Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

I apologize if this has been answered but I don’t remember much about the whistleblower aside from how shocking it was at the time. 

Nielsen wrote his "report" in sensationalistic terms.  When viewed through an objective and clinical lens, most of what he has to say is pretty ho-hum.

I was "shocked," but in a pleasant way, to learn that the Church is an excellent steward of its funds.

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

Since the plaintiff seems to be relying on his statements, how much admissible evidence did he actually have?

At the "pleading" stage (the earliest phase of a lawsuit), Nielsen's "evidence" is . . . kind of good (the probative value of his stuff at the trial stage would, I think, be much less).  He is arguably a "percipient witness" owing to his employment with EPA.  However, one of the central theses of the plaintiffs' claim seems to be that "the Church" considers all of its income as "sacred," and/or that all of its income is ultimately "derived" from tithing, therefore all its expenditures, including the money used for City Creek, are using "tithing."  And since Pres. Hinckley said that "tithing" would not be used for City Creek, the Church committed fraud, and yada-yada-yada.

On this point, Nielsen's report is not very good.  It may be good enough, however, to allow the MDL plaintiffs' complaint to survive scrutiny under Rule 12.  I suspect not, but we'll see.

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

I was surprised to hear references to what he said rather than what he had when listening to the hearing. 

Oral argument before an appellate court can take a variety of forms.  It can be an "apex"-type discussion, when the judges want to discuss the most central and fundamental aspects of a lawsuit.  Alternatively, oral argument can be more of the "Scratch an Itch" variety, in which the judges use the discussion to explore a hodge-podge of issues that they felt were not fully or sufficiently explained in the legal briefs which preceded oral argument.  Also, there can be the "Judge as Philosopher"-style discussions, where the judges indulge in explore lexical or broadly theoretical questions or themes arising from the lawsuit.

Monday's hearing in Gaddy seemed to be a mix of "Scratch an Itch" and "Judge as Philosopher."

I am hoping the Tenth Circuit will examine the legalities through a Rule 12 lens that is somewhat similar to Judge Shelby's.  Since I practice in the Tenth Circuit, I have a lot of experience in reading its appellate decisions.  The jurisprudence on display is, overall, quite good.  I think the Church will get a fair shake.  And even if the Tenth Circuit reverses Judge Shelby, I think the Church will still prevail on the law in the end.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Hey, Analytics, I'm just curious to know what your profession is? Watching you and @smac97 have these discussions is like watching battles between two Titans. Are you an attorney as well?

He is not.  But he is a very smart fellow, which is why I spar with him.

There used to be a critic here who is a practicing attorney, Consigliere (now of "Radio Free Mormon" fame/infamy).  But he hasn't been here in years. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I apologize if this has been answered but I don’t remember much about the whistleblower aside from how shocking it was at the time. 
 

Since the plaintiff seems to be relying on his statements, how much admissible evidence did he actually have? I was surprised to hear references to what he said rather than what he had when listening to the hearing. 

I would only use the alleged handouts in the appendices he had as evidence.  I think the rest was sloppy. The brother had a medical background iirc, not an accounting or financial, unlike the whistleblower.  There was a lot of personal testimony on what he had heard that is being used, like the “we consider everything here as tithing” iirc, which is rather a self serving statement since they were demanding the Church give rebates to members since it could cover its own operations from the fund***, but as far as I know the whistleblower expose we have is the brother Lars? reporting what David? told him, so it is secondhand at best.  I don’t know if David ever endorsed it, said it was accurate. 

Looking for the pdf file, used to be on Scribd for the appendices so you can see what the alleged concrete evidence is.

***https://www.deseret.com/utah/2019/12/17/21026182/mormon-lds-church-washington-post-whistleblower-irs-complaint-taxes-ensign-peak/

This summarizes what’s in the document.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/2/8/former-employee-of-ensign-peak-advisors-submits-document-to-senate-finance-committee?format=amp

David Nielsen submitted a 90 page report to the Senate. Anyone know if that is online somewhere?

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would only use the alleged handouts in the appendices he had as evidence.  

Even those are of dubious admissibility and probative value.

I think Nielsen's report mostly has value in establishing a prima facie set of allegations, rather than being useful in ultimately proving up the claims.  The MDL plaintiffs are probably not expecting to ultimately win the lawsuit, but to instead settle with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, it was one Latter-day Saint who asked that question.

Stone holm asked that question in 2015. JAHS asked essentially the same question in 2012. Given the conversations these questions generated, it was a lingering question in the minds of many.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, the answer to that question is not, cannot be, "Hey, everything is 'tithing.'"

