Sue the Church?????

[NateHowe]

Nealy any issue that would require a lawsuit would likely be a dispute between people in the Church, not between Church organization and an individual.

[Misshalfway]

Well, the church is a business and would be subject to lawsuits from that side of things. There is a reason or two why the church needs a nice staff of lawyers.

[Palerider]

Well, the church is a business and would be subject to lawsuits from that side of things. There is a reason or two why the church needs a nice staff of lawyers.

you would be correct.....:)

[Heavenguard]

Personally, I wouldn't mind having mine back, but I think it's awfully petty to sue a church unless you have a really good reason for it, so I'm happy knowing that at least some of it went to the needy.

I can respect that. For me, I love my church. But if for some reason I were ever to turn away from it, I figure it'd be something like breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. You've spent a lot of time and money on/with that person as an investment in the relationship, which ended contrary to your initial hopes/expectations. Could you imagine how absolutely crazy it would be if you could sue an ex for the time and money you spent on them?

[Jbs2763]

I can respect that. For me, I love my church. But if for some reason I were ever to turn away from it, I figure it'd be something like breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. You've spent a lot of time and money on/with that person as an investment in the relationship, which ended contrary to your initial hopes/expectations. Could you imagine how absolutely crazy it would be if you could sue an ex for the time and money you spent on them?

you must not get all the "judge shows" up there

ie Judge Judy, Joe Brown, Alex, some blonde chick...peoples court....etc etc etc

[RachelleDrew]

I could maybe understand some instances...only very few.

Like if say, the church hired a group of people to build something for them (a museum or something...whatever) and were never or unfairly paid for the work they did. I could understand someone seeking compensation in that case.

Seeking damages for personal grievances though are a touchy one for me. I cannot begin to tell you how many stupid rules and petty nonsense came about when those kids sued McDonald's for getting fat. I was working there at the time, and after you are verbally and sometimes physically abused by customers day in and day out because they are mad that you no longer serve Super Size Fries, you tend to have little sympathy for people seeking 'emotional damage" money.

And like someone else said, I wouldn't want to take away money that was mostly tithed in by innocent church members. It would seriously take something insane to make me sue the church.

[Bookmeister]

Okay, I've foreclosed on a convent, tossed an orphanage out on the street for not paying rent, and seized the entire inventory of a mom & pop store....but there are limits.

[Elphaba]

Yes, there is a situation where the Church should be sued.

When a person is called to a position where she has stewardship over children, and then abuses one or more of them, she IS a representative of the Church.

In the two cases I know about, both the plaintiff and defendant stipulated the abuse occurred, and who the abuser was. But the Church then argued the person was not a representative of the Church because he was not an employee of the Church.

To me, this is dissembling and manipulative. The person WAS a representative of the Church because he had been CALLED to be one.

And fighting for the right to call someone a "representative" or not becomes the Church's ultimate goal.

Thus, these children are even more traumatized. Imagine what that child goes through everytime the family goes back to that Church that, essentially, fought for the abuser.

I can think of no other situation where the Church could/should be sued. Suing to get your tithing back is absurd, as you donated it. People having a hard time getting their names removed, which was not my experience, is just plain silly. They'll get their names removed eventually, and far too many people make a big deal out of it when taken in context.

In fact, it diminishes the real reason there is cause for the Church to be sued. And that is when the Church denies its culpability when a child is abused by one of its representatives.

I am not saying these situations are numerous, as I don't believe they are. But when it does happen, and these Church officials know it happened, the focus should be on healing the child, not on making sure the Church doesn't look bad.

And if that doesn't happen, then yes, the Church should be sued.

I have not expressed myself well, as this is a subject that angers me greatly.

Hopefully you'll get the gist of it, and understand my point, even if you disagree with it.

Elphaba

[funkymonkey]

Okay, I've foreclosed on a convent, tossed an orphanage out on the street for not paying rent, and seized the entire inventory of a mom & pop store....but there are limits.

I grew up in a convent! (odd enough, that's the truth too.)

[kona0197]

I think I'll sue because the Church will not let me become a member because the government will take our money should we get married. Much too big of a price to pay. :):)

(That was a joke my friends...)

Edited August 16, 2008 by kona0197

[Connie]

Yes, there is a situation where the Church should be sued.

Thus, these children are even more traumatized. Imagine what that child goes through everytime the family goes back to that Church that, essentially, fought for the abuser.....

I am not saying these situations are numerous, as I don't believe they are. But when it does happen, and these Church officials know it happened, the focus should be on healing the child, not on making sure the Church doesn't look bad.

And if that doesn't happen, then yes, the Church should be sued.

