (that is, sent back) to the transferor court for trial.^[3]

It is common for the JPML to learn after ordering centralization of the existence of additional pending actions involving the same or similar questions of fact as the actions it had just centralized. Either they had already been filed but the JPML was unaware of them at the time, or they were filed after centralization. These so-called "tag-along actions" are almost always also subject to centralization once they come to the attention of the panel.^[4]

The statute governing this stuff was passed in the 60s, so MDL has been around for a while.

Here is a link to the order consolidated the cases:     IN RE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Tithing Litigation

This was issued on April 11.  Some excerpts from the order:

Quote

Plaintiff in the Southern District of Illinois Long action moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Central District of California. 

The "Plaintiff" referenced here is Joel Long, one of the people suing the Church.  He, not the Church, requested the consolidation of cases.  However, he requested that the cases be centralized in California.  I suspect this is for the same reasons as Huntsman likely utilized: forum shopping.  I previously commented on this here:

Quote

Quote

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.

Anyway, back to the consolidation order:

Quote

The litigation consists of four actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A.  Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of one related action pending in the Central District of California.1  All parties support centralization2 but differ as to the appropriate transferee district.  Plaintiffs in the Middle District of Tennessee Brawner and Eastern District of Washington Risdon actions support centralization in the Central District of California and, alternatively, suggest centralization in the Eastern District of Washington.  Plaintiffs in the District of Utah Chappell action and defendants the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints3 and Ensign Peak Advisers, Inc., request centralization in the District of Utah.   
...
2  Plaintiffs in the District of Utah Chappell action initially opposed centralization but withdrew their opposition at oral argument.

3  According to defendants, the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was merged into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter, the Church) on December 31, 2020, and is not a legal entity that can properly be sued. 

The disagreement about where the cases should be consolidated is not surprising.

I also think footnote 3 is interesting: "{T}he Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was merged into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter, the Church) on December 31, 2020, and is not a legal entity that can properly be sued."  The "Corporation" can't be sued because it does not exist any more.  I have previously commented on the legal entity/entities that is/are associated with what we think of as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  See here, here, here, here, here.

Quote

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the District of Utah will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  These actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the Church falsely represented that tithes paid by its members would be used solely for charitable and humanitarian purposes while instead allowing tithes to accumulate in investment accounts, hiding the extent of its wealth from Church members, and spending tithing monies for commercial purposes.  

Pretty standard stuff, this.

Quote

We select the District of Utah as the transferee district.  It is the logical center of gravity for this litigation.  The Church is headquartered there, and most of the relevant documents and witnesses will be found there.  Both the Church and plaintiffs in the Chappell action support centralization in the district.  Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby, to whom we assign the litigation, is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness to manage the proceedings efficiently.  We are confident that he will steer this matter on a prudent course. 

Again, pretty standard stuff.

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

The five-member Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed in a recent ruling that the five cases share common legal facts. The panel called Utah “the logical center of gravity” for further court review of the disputes — as church headquarters and home to a host of relevant documents and witnesses.

Attorneys for the faith and its investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, which is also being sued in these suits, had both supported consolidating them in Utah.

As noted above, "plaintiffs in the Chappell action" also supported the consolidation taking place in Utah.

Quote

The panel described Shelby, who is now the Utah court’s chief judge, as an experienced jurist “with the ability and willingness to manage the proceedings efficiently. We are confident that he will steer this matter on a prudent course.”

Shelby, who was appointed to the bench by then-President Barack Obama, made headlines in December 2013 when he struck down Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

The Wisconsin native, who replaced Judge Tena Campbell, also previously presided over at least one fraud case against the church, brought in 2019 by former Latter-day Saint Laura Gaddy, a North Carolina resident.

That suit alleges mail and wire fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, fraudulent concealment and civil racketeering under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO.

It is currently pending before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Utah.

Ah, Gaddy.  I had almost forgotten.  What a trainwreck, that one.  IIRC, Gaddy is pending before the Tenth Circuit, having previously been dismissed by Judge Shelby based on, inter alia, the Ecclesiastical Abstention / Church Autonomy doctrine (see here and here).  However, while Judge Shelby has previously cited to, and is therefore obviously familiar with, this doctrine, I am not sure his application of it in Gaddy's lawsuit is going to provide any insight as to how he might apply it to the consolidated cases he will be receiving shortly.  Gaddy was very poorly drafted and argued, and it was painfully obvious that it was a religious dispute dressed up as a civil lawsuit.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Gaddy's fraud claims relate principally to three of the Church's alleged misrepresentations of material fact:

• Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ during the First Vision;

• Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates inscribed with reformed Egyptian characters using "interpreters" given to him from God; and

• Joseph Smith accurately translated writings from Egyptian papyri about the Hebrew prophet Abraham into the Church's scripture known as the Book of Abraham.