The question is about what it means to use funds. The way they saw it, using funds to generate investment income to purchase a mall is indirectly using those funds to buy a mall. That is the way they saw the issue then. Nobody is or ever was claimed that “hey, everything is ‘tithing.’” That is a straw man on your part.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that some (likely few) Latter-day Saints may take a philosophical view that says that all of the Church's money is ultimately derived from tithing, and therefore is tithing. 

Whether something “is” tithing isn’t the issue they were talking about. The issue they were talking about is what it means to “use” tithing.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what this means.  When tithing is invested, it is being "spent."  

Tithing is “spent” when it is invested??

In any case, my point is that according to how most people saw the issue then, using investment income on unspent tithing to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall.  Hinckley said tithing wouldn’t be used to build the mall. Most Saints here interpreted that assurance broadly--they assumed that tithing wasn’t used directly, and it wasn’t used indirectly. That raises the question, where did the money come from?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's far from "clear."  Perhaps he didn't ask about “earnings of invested reserve funds" (as Pres. Hinckley put it) because he did not know about it.

No. Go back to the OP from the 2012 conversation. 

When people accuse the Church of using sacred tithing money to fund things like the building of the City Creek mall, the obvious answer is of course that tithing money is not used; rather money from the for-profit arm of the church is used that was obtained through business investments over the years.

But then of course critics ask the next question; "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?"

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money...So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members...money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this? 

With 20/20 hindsight, we now know that the way one responds to this is by saying, “the critics are exactly right. Every year, the Church diverts some money to a reserve fund where it is invested in stocks, bonds, and other financial securities. This money grew with interest, and it was money in these reserve funds that was used to help build the mall."

A few Saints had this right (e.g. Cobalt-70). But others pushed back on this and said it was more likely that the rainy day money "will not be used for investments or to build shopping malls; it would probably be used for the upkeep of the church through hard times."

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "indirect use of tithing" is infinitely regressive.  By your reasoning, the most virulent anti-Mormons on the planet are, in some circumlocutory way, "tithepayers."  

• A Latter-day Saint pays a tithe to the Church.
• The Church uses a portion of its pooled tithing income to subsidize tuition at BYU.
• A BYU student, whose tuition was subsidized by the Church's tithing income, graduates and starts a business selling widgets on Amazon.
• An ardent anti-Mormon purchases three such widgets, allowing the BYU grad to realize a profit.
• That profit is, by your reasoning, "tithing."

I'm not arguing for any particular definition of what tithing is. But I appreciate why you’d rather argue with that straw man rather than with what I’m actually saying.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of course, nobody in the real world thinks or acts this way.  The only way these inane hypotheticals come about is when anti-Mormons become heck-bent on casting the Church of Jesus Christ in the worst possible light, so much so that they are willing to twist and contort and confabulate and come up with absurdities like "it's all tithing," or "it's all indirectly tithing."  

Tithing donations were in fact indirectly used, as  Craig Paxton said. Saying “it’s all tithing” is a straw man that has nothing to do with what was then said or with my point now.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

 

At the time, the majority of members believed that the money for City Creek came from the sale of pioneer-era companies the church owned, not from interest earned on tithing.

Poppycock.  

Let's count. The people who thought it came from pioneer era companies and/or were unsatisfied with the then-anti-Mormon assertion that it came from investment income on tithing included:

1. JAHS
2. Pahoran
3. Scott Lloyd
4. Jeff K.
5. LDSToronto
6. The Nether
7. Robert F. Smith
8. bluebell
9. Mystery Meat
10. readstoomuch
11. kimperason
12. The 19 people who up-voted kimperason’s authoritative-sounding post.

Ones who thought it came from investment income on unspent tithing

1. Cobalt-70
2. Craig Paxton
3. JLHPROF
4. cinepro

There were also several comments about the fungibility of money and how the Church’s assurances were too vague to actually mean anything. For example, the most insightful comment might have been cinepro, who said:

Whoever came up with the idea of "non-tithing funds" should get a statue erected to their honor in Temple square, and the BYU Accounting school named after them. 

It is the most preposterous idea to say that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some portion of funds, however acquired, that are somehow exempt from the spiritual mandates of "tithing" that I suspect the only reason most members thinks it makes sense is because the Church says "non-tithing funds" in such a way that we think such a thing is supposed to make sense, and so we just go along with it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think most Latter-day Saints on this board had this same understanding.

The comments they left on the board tell otherwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What they did not agree on, however, is Craig's inane suggestion that income generated from invested tithes is also tithing, and that it is "disingenuous" to say otherwise.

