Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, helix said:

Temples, churches, and running the church is also charity, by definition.

I guess

[rpn]

47 minutes ago, helix said:

The member is directly opposed to the church and wants to make a national scene about it. That has historically been incompatible with being a church member.

Since when do members get to judge each other ecclesiastically?

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

Since when do members get to judge each other ecclesiastically?

You should post that to a bunch of the amateur LDS apologists on Twitter. They've got judging other members who are less orthodox than them down to an art form.

The account named "ExmoCringe" is an especially lovely example.

Edited November 2, 2023 by ttribe

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, rpn said:

Since when do members get to judge each other ecclesiastically?

Ever seen a woman wear pants to Relief Society?

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ever seen a woman wear pants to Relief Society?

I think this one isn't a great example anymore, especially since sister missionaries wear pants all the time.  We had a sister in my ward that wore pants and it was never an issue.  In one ward I was in back in 2013 the secretary in the RS presidency only wore pants to church.

Multiple ear piercings is probably still a good example, but not wearing garments on vacation or while mowing your lawn is probably the best way to get judged by your latter-day saint peers as a woman.

[cujo22]

Tacenda said:

I think you're on to something. I wish I'd known early in my marriage that my tithing really wasn't going to any charity, but to the building of temples, churches and running the church. I might have dug in my heels a bit more when my husband said we don't need to donate to charities because we pay tithing. Plus, this makes me wonder and I'm still confused, if the reason the LDS are the most charitable religion, or think I read somewhere that it is, is because when they take these polls they believe their donations are charitable because that's how it looks when they claim it on taxes. 

 

Reply: (I'm don't how to reply the say I see you all doing)

I disagree with you issomuch as you're saying religious spending is not "charitable". I think it's a great way to give charitably to help make the world a better place. But you've solidified my point that people use the word "charitable" to mean different things. The lawsuit is saying the church didn't spend the money on "charitable" things. But put another way they're really saying that the church didn't spend it on the things they think they should have. You're saying the same thing I think. It's basically: I gave money to the church but I wish I would have given it to the homeless shelter. That doesn't mean the church did anything wrong or illegal or misleading even. 

[Nofear]

Even when one discounts tithing, Latter-day Saints still are more charitable on average than non-religious counter parts (one example study: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-research-shows-mormons-are-generous-and-active-helping-others) in both time and treasure. Non-lds religious individuals also tend to more charitable (in both time and treasure) than non-religious demographics -- a very robust finding that has been held up again and again.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Nofear

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think this one isn't a great example anymore, especially since sister missionaries wear pants all the time.  We had a sister in my ward that wore pants and it was never an issue.  In one ward I was in back in 2013 the secretary in the RS presidency only wore pants to church.

Multiple ear piercings is probably still a good example, but not wearing garments on vacation or while mowing your lawn is probably the best way to get judged by your latter-day saint peers as a woman.

I live in a particularly backward ward in many respects.

[helix]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Since when do members get to judge each other ecclesiastically?

Always been a part of this church. Here's the current rundown:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng

Religious doctrine aside, this is just basic social common sense.

If you go to a book club and then complain nationally how stupid that book club is, you very likely won't be in the book club.

If you join a rec sports team, then complain to everybody how dumb your coach is, you likely won't be on the team.

If you socialize with a group of friends, and then you go publicly on Facebook and Twitter loudly proclaiming how you think they're all wrong, your friends very likely will stop socializing with you.

Edited November 2, 2023 by helix

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Ever seen a woman wear pants to Relief Society?

every Sunday

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

every Sunday

Can I send some people to your ward?

[smac97]

19 hours ago, rpn said:

But if it happens it is a really short sited thing to do.   Unless the member is talking to the press,

I suspect "the member" is "talking to the press."  Lots of news coverage on this.  Gaddy "publicized" her lawsuit (through her attorney), as did Huntsman.  These plaintiffs are likely doing the same.

I'm not sure this is a litmus test for "apostasy," though.  See Section 32.6.3.2:

Quote

32.6.3.2

Apostasy

Issues of apostasy often have an impact beyond the boundaries of a ward or stake. They need to be addressed promptly to protect others.

The bishop counsels with the stake president if he feels that a member’s action may constitute apostasy. The bishop or stake president may place informal membership restrictions on the member (see 32.8.3). The stake president promptly counsels with the Area Presidency. However, only the stake president decides whether a membership council or other action is necessary.