Each of these alleged misrepresentations directly implicates the Church's core beliefs. Because a statement's falsity is an essential element of fraud claims, adjudicating these claims would require the court to do exactly what the Supreme Court has forbidden—evaluate the truth or  falsity of the Church's religious beliefs. This court can no more determine whether Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ or translated with God's help gold plates or ancient Egyptian documents, than it can opine on whether Jesus Christ walked on water or Muhammed communed with the archangel Gabriel. The First Amendment prohibits these kinds of inquiries in courts of law.

As you can see, none of this has to do with tithing, which Gaddy only later brought up when attempting to amend her complaint (see here).  Judge Shelby initially dismissed all of Gaddy's claims except the fraud/tithing one, but in March 2023 he dismissed all of them, including the fraud/tithing one.  However, Judge Shelby differentiated the basis for the dismissal of claims.  As to the other claims (not including the fraud/tithing claim), he dismissed those based on the Church Autonomy doctrine.  On the fraud/tithing claims, though, he dismissed them on separate grounds:

Quote

On March 28, 2023, the court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order dismissing with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint and denying the Third Motion to Amend.  In dismissing the claims, the court concluded all claims relying on the Church’s religious history and teachings failed under the church autonomy doctrine.  The fraudulent inducement claim, based on the Church’s tithing usage, was dismissed for failing to meet the particularized pleading standard required for fraud-based claims.  Plaintiffs’ claim for fraudulent nondisclosure failed because Plaintiffs could not establish the Church owed them a legal duty.  The court next dismissed the claim for “constructive fraud based on a breach of promises of future promises,” as it is not recognized under Utah law.  Plaintiffs appeared to concede their Utah statutory claim, but even still, the court determined the claim could not survive because the statute provided no private right of action.  Finally, Plaintiffs failed to plead the predicate acts required to establish their civil RICO claim.

I would not be surprised if Huntsman's attorneys reviewed Gaddy prior to filing suit, and said amongst themselves "Yeah, let's not do it that way."

In any event, Gaddy does not appear to have specifically or extensively addressed the Church Autonomy doctrine in the context of a fraud claim, which is what Huntsman is trying to do.  

Anyway, back to the Trib article:

Quote

Court motions indicate all parties involved — including plaintiffs, the church and Ensign Peak — had sought for the suits to be centralized under one federal judge, though they differed on the destination.

In addition to asserting similar claims, the cases now grouped before Shelby also all seek to create a class of similarly situated plaintiffs who would join the case.
...

The D.C. panel noted key differences between the cases, as well. Three suits call for a special trust to be created to hold tithing and investment proceeds that the church may have obtained inequitably.

The lawsuit filed by Chappell, in contrast, seeks the appointment of a special master, the panel said, “to monitor the collection, use, and disposition of tithing funds and the proceeds.”

I'm not sure this is a "key difference."  The consolidation order doesn't treat it that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 19, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

An update:

Tithing lawsuits from four states against the LDS Church get transferred. Guess where.

This is not unusual, either to have the lawsuit situated where the defendant resides, or to have cases consolidated to where the defendant resides.

Multidistrict Litigation are not really "esoteric" (as in "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest").  Any attorney who has spent any appreciable time in federal court will have encountered it.  From Wikipedia :

The statute governing this stuff was passed in the 60s, so MDL has been around for a while.

Here is a link to the order consolidated the cases:     IN RE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Tithing Litigation

This was issued on April 11.  Some excerpts from the order:

The "Plaintiff" referenced here is Joel Long, one of the people suing the Church.  He, not the Church, requested the consolidation of cases.  However, he requested that the cases be centralized in California.  I suspect this is for the same reasons as Huntsman likely utilized: forum shopping.  I previously commented on this here:

Anyway, back to the consolidation order:

The disagreement about where the cases should be consolidated is not surprising.

I also think footnote 3 is interesting: "{T}he Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was merged into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter, the Church) on December 31, 2020, and is not a legal entity that can properly be sued."  The "Corporation" can't be sued because it does not exist any more.  I have previously commented on the legal entity/entities that is/are associated with what we think of as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  See here, here, here, here, here.

Pretty standard stuff, this.

Again, pretty standard stuff.

Back to the Trib article:

As noted above, "plaintiffs in the Chappell action" also supported the consolidation taking place in Utah.