Craig didn’t say that income generated from invested tithes “is also tithing.” That isn’t the issue we were talking about then. That is a straw man you really, really want to do battle with now.

Craig was clearly frustrated, and the heat of some of the things he said provoked a response, but even when he was cool, people still found it offensive. For example, 

Craig: Why is it such a big deal for you or any other believer to just accept that tithing funds were used to fund the mall...Why does it matter if tithing funds were used...I'm certainly glad that the church wants to improve the core city by investing 5 billion dollars of their money into the downtown area...certainly no private funds were willing to do so...I say good for them for making SLC an even better place to live?

thesometimessaint: Craig Paxton: Your status as a former member, or even a current member is irrelevent. The Church officers have publically stated that no tithing funds were used in the purchase of the mall. You are calling those Church officers liars. Provide proof of your claim or retract it.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

It is still on Scribd, haven’t looked elsewhere.

I will post the two ‘shocking’ alleged handouts, but there are a number of handouts that others might see as useful.  The red is Nielsen’s additions, so while helpful at times, sometimes he adds info that is not substantiated iirc (it has been years since I read this, going off memory).

One should note, but I don’t think I have ever seen it, the title of the section where they give the info on City Creek and Beneficial Life is “examples”, so may not be a complete list, though the footnote says the draw has been low due to the Church’s conservative practices, which may in part refer to what I heard, but cannot substantiate that the Church budgets for full coverage of all projects three years in advance.  Perhaps CC and BL were the largest such examples available.  While the other examples used were actually 0$ in amount dispensed so that one might think they had no other examples of actual dispensing, those examples were ones I think would have been expected, so they used them in order not to have to answer the question of ‘what about the Conference Center and temples and pension plans, how much was spent on that’, etc.  so I think we should stay open to the idea there might have been other funding dispensed, but even if there were, the amount would be small in comparison to the fund, so not much of a dent, which was part of the claimed issue (not enough of the fund being used), but they might have been used for projects more specific to the Church’s missions, which is the other part of the complaint…but even if there were a lot of those, it likely would affect the claims given whatever draws were made are stated to have been “relatively small”.

I had forgotten the investment growth graph was part of the expose.  If I am reading it correctly, it looks like they started EPA around the time they had enough invested they could have used that investment to pay all expenses, but I am wondering at what point could they have paid off all expenses without cutting into the fund so they would have been able to do the same thing the following years.  Anyone know what that amount would be?  

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The question is about what it means to use funds. The way they saw it, using funds to generate investment income to purchase a mall is indirectly using those funds to buy a mall. That is the way they saw the issue then. Nobody is or ever yas claimed that “hey, everything is ‘tithing.’” That is a straw man on your part.

And using the money we got from the sale of our previous home for a hefty down payment on our current home is an indirect use of my parents’ money as they gifted us a large part of that first down payment….which is an indirect use of my grandparents’ money as they gifted my parents lots of hand me down cars over the years and likely outright money gifts knowing them.  And the next home will be even more so because I used my inheritance money (some of which could be said to have come from my dad inheriting from his parents) to pay off our mortgage.

But who cares?  Who is going to claim my deceased (died in 88 and 90) grandparents helped pay for my third house simply because they gifted money to my parents 40 years before (planning on staying in this house another five to ten years)?

Even if we had known the funds were not kept separate or however you want to describe what is happening, I wonder how many were stating “tithing is not indirectly used” before because it mattered to them that ‘earned off of tithing’ investment funds would not be used for anything but church mission expenses or because they were trying to explain how they saw how the Church handled money.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

And using the money we got from the sale of our previous home for a hefty down payment on our current home is an indirect use of my parent’s money as they gifted us a large part of that first down payment….which is an indirect use of my grandparents’ money as they gifted my parents lots of hand me down cars over the years and likely outright money gifts knowing them.  And the next home will be even more so because I used my inheritance money (some of which could be said to have come from my dad inheriting from his parents) to pay off our mortgage.

But who cares?  Who is going to claim my deceased grandparents helped pay for my third house simple because they gifted money to my parents 40 years before?

I'll tell you who might claim this: Someone who dislikes you so much that they are willing to fabricate inanities, perhaps even as a basis to sue you and attempt to extract money from you.  Or if that effort fails, to at least make you look bad to the general public, to foment public hostility against you, to turn your family members against you, etc.

