New Federal lawsuit against the Church

[Mixman76]

Have you all seen this?
https://apple.news/AYegeepzuT7CGMMgkYbOy9w
James Huntsman, brother of former Presidential hopeful and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is suing for his tithing back. In the amount of millions of dollars.

Thoughts on how this might play out??

[Dr. Shades]

Thoughts on how this might play out??

Yes. Like it or not, those were charitable contributions made voluntarily, so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

As much as *I* would like to get my tithing money back--miniscule compared to his though it is--I'm sure this is just a publicity stunt on his part.

[IHAQ]

The general difficulty Huntsman and his legal advisors need to overcome on the matter of fraud seems to me to be two-fold. Firstly, as Shades points out, he gave the money as a donation rather than as a payments for services or goods. Sure, he may feel duped, sure the Church may not have used the money for things that Huntsman wishes they'd used it for, but that's not enough to raise the issue to the level of fraud. Also, in 2012, the Church amended the tithing slip to make it overt and explicit that members had no say in what they were donating to.

Secondly, the money is still there. Not using the money for that which Huntsman wanted, is different from the Church using those donations for things outwit what could be reasonably construed as the mission of the tax exempt charitable entity to which he donated. His quibble comes down to the Church having not yet used the donations in a manner that Huntsman would be happy about. How can fraud be demonstrated when the money hasn't gone anywhere?

The point about bailing out the for-profit insurance company is perhaps the one thing Huntsman can point to that seems to be an act in contravention of the idea that the Church's funds are to be tax exempt because they are a charity and they don't use those funds for profit. In the case of the insurance company bail out, they appear to have used tax exempt funds for a taxable purpose. I would imagine the IRS (if that's who police this) would accept a mea culpa and some restitution, along with a commitment to show that it was a one-off error rather than custom and practice.

It feels a storm in a tea cup, except for the publicity angle. The more the hoard is in the news the more it will start to smell "off" to those members for whom undying allegiance no matter what is not what they subscribe to. That's the potential fall out to this if Hunstman can make sufficient noise for long enough. But I don't see what he gains from that other than perhaps some personal satisfaction in a vindictive sense. He's resigned from the Church and now he wants to cause a problem for an entity he's decided he doesn't want to be a part of. I doubt he needs the money. Clearly he's not going to get reimbursed - the Church would be inundated with ambulance chasers and class actions on the back of any deal with him which constituted an admission that donations weren't "gifts". So he's got no loss, and he will get no gain, except in publicity.

What would be interesting is if the case forced more financial disclosure, more financial information about Church finances into the public domain. That would be embarrassing and serve the Church right for not being transparent about the money-go-round in the first place.

[Analytics]

If Huntsman were able to show that the Church claimed it uses most of its annual income for charitable purposes, but in reality uses most of its annual income to build its for-profit portfolio, could that be the basis of fraud?

[Moksha]

Like it or not, those were charitable contributions made voluntarily, so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I think he mentioned that much of it was not used for charitable purposes. Remember when those apologists claimed the Church was not using tithing for the City Creek Mall? Well, it turns out they were lying (and not for the Lord). Huntsman notes that in his lawsuit. Some of the money was diverted to a secret investment fund.

[IHAQ]

On Tuesday, LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins shared his response with Gephardt Daily. It reads, in full:

“Mr. James Huntsman resigned his Church membership last year. Now, he is demanding through his lawyers that tithing he paid to the Church as charitable contributions be returned to him. He claims that, contrary to assurances made by past Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, the Church used tithing to build City Creek, a mixed use commercial development across the street from Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project. As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 General Conference. Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.

“Tithing funds are voluntary contributions by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an expression of their faith in God. They are used for a broad array of religious purposes, including missionary work, education, humanitarian causes and the construction of meetinghouses, temples and other buildings important to the work of the Church, as reflected in scripture and determined by Church leaders.”

https://gephardtdaily.com/local/lds-chu ... f-tithing/

Here is Hinckley’s statement from that conference:

But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.

Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... h?lang=eng

Hinckley outs his own lie within his own statement. First he says tithing funds have not and will not be used, and then he says tithing funds (invested reserve funds) have been used to generate interest which will be used.

The problem for the Church is Hinckley lied (as per the Church’s own definition of lying) from the pulpit at general conference.

He’s saying that tithing was invested, generated interest and that interest was used to pay for City Creek, whilst also denying that tithing funds were used to pay for City Creek.

For reference, here is the Church’s definition of “lying”.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng

I think it can be demonstrated that Hinckley lied about the funds used for City Creek. I think that may be problematic in terms of how members feel about the church’s use of their donations, and how the IRS might feel about the Church’s tax exempt status, but does that amount to fraud?

[Moksha]

That guy who let the existence of the secret investment fund be known, also let it be known that all pots of Church money are co-mingled, even if the Church's quest for money was kept separate from the financial transparency of the Gentiles.