Ah, Gaddy.  I had almost forgotten.  What a trainwreck, that one.  IIRC, Gaddy is pending before the Tenth Circuit, having previously been dismissed by Judge Shelby based on, inter alia, the Ecclesiastical Abstention / Church Autonomy doctrine (see here and here).  However, while Judge Shelby has previously cited to, and is therefore obviously familiar with, this doctrine, I am not sure his application of it in Gaddy's lawsuit is going to provide any insight as to how he might apply it to the consolidated cases he will be receiving shortly.  Gaddy was very poorly drafted and argued, and it was painfully obvious that it was a religious dispute dressed up as a civil lawsuit.  See, e.g., here:

As you can see, none of this has to do with tithing, which Gaddy only later brought up when attempting to amend her complaint (see here).  Judge Shelby initially dismissed all of Gaddy's claims except the fraud/tithing one, but in March 2023 he dismissed all of them, including the fraud/tithing one.  However, Judge Shelby differentiated the basis for the dismissal of claims.  As to the other claims (not including the fraud/tithing claim), he dismissed those based on the Church Autonomy doctrine.  On the fraud/tithing claims, though, he dismissed them on separate grounds:

I would not be surprised if Huntsman's attorneys reviewed Gaddy prior to filing suit, and said amongst themselves "Yeah, let's not do it that way."

In any event, Gaddy does not appear to have specifically or extensively addressed the Church Autonomy doctrine in the context of a fraud claim, which is what Huntsman is trying to do.  

Anyway, back to the Trib article:

I'm not sure this is a "key difference."  The consolidation order doesn't treat it that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

💰 Coming our way.  Kidding!!

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

💰 Coming our way.  Kidding!!

It will be interesting to watch the interplay between this consolidated lawsuit and the Huntsman lawsuit.  As we know, the Ninth Circuit has scheduled an en banc hearing for the week of June 24 in Seattle.  Judge Shelby is in Utah, which is in the Tenth Circuit, so he will not be "bound" by any decision made in the Ninth Circuit.  However, it will be interesting to see which of these proceedings gets to a decision first.  I suspect it will be the Ninth Circuit, since managing the consolidated cases may end up being an exercise in herding cats, whereas the Huntsman lawsuit is already well underway and only has two parties.

I'm sort of speaking out of my ear on this, but I suspect Judge Shelby may pause the consolidated action in Utah to see what happens in the Ninth Circuit, and then proceed.  While he will not be obligated to adhere to the Ninth Circuit's decision, he may well treat it as a "persuasive authority."  What would be really interesting, though, is what would happen if the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of Huntsman, but Judge Shelby rules in favor of the Church.  If the latter happens, I strongly suspect some or all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated action would appeal the decision to the Tenth Circuit, which would then be situated to adjudicate essentially the same issue as is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. 

I am likely somewhat biased, but I think the Tenth Circuit is, broadly speaking, quite sensible, not particularly "activist" or politicized, and so would likely craft a predictable decision that follows established precedent, which in my view would have the Church as the prevailing party (all things considered, I think the Church has a much stronger factual and legal position).  However, if the Ninth Circuit goes one way (Huntsman wins) and the Tenth Circuit goes another (the Church wins), then we would have a "circuit split," explained here:

Quote

In United States federal courts, a circuit split, also known as a split of authority or split in authority, occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue.^[1] The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case.^[2] Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.^[3]

Despite the desire of the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts between circuit courts, legal scholars disagree about whether circuit splits are ultimately detrimental or beneficial. Some argue that circuit splits are harmful because they create confusion and encourage forum shopping, while other scholars argue that variation among circuits allows local courts to experiment with new laws that reflect the values of the local residents.^[4] Scholars have also observed that regional variations in different areas of the United States have provided certain circuits with a particular specialization or expertise in some subjects of law.^[5]

I think a "circuit split" about such an important First Amendment / Religious Liberty issue would be really bad, which means that SCOTUS would be more likely to grant review of one or other cases (or both).

However, my hunch is that things will not go that far.  My current, kind-of-speaking-out-of-my-ear predictions are as follows:

A) The Ninth Circuit will proceed with the June hearing, and the Circuit Court will hold that the Church Autonomy / Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine prohibits Huntsman's lawsuit.  This is the shakiest part of my prediction, but let's go with it for now.

B) Judge Shelby will either put the consolidated action in Utah on hold pending the Ninth Circuit decision, or else he will proceed with his adjudication regardless of the Ninth Circuit's parallel adjudication.  Regardless, I think he will likely eventually hold that the Church Autonomy / Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine prohibits the consolidated actions.