Fortunately, most of us do not have such ardent and implacably hostile critics and opponents.  Alas, the Church does.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

And using the money we got from the sale of our previous home for a hefty down payment on our current home is an indirect use of my parent’s money as they gifted us a large part of that first down payment….which is an indirect use of my grandparents’ money as they gifted my parents lots of hand me down cars over the years and likely outright money gifts knowing them.  And the next home will be even more so because I used my inheritance money (some of which could be said to have come from my dad inheriting from his parents) to pay off our mortgage.

But who cares?  Who is going to claim my deceased grandparents helped pay for my third house simply because they gifted money to my parents 40 years before?

Even if we had known the funds were not kept separate or however you want to describe what is happening, I wonder how many were stating “tithing is not indirectly used” before because it mattered to them that ‘earned off of tithing’ investment funds would not be used for anything but church mission expenses or because they were trying to explain how they saw how the Church handled money.

I don’t know why anyone would care. But if you were very secretive about the status of your own estate and if you told your kids, “I want to assure you that none of the money I received from my parents over the years went towards to purchase of my new house,” they might be curious about what, specifically, you meant by that. 

The bottom line is that the Church has been very secretive with its money. The extreme lengths they went to drove them into complicated and expensive schemes that ended up getting them in trouble with the SEC. All of this was to hide from members how much money they had. Why? Because, in the words of Roger Clarke, "they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution.”

 

Some saints shrug their shoulders over all of this. Others have felt lied to and betrayed. The thing is, all of the misunderstandings could have been avoided if the Church followed best-practices in transparency. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

The thing is, all of the misunderstandings could have been avoided if the Church followed best-practices in transparency. 

Quite possibly, but irrelevant imo to the law and therefore the lawsuit.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fortunately, most of us do not have such ardent and implacably hostile critics and opponents.  Alas, the Church does.

Ironically, it’s the church itself that generates these critics. The people who are suing aren’t evangelicals who think you worship the wrong Jesus. Rather, it is Church members who paid a significant amount of money in tithing and feel lied to.

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quite possibly, but irrelevant imo to the law and therefore the lawsuit.

The only reason it is relevant to the lawsuit is that if the Church had been transparent in the first place, the lawsuits wouldn’t be taking place.

[Analytics]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had forgotten the investment growth graph was part of the expose.  If I am reading it correctly, it looks like they started EPA around the time they had enough invested they could have used that investment to pay all expenses, but I am wondering at what point could they have paid off all expenses without cutting into the fund so they would have been able to do the same thing the following years.  Anyone know what that amount would be?  

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but this is the answer as I understand it. If we assume the Church needs $6 billion a year to operate, then $120 billion in savings should be enough in assets to discontinue accepting donations. 

On average, the Church has been earning 10.8% on this investment portfolio. With $120 billion saved, it would expect to to earn on average $13 billion a year. Of that $13 billion in income, $6 billion would go towards running the Church, and the remaining $7 billion would go towards building the fund to cover increased expenses in the future.

 

[Malc]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The only reason it is relevant to the lawsuit is that if the Church had been transparent in the first place, the lawsuits wouldn’t be taking place.

Waiting for someone to claim that it wouldn't matter how transparent the church was, it would never satisfy their critics.

...

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Fortunately, most of us do not have such ardent and implacably hostile critics and opponents.  Alas, the Church does.

Ironically, it’s the church itself that generates these critics.

Right. 

In other contexts, this sort of reasoning is typically styled as something like "She had it coming, she made me angry."

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The people who are suing aren’t evangelicals who think you worship the wrong Jesus. Rather, it is Church members who paid a significant amount of money in tithing and feel lied to.

As I said:

Quote

I think a somewhat similar dynamic can arise when a previously "faithful tithe-paying member" leaves the Church and then chooses to vilify it because blame must be placed, and fault must be found.  And all of this must be dialed up to 11.  The Church hasn't actually changed, but the individual's perspective on it has.  So the Church is no longer a wonderful institution which, however flawed its leaders and members are, nevertheless houses the saving doctrines and priesthood and ordinances of God.  Nor is the Church even a not-what-it-claims-to-be-but-still-fundamentally-well-intended good actor.  It becomes, in the eyes of the former Latter-day Saint, something that is positively and affirmatively bad and dark, even depraved. 

So the individual starts publicly castigating it at every turn and opportunity, freely doling out wildly over-the-top denigrations of its basic nature and character.  The Church "has a doctrine or polity to defraud members."  The Church's "primary objective is to accumulate money for the sole purpose of having it."  The Church only holds itself "not only to a really low standard ethically and morally, but also to a really low standard legally as well."  The Church "engage{s} in an 'orchestrated and illegal deception' against the members."  The Church "fraudulently mislead{s} {its} members about how {its} funds will be used."  The Church is totally okay with "{l}ying to the membership about how funds are spent is an internal matter that is religious in nature."  And all this is from one anti-Mormon in one thread on one board.