As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following:

• Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders

• Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

• Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members

• Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

• Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a person who has sinned. “But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31).

Is filing a lawsuit against the Church, publicly accusing it of fraud relative to tithing, "acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders"?

In my view, I think the answer is "yes."

Is filing a lawsuit against the Church, publicly accusing it of fraud relative to tithing, "repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church"?  That's a bit more ambiguous, but I think filing and actively pursuing a fraud claim against the Church (again, relative to tithing) might constitute "apostasy."

19 hours ago, rpn said:

members should be able to file court cases without having their membership challenged.  

Well, maybe yes, maybe no.  The context matters.

A few years back I was hired by a fellow who owns land in Provo Canyon near Aspen Grove (a lodge owned and operated by BYU).  The two parties had a boundary dispute, and had been trying to work things out.  I was willing to do so, as I felt I could, if ultimately necessary, pursue litigation against BYU because A) the risk of litigation was minimal, B) any litigation would be about a run-of-the-mill real estate dispute (as opposed to a doctrinal / spiritual / religious issue), C) BYU is not "the Church."

But here, I think what Masen Christensen is doing is "acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church."  Whether that constitutes "apostasy" is, of course, a conclusion to be reached by his local leaders.

19 hours ago, rpn said:

The church has a practice of waiting until court proceedings are over before beginning church discipline.

Broadly, yes.  I'm not sure there is a "policy" in place about this, and in any event the Church is not legally bound to follow its own policies and "practices."  

Normally, I think the purpose of waiting may be A) to not influence the legal proceedings, and B) let the outcome of the legal proceedings be known (such as in criminal proceedings).

But this is all discretionary.  My understanding is that Chad Daybell was excommunicated in 2019.  Paul Adams was excommunicated in 2013, well before he was arrested.  The Church is not obligated to wait on legal proceedings.  And here, the legal proceedings involving Masen Christensen are not the result of misconduct, but may instead be the misconduct.  Again, that's a decision for his local leaders.

19 hours ago, rpn said:

I'd recommend that the Bishop decline to give this member anything but love and sunshine at least until the case has been finished.

That is a judgment call, yes.

19 hours ago, rpn said:

ETA:  Yes I know that church discipline is supposed to be a blessing.  But especially in cases like this, it will be felt as anything but that.

The purposes of church discipline involve more than helping the individual.  Per the handbook:

Quote

Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal

1. Help protect others

2. Help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance

3. Protect the integrity of the Church

Can we say that someone who is publicly accusing the Church of serious misconduct (fraud re: tithing) is in "good standing"?  That this is not "acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders"?

19 hours ago, rpn said:

And it is hard for anyone to see what value it would  have in any redemptive way, either.

It may have value in a "protect{ing} the integrity of the Church" kind of way.  See, e.g., these comments from Don Bradley in 2015:

Quote

In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case.

Smac:

Quote

Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

"Boundary maintenance" is an important component of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2023 by smac97

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

The church has a practice of waiting until  court proceedings are over before beginning church discipline.  

That is about criminal charges and usually only criminal charges that are connected with the reason for discipline. This is done primarily to prevent any Church investigation or inquiry into the situation that might interfere with a legal investigation or trial. It might also put you in the weird situation of a member of the membership council being called to testify as to what happened at that council.

[rockpond]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Non-transparency and secrecy along with the SEC revelations are not a good look for a religious organization that requires donations from its members.   These types of lawsuits should not be a surprise.

Yep.  The lawsuit doesn't appear to have much merit but I assume those involved are trying to shed additional light on the non-transparency and the massive investment fund.  And...

If they manage to get class-action status with hundreds or thousands of current/former church members signing on, they may just achieve that goal.

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

When I was a ward financial clerk and when I was a ward clerk, I saw a number of members who paid annually. Usually, they were people who owned their own businesses and for whom their actual annual income was not fully known until the end of the year. When I was still an active member, this really wasn't that uncommon.

As I said before. My concern isn't with paying annually, it's calling it their "annual donation". 
How many of those members that paid annually would call it their annual donation rather than their tithing?

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 11/1/2023 at 12:47 PM, smac97 said:

 

I think a decent person would be happy to see an organization making such efforts.