C) If A and B are accurate, then I think this crop of lawsuit will die on the vine.  Precedent will have been set, attorneys will be aware, and further lawsuits will either be never filed or quickly dismissed.  Other federal and state courts will promptly adopt the combined precedent from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits.  Also, if A and B are accurate, I think any attempt (by Huntsman, or by plaintiffs in the consolidated action, or both) to seek review by SCOTUS will fail.

D) If A and/or B are not accurate (that is, if the Church loses in one or both actions), then I think there is a good chance of review by SCOTUS, and that SCOTUS would reverse an adverse ruling based on First Amendment considerations.

I may have rose-colored glasses on here, but we'll see what happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "Plaintiff" referenced here is Joel Long, one of the people suing the Church.  He, not the Church, requested the consolidation of cases.  However, he requested that the cases be centralized in California. 

So it backfired?  Or will be so perceived by the plaintiffs is my guess.  I wonder if some of his fellow plaintiffs are cursing him out under their breath right now.  

Edited April 19, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

The "Plaintiff" referenced here is Joel Long, one of the people suing the Church.  He, not the Church, requested the consolidation of cases.  However, he requested that the cases be centralized in California. 

So it backfired?  

Kinda/sorta.  I'm sure he would prefer to have this case heard in the Ninth Circuit rather than the Tenth.  Forum shopping and all that.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or will be so perceived by the plaintiffs is my guess.  I wonder if some of his fellow plaintiffs are cursing him out under their breath right now.  

I suspect this (consolidation) would have happened sooner or later.

I am curious whether the Church's attorneys feel consolidation is advantageous.  In a sense, getting potentially conflicting decisions would have substantiated the Church's stated concerns about the risks inherent in these religious-dispute-dressed-up-as-a-fraud-claim-style lawsuits.  Consolidating the various cases mitigates that risk (I am not sure if filed-in-the-near-future cases would be required to be transferred to Judge Shelby as well).  As it is, though, I don't think the Church likes to play around in this way.  It seems to prefer being a conservative, straightforward, just-the-facts-ma'am style of litigant-defendant.  If so, consolidation makes both practical and economic sense for the Church.

Another potential noteworthy item: Judge Shelby was the fellow who, in 2013, nullified - on constitutional grounds - the amendment to the Constitution which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah.  It will therefore be difficult for people hostile to the Church to characterize Judge Shelby as being improperly influenced by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:52 AM, Analytics said:

Thank you for at least partially addressing my questions.

We now know that every year, the church takes in several hundred million dollars in tithing revenue more than it spends. That excess tithing is then donated to Ensign Peak Advisors to be invested. It's curious that members don't seem to have a problem with using tithing dollars to buy stocks and bonds from corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon, but do have a problem with using it to buy a mall across the street from the temple.

Curious or not, perhaps it is time for you to stop trying to impute onto us sentiments we do not hold, such as "using tithing to generate interest to build a mall was still using tithing to build a mall."  Particularly when you are doing so in the context of propping up a fraud lawsuit which involves your compatriot impugning the integrity of a man now dead, and whom we Latter-day Saints respected and honored.

And in any event, you are yet again not accurately representing the Latter-day Saints.  You are attributing to us the notion that the Church used "tithing dollars" to "buy a mall."  That is not what happened.  You are not a trustworthy source of information about the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 8, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

On 4/19/2024 at 3:36 PM, Calm said:

Quote

The "Plaintiff" referenced here is Joel Long, one of the people suing the Church.  He, not the Church, requested the consolidation of cases.  However, he requested that the cases be centralized in California. 

So it backfired?   Or will be so perceived by the plaintiffs is my guess.  

Perhaps.  I suspect Long was, like Huntsman, "forum shopping" and was thinking that a federal judge in California would be more advantageous than one in Utah.

On 4/19/2024 at 3:36 PM, Calm said:

I wonder if some of his fellow plaintiffs are cursing him out under their breath right now.  

That's a possibility.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

An update in the Tribune: New class-action case over tithing could lead to millions suing the LDS Church

Quote

Multiple “copycat” lawsuits accusing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of fraud over tithing have now been rolled into one boundary-pushing case.

After being transferred this spring to a federal courtroom in Salt Lake City — the faith’s global headquarters — five federal suits from across the nation have been formally reshaped into a single beefed-up class-action complaint, clearing a new path for litigation before U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby.

The newly consolidated case, filed July 12, is being pressed by former or disaffected Latter-day Saints in Utah, Illinois, Washington, Tennessee and California.

Here is a link to the "Consolidated Class Action Complaint" filed on July 12.