If the Church were really as nefarious and horrible as you and yours so regularly make it out to be, I don't think we'd be dealing with such weak-tea arguments as "it's all tithing," or "it's all indirectly tithing."  

At some point these lawsuits will conclude.  I suspect the Church will prevail, as it has strong incentives to obey the law in both letter and spirit, and because it has a very good track record, and because the MDL lawsuit appears to be so lacking in merit that most or all of it will likely be dismissed under Rule 12.  The Church will occasionally mess up, but not because it is the depraved, malevolent consortium of Snidely Whiplashes you and yours make it out to be.  Instead, the Church is a huge institution that can and does commit an occasional legal misstep, but is fundamentally and overwhelmingly good and decent and honest and benevolent.  This was true before these lawsuits were filed, and will continue to be true after they are complete.

If the Church errs, it has to take its legal lumps.  But in the end, my devotion to and confidence in the Church is borne of both faith and experience.  The terrible things you and yours so regularly say about us just don't mean much.  In addition to the spiritual experiences I have had regarding the truth claims of the Church, I have also been in the Church too long.  I've been privy to too much of its inner workings.  I have family members and friends who have extensively interacted with General Authorities, and who attest to their overarching decency and honor as demonstrated both publicly and behind closed doors.  I have spent years listening to the Church's critics and examined their accusations and criticisms and disparagements.  Here and there these folks make a fair point.  Overwhelmingly, though, the Church handily withstands pretty much all of the terrible things you and yours say about it.

In a sense, I am glad the critics of the Church are mostly constrained to filing dumb lawsuits as an expression of their animus.  I have some substantial concerns about lawfare:

Quote

Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g., strategic lawsuits against public participation), or winning a public relations victory. 

Nevertheless, putting up with lawfare is better, by orders of magnitude, than what the Church's critics and opponents did in Church's early years.  Yes, the Church has to spend lots of money fighting these lawsuits.  And yes, people like you will blame the Church for having the temerity to exist and to manage its finances well.  But lawfare like this is not violence, nor is it an existential threat to the Church and its members.  The Church will carry on because it is headquartered in the United States of America, and so is protected by systems of laws.  I am grateful for that.  I think the Lord arranged for the creation of the United States and its Constitution because, in part, He needed His church to be able to exist and carry out its mandates in an increasingly depraved world.

My surmise is that the Church's resilience and continued trajectory forward has the ironic effect of making its critics - particularly those who went out from us - even more angry.  That's a depressing thought, but it is the apparent consequence of indulging in endless faultfinding.  

And so it goes.  If the Church is what it claims to be, if God exists, if Jesus Christ is His Son, if the Scriptures are His Word, if prophets and apostles are His servants, if the Restoration occurred via Joseph Smith's theophanies, then these lawsuits are just a few minor bumps on our journey.  Joseph Smith, I think, had it right:

Quote

The standard of truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Malc said:

Quote

The only reason it is relevant to the lawsuit is that if the Church had been transparent in the first place, the lawsuits wouldn’t be taking place.

Waiting for someone to claim that it wouldn't matter how transparent the church was, it would never satisfy their critics.

...

Consider it done.

Our critics are notably vague about what "transparency" means.  And their endlessly faultfinding proclivities are solid evidence that they will never be satisfied with what the Church does.  Ever.

It's shifting the goalposts.  Again and again.  Ad infinitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Malc]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Consider it done.

Our critics are notably vague about what "transparency" means.  And their endlessly faultfinding proclivities are solid evidence that they will never be satisfied with what the Church does.  Ever.

It's shifting the goalposts.  Again and again.  Ad infinitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks - I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The only reason it is relevant to the lawsuit is that if the Church had been transparent in the first place, the lawsuits wouldn’t be taking place.

This version probably not, but my guess is there would be other ones demanding to get tithing back because the Church’s stories that it tells to create loyalty are now seen as a fraud by former members.  My guess is not as many, but perhaps the knowledge of the amount of wealth the Church has would have actually driven up the number.  I say this because of listening to exmormon critics before the Church got wealthy, that mindset coupled with the current drive to litigate in the US would lead to lawsuits.  They might not go as far.  I wonder how creative they might get though, if they could find another weakness to debate like the transparency issue.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the Church were really as nefarious and horrible as you and yours so regularly make it out to be

I don’t believe Analytics belongs to the “nefarious and horrible” critic group…at least not from posts here.  There are plenty of that type out there, you don’t need to increase their number by one to make your point imo.  Adding him weakens your claim asby doing so, it makes it suspect there are critics out there claiming the Church is horrible rather than you just interpreting their comments that way….which there are.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right. 

