DiscussMormonism.com

I found this website tonight in a google search to see if anyone was suing for back tithing:
http://mormonlawsuit.com/
Anyone know more about this or when they plan to go to trial? I think it would be cool if it would force the church to disclose everything and be truthful from now on. I think it would cut the membership in half instantly. Even if I only got a small amount back I think I would be satisified with the moral victory.

I think they have a good case. It's not challenging any of the faith/religious aspects, just the fraud that they don't disclose to the members, which is where I think the focus should stay. I'm not sending my name to them until I know more about it though, because I'm still not sure its not a shill site from the church wanting to guage who the opposition is. Can anyone validate the legitimacy of this one or if this suit has a chance?

It sounds a little crazy to me. Of course I suppose that someone can sue anyone or anything if they wished to. Maybe former catholics can sue the catholic church for past donations. Or maybe a former methodist can sue the methodist church for past donations. Maybe I can sue this board for taking up some of my free time if I find this board to be a stumbling block for life improvement.

And of course, what church has not made changes? Maybe I can sue the catholic church for forcing me to eat meat on friday when I was a boy. Now, it is okay to eat meat on friday. Maybe I can sue the catholic church for changing the mass after vatican II. Maybe a former nun can sue the catholic church for forcing her to wear the black and white habit for 30 years...now the same order dresses in normal dress. Maybe a luthern can sue the luthern church for allowing women pastors or same sex unions, especially if that luthern donated money before that change.

The website sounds born again anti Mormon to me.

False advertising is a notoriously difficult verdict to achieve, even in cases where a layman would assume that it would be a slam-dunk. Given that the LDS church promises no tangible compensation to the tithe-payer beyond some abstract blessings from God, and never enumerates to the tithe-payer a promise of exactly what percentage of tithing revenues will go to any given project, this appears to be an extremely weak case.

The only way that I can see the courts forcing the Church to disclose financial information is in a case of embezzlement or corruption by a high GA. You're not going to get anywhere with false advertising.

Thama wrote:[...]Given that the LDS church promises no tangible compensation to the tithe-payer [...]

It’s been a long time since I’ve gone to a tithing settlement, but doesn’t the bishop give you a piece of paper (for taxes) that essentially says just this (that no goods or services were provided in direct relation to the tithing, and that they were purely a charitable gift)?

As the Church is quite clear that God is responsible for compensating you for the donation you'd have to sue God to get the promised recompense. I recommend you try to settle out of court.

I don't see how a lawsuit is going to get anywhere. Tithing is like any other charitable donation. It isn't compulsary, nor is it tied to membership. All of the tangible benefits of the church are available to any member, tithe payer or not.

If you don't want to pay it, don't pay it.

Guilt doesn't count as enforcement.

I don't think tithing is as much an issue as the fraud involved in the false story of Joseph Smith and other lies they tell that they know to be false but they tell the lies anyway to solicit church memberships. I think the lawsuit should be more about punitive damages than tithing, since what the LDS church has done is definitely hurtful, has caused a lot of damages to people's lives and families, and much of what is taught about their history is just plain untrue. Just the fake stuff about Joseph Smith alone is not a matter of faith, its a matter of the opposite of what they are saying is actually true. When you read the text of the lawsuit where it mentions the Joseph Smith propaganda film that was made for the visitors centers it contains information the LDS church knows is false yet they give this information anyway to solicit memberships. If the courts would stop the false advertising, even if they couldn't get us any of our money back, it would go a long way in hurting these criminals and stopping any further crimes.

LDSDoubter wrote:I don't think tithing is as much an issue as the fraud involved in the false story of Joseph Smith and other lies they tell that they know to be false but they tell the lies anyway to solicit church memberships. I think the lawsuit should be more about punitive damages than tithing, since what the LDS church has done is definitely hurtful, has caused a lot of damages to people's lives and families, and much of what is taught about their history is just plain untrue. Just the fake stuff about Joseph Smith alone is not a matter of faith, its a matter of the opposite of what they are saying is actually true. When you read the text of the lawsuit where it mentions the Joseph Smith propaganda film that was made for the visitors centers it contains information the LDS church knows is false yet they give this information anyway to solicit memberships. If the courts would stop the false advertising, even if they couldn't get us any of our money back, it would go a long way in hurting these criminals and stopping any further crimes.

The courts are not going to care what happened in an obscure little town in New York state 200+ years ago. They're barely keeping up with the problems today. And it's not like anyone can prove fraud. If that were the case, it would have been done decades ago.

harmony wrote:The courts are not going to care what happened in an obscure little town in New York state 200+ years ago. They're barely keeping up with the problems today. And it's not like anyone can prove fraud. If that were the case, it would have been done decades ago.

Now that I thnk about it I suppose that, sadly, you're correct. I mean, evolutionist have enforced their theory well enough that it is taught as fact in public schools, but creationists question this "history" and still teach their own version of history in their schools. Now, say a Christian college student decides creationism is a crock after getting his degree and wants his money back because he now believes in evolution, it would be hard to show in a court of law that two different theories on what happened in the past are in conflict, and that one is more credible than the other.

We could probably use public records where Joseph Smith is mentioned (ie the glass-looker trial) but the church could even dispute that. Even though the TBM version of Joseph Smith can easily be proven false through historical facts, they are still choosing to not believe the historical record based on faith that their "alternative" view of history is somehow true. (ie Satan doctoring the historical record, antimormon slant, etc.) I suppose this drags faith into the issue again, still making it religious.

The only way this could ever succeed is if it could somehow be dragged away from the religious spectrum, and me not being a lawyer I don't know how you could ever do that.

I've dealt with a few fraud cases in my line of work, so I give a little something to think about (but NOT act upon -- this post is NOT legal advice).

There are a couple of different kinds of fraud, at least in California. The more serious kind is fraud by intentional misrepresentation. In order to win that cause of action, a plaintiff would need to prove that Church officials knew that their assertions about the benefits of tithe-paying were not true. That's very difficult to do even when intentional misrepresentation has occurred; and I don't think it even has in this case, because Church leaders are among the most well-duped of the bunch, so although their assertions about the benefits of tithe-paying are not true, they didn't know it, and can't be held culpable on that point. You'd only be able to win this case if it involved something like a closet-apostate bishop.

Fraud based on negligent misrepresentation is probably a more fruitful route. To win that cause of action, you need to show that Church officials should have known that their assertions were false, and that they made them with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. That's a lot easier to prove, obviously.

The trickiest bar to clear with a lawsuit like this would probably be proving that the assertions were in fact false. Promises of "spiritual reward" can't really be captured in the language of torts. It would be much easier to sue the Church over a bishop promising something hard and fast, like a certain level of income, in exchange for tithing. I'd be very surprised if nothing like that had ever happened, so maybe there's something to this route.

Now that I've said all that, I doubt that any lawsuit against the Church would be successful. Courts are generally very deferential to religious organizations, for fear of treading on the First Amendment. It would be much easier to win a lawsuit against an entity recognized by the government as a "cult", even though the two are hard to tell apart.