The theory of the case has changed quite a bit.  The causes of action are:

• 1. Common Law Breach of Fiduciary Duty
• 2. Fraudulent Inducement
• 3. Fraudulent Concealment
• 4. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• 5. Unjust Enrichment

The focus seems to be, oddly enough, on Philanthropies, which per the Church's website "is the department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responsible for facilitating philanthropic donations (not tithing or fast offerings) to the Church and its affiliated charities" (emphasis added).  Despite this, the Complaint apparently attempts to conflate the Church's statements about Philanthropies (specifically, that "One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin") with the Church's statements about other donations, such as tithing and fast offerings.  From paragraph 8 of the Complaint:

Quote

Despite these representations to donors, it is apparent —based on public reports from third parties—that COP (and, subsequently, LDS) deliberately hid that some, if not all, of these donations (including tithes, Fast Offerings, and donations made to an LDS philanthropy) are permanently invested in accounts it never uses for any charitable work, so that every year, an enormous portion of the donations are set aside but never used for these purposes.

AFAICS, none of the plaintiffs donated money to Philanthropies, and all are instead seeking recoupment of tithes and offerings.

Also, I have never heard any allegation that monies donated to Philanthropies ended up with Ensign Peak Advisors.  

This is all basic stuff.  I am sort of surprised that the numerous attorneys involved have apparently failed to vet some of the fundamental factual averments for their claims.

Back to the article: 

Quote

The lawsuit accuses Ensign Peak and the church of fraud, unjust enrichment and breaching fiduciary duties.
...

In a variety of court venues and public statements until now, church officials and their lawyers have steadfastly denied that top faith leaders ever misled members on the use of tithing.

Church attorneys have called these suits “copycat” actions stemming from a separate legal battle brought more than three years ago by prominent Utahn and onetime church member James Huntsman, who also accuses top Latter-day Saint leaders of misleading the faithful over how tithing donations were spent.

Huntsman's suit is about tithes and offerings, not donations to Philanthropies.  So, I think, are all of the copycat lawsuits.

Quote

In addition to tithing refunds, the class-action suit calls for declaring the church’s financial practices illegal and ordering a halt to tithing altogether while accountants sort through the faith’s finances or the court appoints a special monitor.

Yeesh.  This is getting into dangerous territory.

Quote

Along with tithing, in which faithful Latter-day Saints donate a tenth of their incomes to the church, the suit now implicates charitable contributions from non-Latter-day Saint groups and so-called fast offerings. Once a month, devout members go without food for 24 hours and then give the money saved by skipping those meals to help the poor.

Yep.  And to my understanding, none of these tithes and offerings went to Philanthropies, and none of the monies donated to Philanthropies went to Ensign Peak.

I would appreciate a fact-check on this.

Quote

Court documents show the new complaint draws heavily from the revelations of an IRS whistleblower in late 2019, including his assertions to U.S. tax authorities about Ensign Peak’s alleged penchant for secrecy as “a massive hedge fund that never reinvests funds” in church activities.

"Draws heavily" indeed.  The Complaint is, IMO, lazily and poorly drafted.  They lean almost entirely on A) the Church's "Philanthropies" website (which, again, does not accept tithes or fast offerings), and B) the Whistleblower report.

Quote

Plaintiffs say they also expect additional withdrawals from Ensign Peak accounts for unrelated business items to come to light, based on the whistleblower’s written assertions, as discovery of new evidence in their case proceeds.

Well, we'll see if the Church and EPA did anything unlawful.  I am, at this point, pretty skeptical.

Quote

In this latest form, the class-action complaint also shows shifts in approach from earlier legal challenges over tithing.

• Nowhere does the latest lawsuit mention former church President Gordon B. Hinckley nor his 2003 assurances during General Conference that no tithing funds wound be used on the construction and development of City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City.

I found this pretty interesting.  Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement has been the mainstay of these lawsuits until this point.  Now they don't raise it at all.

The first reference to City Creek is in paragraphs 106-108:

Quote

106. Through publicly available reports, Plaintiffs are now aware of at least two instances in which COP directed Ensign to disburse money to fund unrelated business projects.  In 2009, Ensign spent $600 million to bail out a failing for-profit life insurance company owned by LDS.50 And between 2010 and 2014, Ensign made a series of payments—again using donated dollars exclusively—for the construction of the City Creek Mall in Salt Lake City, totaling $1.4 billion.51

107. At the time these payments were made, COP expressly denied that donated funds would be used for these purposes.

108. In an October 8, 2003 press conference regarding the City Creek Mall project, H. David Burton, then a Presiding Bishop, stated “None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members…that is not how we use tithing funds.”52
...
52 “Church to Move Campuses, Invest in Salt Lake City Redevelopment”, LDS Church website, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/12/news-of-the-church/church-to-movecampuses-invest-in-salt-lake-city-redevelopment?lang=eng (Last visited July 12, 2024).