In related news, my oldest got her first job recently, and she asked me to show her how to pay tithing.  We walked through connecting the online donation page to her bank account, what "10% of your increase" means to different people, how to look at what part of her pay stub and move the decimal point one digit to the left to figure out 10%.  I also told her the church is wildly, absurdly rich these days, because we've been careful to spend light and save heavy, and it's a good set of principles to follow in her personal finances.  We talked about how she can become a millionaire through doing it like the church does.  We talked about productive farmland and almond groves.  We talked about keeping the lights on and the heat and AC working at church.  She brought up the blessings of paying tithing to a church that literally doesn't need it and won't notice, and we talked about that.  

It makes me happy to see her taking it as seriously as I have for going on 4 decades.  I truly believe my contributions have brought about various unprovable and unquantifiable blessings to me and my family as I've paid across my life.  My attitude towards mortal means and stewardships, and where my priorities should lie, have positively benefitted through the exercise, especially during hard times.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  The lawsuit doesn't appear to have much merit but I assume those involved are trying to shed additional light on the non-transparency and the massive investment fund.  And...

If they manage to get class-action status with hundreds or thousands of current/former church members signing on, they may just achieve that goal.

Well, I don't like suing people, but I wonder if this is the only way to get the LDS church to be transparent with it's funds, since it's "charity" that members donate to. 

Plus, maybe the church will continue with the increasing donations, yay! And for the last time, maybe, I'm sharing my favorite video that I've shared a few times before on the subject, haha. 

 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

As I said before. My concern isn't with paying annually, it's calling it their "annual donation". 
How many of those members that paid annually would call it their annual donation rather than their tithing?

I see. I suspect that's the term used by the lawyers for the purpose of consistency throughout the complaint. I wouldn't attribute that phrase to the individual in this case, I don't think.

[Thinking]

So I just thought of something that could be complicated. Let's say the lawsuit is successful and the men get their donations back. Would the men then have to file amended tax returns for each year in which tithing was an itemized deduction?

[Calm]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this one isn't a great example anymore, especially since sister missionaries wear pants all the time.  We had a sister in my ward that wore pants and it was never an issue.  In one ward I was in back in 2013 the secretary in the RS presidency only wore pants to church.

Multiple ear piercings is probably still a good example, but not wearing garments on vacation or while mowing your lawn is probably the best way to get judged by your latter-day saint peers as a woman.

We had a sister doing this back in the mid 90’s.  She was a convert and had no dresses and didn’t like them.  I don’t think anyone cared.  I was her VT and complimented her on her appearance.  My guess is she felt a bit awkward as she was the only one and that is why she told me her preference.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, cujo22 said:

if the reason the LDS are the most charitable religion, or think I read somewhere that it is, is because when they take these polls they believe their donations are charitable because that's how it looks when they claim it on taxes. 

Some surveys specify nontithing donations in addition to tithing and volunteering outside of church and we still do well on those.  I will try and find documentation later if someone else hasn’t.

added:  I see Nofear, iirc, did so, so I am going to be lazy and not do it 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  The lawsuit doesn't appear to have much merit but I assume those involved are trying to shed additional light on the non-transparency and the massive investment fund.  And...

If they manage to get class-action status with hundreds or thousands of current/former church members signing on, they may just achieve that goal.

Nice to see you back…

[smac97]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  The lawsuit doesn't appear to have much merit

I agree.

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

but I assume those involved are trying to shed additional light on the non-transparency and the massive investment fund. 

Judges don't like unmeritorious, frivolous lawsuits.  They waste a lot of time and money.  

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

And...

If they manage to get class-action status with hundreds or thousands of current/former church members signing on, they may just achieve that goal.

"If" being the operative word.  And it's a mighty big one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

On 11/2/2023 at 12:21 PM, The Nehor said:

Can I send some people to your ward?

We have a few empty spaces, especially in the front of the chapel, for some reason, no one ever wants to sit in the front. 

[Danzo]

21 hours ago, Thinking said:

So I just thought of something that could be complicated. Let's say the lawsuit is successful and the men get their donations back. Would the men then have to file amended tax returns for each year in which tithing was an itemized deduction?

Using the tax benefit doctrine, the correct way would be to report any return of tithing previously deducted as miscellaneous income on schedule 1 of the 1040.

 

Its the same reason why you need to report any state income tax refund previously deducted.