In other contexts, this sort of reasoning is typically styled as something like "She had it coming, she made me angry."

As I said:

If the Church were really as nefarious and horrible as you and yours so regularly make it out to be, I don't think we'd be dealing with such weak-tea arguments as "it's all tithing," or "it's all indirectly tithing."  

At some point these lawsuits will conclude.  I suspect the Church will prevail, as it has strong incentives to obey the law in both letter and spirit, and because it has a very good track record, and because the MDL lawsuit appears to be so lacking in merit that most or all of it will likely be dismissed under Rule 12.  The Church will occasionally mess up, but not because it is the depraved, malevolent consortium of Snidely Whiplashes you and yours make it out to be.  Instead, the Church is a huge institution that can and does commit an occasional legal misstep, but is fundamentally and overwhelmingly good and decent and honest and benevolent.  This was true before these lawsuits were filed, and will continue to be true after they are complete.

If the Church errs, it has to take its legal lumps.  But in the end, my devotion to and confidence in the Church is borne of both faith and experience.  The terrible things you and yours so regularly say about us just don't mean much.  In addition to the spiritual experiences I have had regarding the truth claims of the Church, I have also been in the Church too long.  I've been privy to too much of its inner workings.  I have family members and friends who have extensively interacted with General Authorities, and who attest to their overarching decency and honor as demonstrated both publicly and behind closed doors.  I have spent years listening to the Church's critics and examined their accusations and criticisms and disparagements.  Here and there these folks make a fair point.  Overwhelmingly, though, the Church handily withstands pretty much all of the terrible things you and yours say about it.

In a sense, I am glad the critics of the Church are mostly constrained to filing dumb lawsuits as an expression of their animus.  I have some substantial concerns about lawfare:

Nevertheless, putting up with lawfare is better, by orders of magnitude, than what the Church's critics and opponents did in Church's early years.  Yes, the Church has to spend lots of money fighting these lawsuits.  And yes, people like you will blame the Church for having the temerity to exist and to manage its finances well.  But lawfare like this is not violence, nor is it an existential threat to the Church and its members.  The Church will carry on because it is headquartered in the United States of America, and so is protected by systems of laws.  I am grateful for that.  I think the Lord arranged for the creation of the United States and its Constitution because, in part, He needed His church to be able to exist and carry out its mandates in an increasingly depraved world.

My surmise is that the Church's resilience and continued trajectory forward has the ironic effect of making its critics - particularly those who went out from us - even more angry.  That's a depressing thought, but it is the apparent consequence of indulging in endless faultfinding.  

And so it goes.  If the Church is what it claims to be, if God exists, if Jesus Christ is His Son, if the Scriptures are His Word, if prophets and apostles are His servants, if the Restoration occurred via Joseph Smith's theophanies, then these lawsuits are just a few minor bumps on our journey.  Joseph Smith, I think, had it right:

Thanks,

-Smac

It looks like you’ve ignored 100% of what I said. This entire response is a vilification of a straw man critic that you pretend has something to do with me, along with your own personal testimony about how wonderful you think the Church is.

That’s fine; we all have our defense mechanisms. However, you haven’t said a single thing in this post that has any relevance to anything I think, say, or believe.

If there is anything else you’d like me to comment on, please let me know.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe Analytics belongs to the “nefarious and horrible” critic group…at least not from posts here.  

A sampling of his comments about the Church from just this thread alone:

• On this specific point, they are essentially arguing that if a church has a doctrine or polity to defraud members, then the church autonomy doctrine grants it license to do so.
• In general, if an {the Church's} primary objective is to accumulate money for the sole purpose of having it, is it really a “church” in the legal sense?
• {The Church's attorneys are arguing that} since it is religious in nature, the Church ought to be held not only to a really low standard ethically and morally, but also to a really low standard legally as well.
• {Does the Church Autonomy Doctrine grant the Church} the right to engage in an “orchestrated and illegal deception” against the members...
• The Church has the right to {use most of its annual income to build up the size of its for-profit business empire}, but it also has the legal and ethical obligation to be honest with donors and potential donors that this is what they are doing and planning to do with the donations they are soliciting.
• But how does church autonomy give churches the right to fraudulently mislead members about how funds will be used?
• All of those are low standards of ethics, and now the plaintiffs are accusing it of “illegal deception.” And the Church’s response?  Lying to the membership about how funds are spent is an internal matter that is religious in nature, and thus is protected by the Church Autonomy Doctrine. 

