Is there any way that a lawsuit could work challenging the articles of incorporation of the CoJCoLDS since they are inconsistent with the founding revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants of the church? It is my understanding that those articles basically institutionalize the idea that the senior Q15 member is the new president regardless of common consent. Also, the structure of the church removes the president and senior leaders of the church from the possibility of discipline contrary to the revelations. Is this consistent with civil law?
I am not a Huntsman, so I don't have the money to throw at something like this. I'm curious from an academic perspective. I'm sure this would be shut down. Would the church have to argue that the founding revelations are not binding? I'd be curious to hear from anyone with actual knowledge, unlike me.
Crazy lawsuit idea
Re: Crazy lawsuit idea
I would assume that churches get such leeway that they could fight it forever under the premise that they have a structure that allows for change with time?
It would be fun to see play out, but I can't imagine you'd get far without spending an insane amount of money just because it feels like religions have much more freedom with structure than a business that has investors and financial interests that they have to be accountable to.
As a small side tangent I've always loved that they were claiming to restore the ancient church with a title of president/presidency which clearly is not an ancient term.
It would be fun to see play out, but I can't imagine you'd get far without spending an insane amount of money just because it feels like religions have much more freedom with structure than a business that has investors and financial interests that they have to be accountable to.
As a small side tangent I've always loved that they were claiming to restore the ancient church with a title of president/presidency which clearly is not an ancient term.
Re: Crazy lawsuit idea
Such a lawsuit would need to be held in the Utah Courts and that means it would be tossed out.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha
-- Moksha
Re: Crazy lawsuit idea
I don't think there's a case.
The church isn't legally bound by any revelation it may have published. It can always claim that newer private revelation superseded it anyway.
And there is no contractual obligation between the church and its members. So the scripture isn't binding on anyone or party in any temporal legal sense.
The church isn't legally bound by any revelation it may have published. It can always claim that newer private revelation superseded it anyway.
And there is no contractual obligation between the church and its members. So the scripture isn't binding on anyone or party in any temporal legal sense.
Re: Crazy lawsuit idea
I agree.dogbite wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:20 am I don't think there's a case.
The church isn't legally bound by any revelation it may have published. It can always claim that newer private revelation superseded it anyway.
And there is no contractual obligation between the church and its members. So the scripture isn't binding on anyone or party in any temporal legal sense.
Coming from a different perspective, nobody who would bring such a suit would be allowed to bring the suit due to a lack of standing. It would be looked at the same as any random person bringing a lawsuit against a privately owned company for not following their charter/bylaws. In order to have standing you would need an ownership interest, or maybe have served as an officer or director.