NOM

I'm sure you've seen the story in the news lately about the fraud victims requesting the return of their stolen money that was paid to the church in tithing by the perpetrator.

It looks like there is some precedent for people requesting tithing refunds. And it's the same amount of money earned in the same way:
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... i_13329111

Spokesman Scott Trotter says the church has a policy of not profiting from alleged ill-gotten gains.

A year later another fraudster sued the church to get his tithing back, but I haven't been able to determine if he succeeded:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... dster.html

The Curtis DeYoung case first popped up in the news last year:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/4291349-155/ ... -24m-heist

LDS spokesman Eric Hawkins said the church "would never knowingly accept or retain donations that are the proceeds of ill-gotten gains, including fraud. If it is demonstrated that the donations received from this individual were from money obtained by fraudulent means, the donations will be returned."

But it looks like the church may not to refund these particular ill-gotten $239,775 to help the victims because only Curtis was found guilty and not his wife Michelle. Although the church acknowledged that this tithing money came from the theft of DeYoung's neighbors (some in the same ward) they apparently see a gray area where it is acceptable to the Lord because one of the parties isn't going to prison.
http://kutv.com/news/local/victims-want ... hing-money

Eric Hawkins, spokesman for the LDS church, said the church does not seek to profit from ill-gotten gains...In this case, he said there was a request to return tithing money from a family member who was not convicted of a crime and that complicated the process.

Some questions pop to mind. How often does this happen? How much tithing is paid by people bilking money from others? But more importantly, what is going on in their heads that puts them in a place where they are brazenly disobeying the most fundamental tenets of Christianity while remaining strictly loyal to the LDS church? This boggles my mind and tells me that I don't understand much about religious thinking.

The interesting difference between these cases is that some of them are from people who want their tithing back once they are shown to be frauds, and there's no longer any point in maintaining the pretext of church-abiding. The DeYoung case is fascinating because it's the victims that are asking for reparation and they seem to be having a harder time getting the church's cooperation than the crooks did.

There have been cases in the past where the Church has said only a court order would suffice for them to return money contributed from ill-gotten gains. Any other stance may be to stem bad public relations regarding being the unknowing receiver of stolen goods.

All of my tithing since the age of 8 was ill gotten. Can it be returned to me please?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2017 11:30 am

Some questions pop to mind. How often does this happen? How much tithing is paid by people bilking money from others? But more importantly, what is going on in their heads that puts them in a place where they are brazenly disobeying the most fundamental tenets of Christianity while remaining strictly loyal to the LDS church? This boggles my mind and tells me that I don't understand much about religious thinking.

Yep, that is crazy.

I dont think that the church should be obligated to pay reparations on tithing give to them on ill-gotten gains. From a business standpoint it is dangerous ground to walk on. And we all know that the church is a business first and foremost. I feel like once the money has left the fraudsters hands, into an avenue that is legitimate, it should be off limits to reparations. I have operated a small business and if I had a certain cash flow that I incorporated into my financial plans, then not only did it dry up but I was required to pay back what I had received; it would be devastating. Now the church is a big apple to a small orange, but I feel like the principle is the same.

This brings up money laundering issues, so maybe it shouldn't be off limits. I dont know. Complicated issue.