This sure sounds "nefarious and horrible" to me.  YMMV.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are plenty of that type out there, you don’t need to increase their number by one to make your point imo.  

I did not create Roger, nor have I ever encouraged him to endlessly publish denigrations against his former faith.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Adding him weakens your claim asby doing so, it makes it suspect there are critics out there claiming the Church is horrible rather than you just interpreting their comments that way….which there are.

Yes, there are anti-Mormons who are "worse" than Roger.  This does not mitigate the terrible things he has said about the Church in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Consider it done.

Our critics are notably vague about what "transparency" means.  And their endlessly faultfinding proclivities are solid evidence that they will never be satisfied with what the Church does.  Ever.

It's shifting the goalposts.  Again and again.  Ad infinitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Since you ignore everything I say anyway, I decided not to waste much time responding.

However, I do know that based on its objectivity and common sense, ChatGPT would agree with me on this issue. So, here is the question I asked, along with ChatGPT’s response.

Question: Some people claim that like other non-profits, it is important for churches to be financially transparent. Others claim that “financially transparency” is a hopelessly vague concept and the only thing it does is provide critics with more things to criticize about. What do you think? If a Church is trying to avoid criticism, is it worthwhile for it to be financially transparent? Is financially transparent even a well-defined concept? What does it mean?

Answer: Financial transparency is a key issue for churches and other non-profit organizations, and both sides of the argument reflect important considerations.

Definition of Financial Transparency:

In general, financial transparency refers to the open disclosure of financial activities, including income, expenses, salaries, donations, and investments. For a church, this might include revealing how much is collected in tithes or donations, how funds are spent on charitable activities or operations, and the compensation of clergy or staff. The concept itself can be well-defined if the organization adheres to established standards, such as regular financial reports, audits, and public access to financial information, but it depends on the context and the audience.

Arguments for Financial Transparency:

1. Trust and Accountability: Being transparent builds trust with the congregation and broader community. People who donate to a church often want to know that their contributions are being used responsibly. If the church is open about its finances, it can foster stronger relationships with members and attract more donations or support.

2. Legal and Ethical Standards: In some regions, religious organizations may be required to meet certain financial reporting standards. Whether mandated by law or not, transparency can be viewed as an ethical obligation, especially if the church benefits from tax-exempt status.

3. Mitigating Suspicion: While transparency may invite some criticism, the lack of it can lead to greater suspicion. Churches have faced scandals over financial misuse, and transparency can help avoid such crises by demonstrating proactive honesty.

Arguments Against Financial Transparency:

1. Vagueness of the Concept: Critics may claim that financial transparency is too vague because it doesn’t specify how much disclosure is enough. What level of detail should be shared with the public versus only with members? Too much transparency can, in some cases, overwhelm people with information they don’t fully understand or need.

2. Fuel for Criticism: Some argue that no matter how transparent an organization is, critics will always find something to complain about. For example, they may scrutinize expenditures on clergy salaries, building maintenance, or other operational costs, which can distract from the church’s mission.

3. Internal Autonomy: Churches may also want to protect their autonomy in how they manage resources, believing that they answer to their faith community or higher religious authority, rather than public scrutiny.

Is Financial Transparency Worthwhile?

If a church is trying to avoid criticism alone, transparency may not achieve that goal, because critics may still find fault. However, the broader purpose of financial transparency is not just to avoid criticism, but to establish trust, accountability, and integrity. It serves the members of the church, its donors, and the wider community by showing that the church is a responsible steward of the resources entrusted to it.

In my view, transparency—when thoughtfully applied—can be both a practical and ethical decision. While it won’t eliminate all criticism, it can help prevent damaging scandals and reassure those who are invested in the organization.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

its objectivity

It is only as objective as the info fed to it, which means it’s not.  A lot of it was just restating what you said with a lot more words.

”common sense”?  A program can have common sense?  Not generally what I think of when I think of tech.

Maybe “based on its standardized search parameters and analytic algorithms….”…but not sure how standardized we can call it, should consult my son the programmer.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A sampling of this comments about the Church from just this thread alone:

Okay. Let’s hear it.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• On this specific point, they are essentially arguing that if a church has a doctrine or polity to defraud members, then the church autonomy doctrine grants it license to do so.

That isn’t a comment about the Church. It is part of my analysis of a specific argument that the Church’s attorneys are making.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• In general, if an {the Church's} primary objective is to accumulate money for the sole purpose of having it, is it really a “church” in the legal sense?