Elphaba

I can understand how upsetting the issue of child abuse must of necessity be, especially when it involves organized religion. But it must be clearly understood that suing the Church in such instances is purly counter productive. For one, as you say Elphaba, the focus should be on healing the child. Yet this is something that money cannot accomplish. Christ heals, not money. Ask any rape victim, you could drown them in money and yet the pain still persists. So in protecting the donated assets of the Church from the seizure of zealous parents trying to make a buck off their child's suffering does not constitute a refusal to focus on the healing of the child.

Furthermore, how can the Church be responsible for the abuse of a child if its policies are not to shield members from the consequences of violated criminal and civil laws. This is not similar to the Catholic church shielding priests from the law. In fact, the LDS Church facilitates the prosecution of members who break laws while serving in a religious capacity.

Because the LDS clergy works on a volunteer basis, treating each volunteer as a full representative would place an insurmountable burden on Church activities. We cannot do full background checks, install cameras and listening devices in every room, nor hire security to sweep the halls of our churches every Sunday.

Child abuse is wrong, and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But going after the Church has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with money.

[lilered]

While a suit against the Church for allowing cottage cheese chunks to be added to green Jell-O is tempting, it is probably best not to carry out.

This borders not just on a simple law suit, but may even be unconstitutional and certaintly is an excommunication offense.

[Liber]

I can understand how upsetting the issue of child abuse must of necessity be, especially when it involves organized religion. But it must be clearly understood that suing the Church in such instances is purly counter productive. For one, as you say Elphaba, the focus should be on healing the child. Yet this is something that money cannot accomplish. Christ heals, not money. Ask any rape victim, you could drown them in money and yet the pain still persists. So in protecting the donated assets of the Church from the seizure of zealous parents trying to make a buck off their child's suffering does not constitute a refusal to focus on the healing of the child.

Furthermore, how can the Church be responsible for the abuse of a child if its policies are not to shield members from the consequences of violated criminal and civil laws. This is not similar to the Catholic church shielding priests from the law. In fact, the LDS Church facilitates the prosecution of members who break laws while serving in a religious capacity.

Because the LDS clergy works on a volunteer basis, treating each volunteer as a full representative would place an insurmountable burden on Church activities. We cannot do full background checks, install cameras and listening devices in every room, nor hire security to sweep the halls of our churches every Sunday.

Child abuse is wrong, and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But going after the Church has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with money.

[Heavenguard]

Because the LDS clergy works on a volunteer basis, treating each volunteer as a full representative would place an insurmountable burden on Church activities. We cannot do full background checks, install cameras and listening devices in every room, nor hire security to sweep the halls of our churches every Sunday.

To steal the thread for just a moment, I agree with everything after background check, but is that to say that background checks aren't done?

I've had to have a background check done for myself when I went to work in my church's children ministry. Anyone that works with children in my church have to have this done for safety and liability reasons. I don't see why this procedure could not be carried out for the clergy?

Edit:

Could you imagine how absolutely crazy it would be if you could sue an ex for the time and money you spent on them?

--

you must not get all the "judge shows" up there

ie Judge Judy, Joe Brown, Alex, some blonde chick...peoples court....etc etc etc

Ohhhhh yeeeeeaaah..... But case in point, those lawsuits are always so ridiculously stupid. I can't believe people actually go through with them/judges don't throw those cases out. Edited August 16, 2008 by Heavenguard

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Could you, for any reason, sue the church for hundreds of thousands of dollars? you are a temple recommend holder and completely active in the church. If so, what are some of the reasons.

I suppose so, if the Church did anything bad enough to me. Nobody should be thought of as "above the law," and as long as the Church is composed of imperfect human beings, there is always the potential for some of them to do terrible things. One might say, "Then sue those individuals, not the Church," but just like in the business world, there are theoretical scenarios in which the Church as an institution could either do something wrong or fail to take proper precautions against bad thing happening. I don't feel like making up a list of potential reasons, though. Sorry. Edited August 16, 2008 by HEthePrimate

[workindiligently]

I know this is quite an old post, but I believe it’s important to clarify in cases of abuse why the church legally takes the stand it does in court when they are sued. Just as our second Article of Faith explains that men will be accountable for their own sins and not for Adams transgression, the Church cannot be accountable for others' sins when they do or say things that go against the Church’s teachings. One may ask if the Church betrayed Christ when Judas did? Of course the answer is no.

Sexual abuse and any other form of abuse has been openly, directly, and frankly addressed and condemned by Church authorities. There are also other situations for which the scriptures are very clear about. For example, consider the Lord’s words in D&C 121:37 which states, “but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” Thus, for someone to go out of these bounds and do otherwise is to terminate their representation of the Church.

Although someone is called and is a representative of the Church, they stop being a representative when they do or say things that don’t represent the Church’s teachings or stand. The Church and its leaders abhor and fight against abuse and the Church does not participate, encourage, teach, or commit such practices. The Church’s ultimate goal is not to avoid accountability, for which it had none, but is actually attempting to place the responsibility where it truly rests, which is with the abuser.