Oi.  This has been litigated a lot.  The only way this legal theory works is if the Courts re-define "tithing" to include monies earned from invested funds.  Such monies are not charitable donations from members, and are therefore not "tithes" (or offerings).

Back to the article:

Quote

In that global broadcast, the church leader insisted that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for the shopping center, stating that the money came from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.”

Hinckley’s remarks feature prominently in Huntsman’s legal arguments now pending before the 9th Circuit. That, in turn, has drawn counterarguments from church lawyers and religious-freedom advocates that the direction of Huntsman’s case threatens to violate constitutional protections by having the courts parse the veracity of religious speech.

I think Huntsman's lawyers see the writing on the wall as to their legal theory, which is that the theory really does constitute a threat to constitutional rights.

Quote

The class-action suit quotes other church leaders aside from Hinckley in making similar assurances about the source of funds for City Creek not coming from tithing, but in more secular settings and not from the pulpit.

The Complaint, having recited these statements, concludes:

Quote

111. Despite these repeated explicit representations to the contrary, Defendants did use tithing funds to pay for the construction of City Creek Mall and to backstop Beneficial Life, an insurance company with multiple directors and board members who were themselves highranking authorities within LDS and Ensign. As the whistleblower described, Ensign channeled $1.4 billion to City Creek and $600 million to Beneficial Life indirectly, by routing funds through other entities affiliated with LDS.56

"Defendants did use tithing funds to pay for the construction of City Creek Mall..."

Well, we'll see.

Back to the article:

Quote

• The suit goes to great lengths to illustrate the church’s public assurances through the years that the donations it solicits and collects via tithing or fast offerings are spent primarily on philanthropy, including help for the poor and needy, education, missionary work and other ecclesiastical ends. It includes repeated statements from church leaders to that effect, along with snapshots of church websites and even copies of tithing envelopes.

“Despite [the church’s] representations to the contrary, a substantial and significant amount of the donations it receives are not directed towards humanitarian aid, nor any other philanthropic or charitable purpose,” the suit states. “Instead, they are transferred through a complex hub of entities to Ensign.”

Again, the lawsuit fails to differentiate between tithes/offerings and donations to Philanthropies.

Quote

• The suit includes diagrams, charts and other references drawn from the 2019 report of the IRS whistleblower, former Ensign Peak portfolio manager David Nielsen. It also includes copies of a portion of a 2007 tax form on which Clarke, Ensign Peak’s CEO, declared the book value of all the fund’s assets at $1 million — when, the suit says, it was closer to $38 billion.

On the same tax form filed in 2010, Clarke declared, under penalty of perjury, that Ensign Peak’s value was “over” $1 million.

I am trying to remember this issue.  It does not come to mind.  Can anyone point me to the documentation?

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am trying to remember this issue.  It does not come to mind.  Can anyone point me to the documentation?

This was mentioned in the expose video that came out the same time of the "Letter to the Editor".  Here's the 990Ts that are being referenced - https://archive.org/details/EPA-990s/EPA_2007/mode/2up

In 2007 and 2008, section C just says $1,000,000 when EPA definitely had over $1,000,000.  The other years all say over $1,000,000.

[ZealouslyStriving]

🥱

[The Nehor]

I don’t have time to read the filing but if it is primarily based on the whistleblower “report” or complaint to the IRS then it is probably senseless drivel.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t have time to read the filing but if it is primarily based on the whistleblower “report” or complaint to the IRS then it is probably senseless drivel.

I'm not sure it is based on those things, which may instead be cited for more of a "where there's smoke..."-type of purpose.

If the legal theory and focus really has pivoted away from the Church's representations about tithes not used for City Creek and toward its representations about donations to Latter-day Saint Philanthropies, then this consolidated lawsuit is likely really in trouble.  AFAIK, none of the plaintiffs donated to Latter-day Saint Philanthropies, which the Church does indeed advertise as being 100% efficient.  In the absence of such donations, the plaintiffs would seemingly lack standing to sue the Church about whether or not these representations are accurate.  Moreover, I suspect that these representations are accurate.

The Church has long been pretty clear that it invests some tithing funds.  I don't think there has ever been a representation that 100% of tithes go to humanitarian/charitable/religious purposes.  