That isn’t a comment about the Church. It is a question about where do you draw the line between which corporations are entitled to the special legal privileges afforded to churches, and which are not.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• {The Church's attorneys are arguing that} since it is religious in nature, the Church ought to be held not only to a really low standard ethically and morally, but also to a really low standard legally as well.

That isn’t a comment about the Church. It is part of my analysis of a specific argument that the Church’s attorneys are making.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• {Does the Church Autonomy Doctrine grant the Church} the right to engage in an “orchestrated and illegal deception” against the members...

That isn’t a comment about the Church. It is a question about the limits of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• The Church has the right to {use most of its annual income to build up the size of its for-profit business empire}, but it also has the legal and ethical obligation to be honest with donors and potential donors that this is what they are doing and planning to do with the donations they are soliciting.

I'll make another post on this one.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• But how does church autonomy give churches the right to fraudulently mislead members about how funds will be used?

That isn’t a comment about the Church. It is part of my analysis of a specific argument that the Church’s attorneys are making.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• All of those are low standards of ethics, and now the plaintiffs are accusing it of “illegal deception.” And the Church’s response?  Lying to the membership about how funds are spent is an internal matter that is religious in nature, and thus is protected by the Church Autonomy Doctrine. 

That isn’t a comment about the Church. It is part of my analysis of a specific argument that the Church’s attorneys are making.

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since you ignore everything I say anyway, I decided not to waste much time responding.

However, I do know that based on its objectivity and common sense, ChatGPT would agree with me on this issue. So, here is the question I asked, along with ChatGPT’s response.

Question: Some people claim that like other non-profits, it is important for churches to be financially transparent. Others claim that “financially transparency” is a hopelessly vague concept and the only thing it does is provide critics with more things to criticize about. What do you think? If a Church is trying to avoid criticism, is it worthwhile for it to be financially transparent? Is financially transparent even a well-defined concept? What does it mean?

Answer: Financial transparency is a key issue for churches and other non-profit organizations, and both sides of the argument reflect important considerations.

Definition of Financial Transparency:

In general, financial transparency refers to the open disclosure of financial activities, including income, expenses, salaries, donations, and investments. For a church, this might include revealing how much is collected in tithes or donations, how funds are spent on charitable activities or operations, and the compensation of clergy or staff. The concept itself can be well-defined if the organization adheres to established standards, such as regular financial reports, audits, and public access to financial information, but it depends on the context and the audience.

Arguments for Financial Transparency:

1. Trust and Accountability: Being transparent builds trust with the congregation and broader community. People who donate to a church often want to know that their contributions are being used responsibly. If the church is open about its finances, it can foster stronger relationships with members and attract more donations or support.

2. Legal and Ethical Standards: In some regions, religious organizations may be required to meet certain financial reporting standards. Whether mandated by law or not, transparency can be viewed as an ethical obligation, especially if the church benefits from tax-exempt status.

3. Mitigating Suspicion: While transparency may invite some criticism, the lack of it can lead to greater suspicion. Churches have faced scandals over financial misuse, and transparency can help avoid such crises by demonstrating proactive honesty.

Arguments Against Financial Transparency:

1. Vagueness of the Concept: Critics may claim that financial transparency is too vague because it doesn’t specify how much disclosure is enough. What level of detail should be shared with the public versus only with members? Too much transparency can, in some cases, overwhelm people with information they don’t fully understand or need.

2. Fuel for Criticism: Some argue that no matter how transparent an organization is, critics will always find something to complain about. For example, they may scrutinize expenditures on clergy salaries, building maintenance, or other operational costs, which can distract from the church’s mission.

3. Internal Autonomy: Churches may also want to protect their autonomy in how they manage resources, believing that they answer to their faith community or higher religious authority, rather than public scrutiny.

Is Financial Transparency Worthwhile?

If a church is trying to avoid criticism alone, transparency may not achieve that goal, because critics may still find fault. However, the broader purpose of financial transparency is not just to avoid criticism, but to establish trust, accountability, and integrity. It serves the members of the church, its donors, and the wider community by showing that the church is a responsible steward of the resources entrusted to it.

In my view, transparency—when thoughtfully applied—can be both a practical and ethical decision. While it won’t eliminate all criticism, it can help prevent damaging scandals and reassure those who are invested in the organization.

Again: Our critics are notably vague about what "transparency" means.  And their endlessly faultfinding proclivities are solid evidence that they will never be satisfied with what the Church does.  Ever.

Thanks,

-Smac