Comments on: Lessons on Suing the Church from Commodity Traders

By: Bob Wilde

Bob Wilde — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:12:48 +0000

Elder Oaks also had a chapter in one of his books explaining why Church courts are no longer the proper way to resolve civil conflicts among members. (Is that an oxymoron?) In the 19th century the civil justice system was controlled by enemies of the church and of church members so the likelihood of a fair resolution was slim. In theory that has changed so the civil courts now mete out actual justice. (Is that another oxymoron?)

While serving as bishop I liened our new stake center for a construction rental client. I never felt any adverse impact.

The “pay their loss” argument is completely subjective. If your hosptial bill is $1500.00 but you lost the use of your arm, does $1500 pay your costs?

How clearly can you draw the line between the corporate aspects and other aspects of the Church?

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:12:05 +0000

Elder Oaks wrote a book that brushed on this and the role of insurance is an interesting one.

Given the way the last post of this type on T&S faded away, I’m reluctant to spend much time posting on this one, lest it too suffer the same fate.

By: norm

norm — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:31:46 +0000

maybe this is out of place. but i had an extended discussion this week with a few friends. among us were law students and a litigator–and a few BYU alums. (we were discussing collusion, unconscionable contracts, and various other problems with the inbred world of BYU-approved housing, landlords, etc–but i think there are broader applications)

is it possible to sue BYU while a student and not get kicked out? (i mean IS it, not should it be, or would it be illegal for them to boot you.) anecdotes abound. but if, as a student at the Y someone sued the Church or BYU, would it be possible to keep an ecclesiastical endorsement and not run afoul of the Honor Code?

secondly, as believing members, how does the tension between a duty to the Church and a duty to end injustice perpetuated in the name of the church shake out?

By: scott

scott — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:14:21 +0000

Certainly it is true in many kinds of relationships (husband/wife, landlord/tenant, small business employer/employee) that by things get bad enough that lawyers have to be called into the picture, both sides are ready for the relationship to end.

But many kinds of institutional and personal relationships (e.g., church/mayor of Salt Lake City, Microsoft/Apple, United States/France, employer/union leader, employer/employee, etc.) involve parties who raise legal challenges against each other frequently without any expectation that the relationship will end (even if the parties sometimes wish it would…)

Is the church/member relationship the sort that can survive a lawsuit or the sort that cannot? Empirically (anecdotally, anyway) it clearly can survive lawsuits, contractual disputes, and far more painful and serious moral or personal disputes. People don’t (always) stop considering themselves Mormon just because they believe the church owes them money. A contractor who has been wronged by someone on the business side of the church can certainly sue the church while continuing to pay tithing. Nothing “endgame” about that.

Of course, Nate is not saying that all lawsuit-filing members consider their relationship with the church to be in the “endgame” or that the church always considers the relationship with the member to be in the endgame. He is making a far weaker statement, namely that some members may perceive the relationship to be in the endgame.

And this is certainly true.

But I suspect that the bulk of members — hearing about a dispute — would refrain from jumping to conclusions about a lawsuit-filing member’s desire to continue a relationship with the church. And even when they do, when the member wishes to remain in the church, it’s usually pretty clear, and so the assumption is easily reversed.

Or am I giving “members” too much credit?

By: Kingsley

Kingsley — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:05:53 +0000

If I die and find out that face cards, whiskers and Diet Coke with Lime weren’t really that big a deal, I’m suing for emotional damage.

By: Visorstuff

Visorstuff — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:15:22 +0000

Nate: Thanks – the last major church council appeal case I am aware of dealt with who has ultimate authority in a ward – if a a high priest group leader has authority over a bishop, but I’m aware of some small complaints in local stakes in the past few years.

Is the reason for this because of liability, or because of “clogging” up the church court system?

Also, can you point me to the 19th century statements if you get a chance that refer to using the legal system rather than councils? Would be an interesting read. Sure appreciate it.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:58:34 +0000

I should also point out that the end-game norms flow in the other direction as well. Members of the Church are likely to feel betrayed in some sense if the Church calls its lawyers into interactions with the Church. They will see the Church as invoking a set of norms that are designed for the termination of a relationship and see it as being cut loose from the Church, etc. etc.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:03 +0000

Visorstuff: For what it is worth, at the end of teh 19th century there were a number of statements by the first presidency and other leaders to the effect that members should no longer use church courts to resolve disputes that should be in secular courts. As I recall none of these statements was entirely clear on where this line should be drawn, but they did seem to take the position that not all disputes should be resolved withing Church councils. That said, I have copies of complaint forms printed up in the 1920s that were used to initiate suits in church courts.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:45:12 +0000

I think Anne, that there are bigger issues. I think Nate brought some up in his other thread the other day. Now as to whether the Church should be listening to attorneys to the degree they sometimes do, that’s a more difficult decision and I’m glad I’m not the one making it. I think that in the big picture one has to worry not just about any one case, but about how that case will be viewed by others.

It would be nice if we lived in a culture that was far less litigious. The US really is horribly litigious – perhaps due to the poor safety net especially with respect to health care. Although I’m not sure even that can explain it all. Our culture has grown with the assumption that civil court can act as a kind of legislature to right wrongs. I think that sometimes, while I understand and sympathize with a lot of the thinking behind it, that I worry about how this affects our civil liberties. Especially when I sometimes, due to past business experience, have a distinct lack of faith in the juries. As they say, sometimes juries are made up of people unable to think of a way out of jury duty.

By: Visorstuff

Visorstuff — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:24:00 +0000

Setting aside personal gain and focusing on dipsute resoution – according to my reading of the History of the Church and my reading of the D&C, there is a system in place for this. Specifically, the purpose of High Councils: if there are disputes, isn’t it their job to mediate it? According to revelation and policy, this is their job, isn’t it?

When there were disputes in the early church, the parties were encouraged to work it out between themselves, and then with the bishop and later stake president. If no resolution could be made, it was brought before the various church councils, and appealed to the First Presidency if needed. However, I’m unaware of more than a quarter-dozen cases of this type in the past ten years, and only a dozen or so in the past 50.

Should a TBM pursue this channel first before legal means? Or is this now discouraged because it could lead to a huge legal liability?