My sense is that these lawsuits are more about disgruntled former Latter-day Saints A) seeking a pound of flesh (or, short of that, publicly tarnishing the Church's reputation), B) presuming to tell the Church what it can and cannot do with its money, or C) a combination of A and B.  Kathleen Flake called it:

Quote

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.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t have time to read the filing but if it is primarily based on the whistleblower “report” or complaint to the IRS then it is probably senseless drivel.

I'm not sure it is based on those things, which may instead be cited for more of a "where there's smoke..."-type of purpose.

If the legal theory and focus really has pivoted away from the Church's representations about tithes not used for City Creek and toward its representations about donations to Latter-day Saint Philanthropies, then this consolidated lawsuit is likely really in trouble.  AFAIK, none of the plaintiffs donated to Latter-day Saint Philanthropies, which the Church does indeed advertise as being 100% efficient.  In the absence of such donations, the plaintiffs would seemingly lack standing to sue the Church about whether or not these representations are accurate.  Moreover, I suspect that these representations are accurate.

The Church has long been pretty clear that it invests some tithing funds.  I don't think there has ever been a representation that 100% of tithes go to humanitarian/charitable/religious purposes.  

My sense is that these lawsuits are more about disgruntled former Latter-day Saints A) seeking a pound of flesh (or, short of that, publicly tarnishing the Church's reputation), B) presuming to tell the Church what it can and cannot do with its money, or C) a combination of A and B.  Kathleen Flake called it:

Quote

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.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Gordon Monson weighs in: God’s money or the church’s? Latter-day Saints have legitimate questions about how their tithing is used.

Not really impressed with Monson's pronouncements these days.  Interestingly, the URL does not have this listed as an opinion piece.  So Gordon Monson's say-so is being treated as "news"?

Quote

If the lawsuits currently arriving in front of legal benches — and the ones that could yet come — regarding the payment and subsequent use of tithing offered by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints underscore anything, it’s that there is a difference between the church and the God the church purports to be owned and operated by.

Nobody sues God.

The church, on the other hand, is free game.

Not very insightful, this.  In other words, water is wet and circles are round.

Quote

Or might be held legally accountable, anyway, for proclamations it has made for how tithing funds have been and are used. Many Latter-day Saints have been led to believe their donated money — required from members to remain in “celestial” standing — is for sacred uses, for charitable causes and for the upkeep of the “kingdom.” Not to be dumped into investment portfolios — or shopping malls or secret accounts — the value of which numbers in the billions of dollars.

This is factually inaccurate in at least two ways. 

First, the Saints' donated money is used "for sacred uses, for charitable causes and for the upkeep of the 'kingdom.'"  It is rather silly for Monson to suggest that it is not.

Second, the Church has long been quite clear that it invests a portion of donated funds.  Monson's juxtaposition ("Not to be dumped...") is simply wrong.

Quote

The problem for Latter-day Saints is twofold. The first is a lack of transparency regarding the specifics of what money the church has and how it is used.

So I don't think it works to speak of "financial transparency" being present or absent.  That's too facile.  Rather, the question is much more nebulous: Is there enough or sufficient "financial transparency."  And therein lies the problem for our critics, because apart from the requirements of secular law (which the Church inarguably strives to follow), the level of "transparency" the Church provides is going to be a judgment call.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee, and other assurances and indicia that the Church's finances are in good order.  Some will find these insufficient, and that's okay.  But their dissatisfaction is not authoritative or definitive.

Quote

The second is that, according to beliefs the faithful have had presented to them in rather forceful ways, tithing is not just a financial gift to the church as an organization, it’s an offering to God.

And if the Almighty asks for a dollar, or a million of them, depending on an individual’s annual income, 10% being the “commandment,” the faithful go ahead and scratch it up, no matter how much it hurts.

This is not a "problem for Latter-day Saints."

Quote

And for a whole lot of members, it does hurt — maybe not if you’re paying a million bucks, which implies that you rolled in $10 million over that yearly span. But if you’re paying $3,000 on $30,000 of income, that stack of cash can pinch you, pinch you hard.

It can also be quite manageable, depending on the individual.

This sort of argument does not really resonate with me.  In terms of voluntary usage of one's income, outsiders looking in are hardly in a position to grouse.  I have a wife and six children.  Providing for them "can pinch ... hard," but I am happy to do it.  I think such expenditures are quite worthwhile.

I am likewise happy to donate to the Church.  Protestations about "transparency" notwithstanding, I feel pretty good in reposing trust in the Brethren as far as their stewardship of sacred funds.  I think they are doing a very good job.  All evidence points that way.  To the extent some folks disagree, I think such disagreement arises principally as a matter of subjective opinion and preference (such as those expressed by Gordon Monson).  In other words, the dispute is about judgment calls.

Quote

Nonbelievers will call these faithful folks faithful fools, but that’s not the way so many of the faithful see it, or are made to see it or have seen it. They are convinced that their contributions are making a difference in the world, and they largely don’t question it, haven’t questioned it, because, as mentioned, they’re giving it up for God.

I also think we "largely don't question it" because we have ample evidence that the Church is a good steward of its finances:

• We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  
• We also see beautiful church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, colleges, missionary programs, family history efforts, youth programs, women's programs, Deseret Industries, Humanitarian Square, Welfare Square, canneries and storehouses, public statements about billions being spent on collaborative humanitarian efforts, and on and on and on.  
• We also 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 also have a notable lack of evidence of any pattern of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.  Last year's SEC issue is the exception that proves this rule.

Quote

A complication with that is, Ensign Peak Advisors, whether or not the money managers at the firm acknowledge the fact, is not God. No, it’s the church’s investment arm, one that was fined last year by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a misconduct settlement to the tune of $4 million, with an additional $1 million coming from the church itself, for failing to properly disclose past stock holdings and going to “great lengths” to deliberately “obscure” the church’s investment portfolio.

Gordon Monson has gone to "great lengths" to "deliberately 'obscure'" his personal finances.  I don't know anything about them, and he has never published how much he makes, where he banks, how much he has in savings, his "investment portfolio," etc.  And there is nothing wrong with this.  Absent a legal duty to disclose, a private entity's level of "transparency" is a judgment call.

Quote

Let me repeat, you don’t fine God. You fine a church and its money people who do questionable or illegal things.

Illegal things, yes.  Not "questionable."

Quote

This creates a double-barreled conundrum for the church: 1) It conveys to its members that it does not always act in the proper name of God, and 2) the emphasis on tithing being a supposed divine offering, a direct gift to the heavens, is polluted not just by flawed humans whose hands are all over the money, but that the way that money is used may not be all that sacred. It may be handled in much the same manner as money heaved into the markets by investment firms whose aims are to make as much profit as they can for investors.

He seems to be harboring notions of infallibility.  Not a good idea, that.

Per the Parable of the Talents, wise stewardship of funds is "all that sacred."

And EPA is not seeking to "make as much profit as they can for investors."  There is only one investor, which is the Church.  And wisely managing the Church's funds is an utterly honorable, even "sacred," endeavor.

Quote

What message does that send to honest, hardworking, rank-and-file Latter-day Saints who sacrifice greatly — because they’ve been taught to — to stay in good standing before their God?

It says that the Brethren are doing a good job in managing the Church's finances, that the Church presently enjoys excellent fiscal health, that the Church has learned and grown and improved in this area (as anyone familiar with the Church's past financial struggles will understand), that the Church is practicing what it preaches (living within means, etc.), and so on.

Quote

It’s been said that one of the reasons the church throws a cloak over its finances is because it’s afraid if its members knew what was really going on with that money and the mountainous amounts that are piling up, they would either stop or slow the flow in what they offer. That might be true, considering the church is rocketing toward $300 billion in overall estimated wealth, and future projections have that total worth reaching $1 trillion in a couple of decades.

The foregoing estimate includes an estimated $265B in real estate holdings.

Quote

But if there is periodic misconduct inside the church’s vaults, even if you charitably want to classify those missteps as unintentional,

Oh, brother.

Quote

isn’t transparency and, more importantly, honesty the more celestial path forward?

Gordon Monson has gone to "great lengths" to "deliberately 'obscure'" his personal finances.  I don't know anything about them, and he has never published how much he makes, where he banks, how much he has in savings, his "investment portfolio," etc.  Does that make him "dishonest"?

Quote

Of all the mysteries of God, church resources shouldn’t be one of them.

It will be interesting to see where the courts take the lawsuits facing the church. I have no clue how they will play out or, in these cases, pay out.

I have a clue as to how they will play out.  I have been watching these cases for some years now.  I find them mighty weak tea.

Quote

But because of the huge amounts of money now under the church’s control, the way the faith does its investing and its business, the secrecy of it all, the line between faithful folks and faithful fools, in the minds of the faithful themselves, is susceptible to becoming more and more blurred.

Question is: Is it God’s money or the church’s money?

Let us embrace the healing power of "and."

Quote

The faithful will have to figure that out.

I think we have.

If we had evidence of persistent or systemic incompetence and/or malfeasance, I would give these types of commentary more consideration.  As it is, though, all evidence indicates that the Church is doing a really good job at managing its finances.

Thanks,

-Smac