Comments about ‘LDS Church being sued for tithing paid by suspected fraudster’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 5 2010 10:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

I don't know if I am just tired or if this was just really bad writing or just a mean person, but it seems like this lawyer is going with guns drawn on the church. It was not the churchs fault that this money was paid in tithing and it would make much more sense to me if they just went and talked to the church and explained to them what was going on before taking this kind of action against the church. They make it sound in the article that the church is at fault in wrong doing and the lawyer needs to pull out all the stops to right this wrong. I feel that is really overkill here in this situation


hmmmm, I disagree JanSan. I'll admit that upon reading the headline, I worried that the Church might be portrayed poorly, but by the end, felt the article brings attention to an interesting dilemma. I'm sure the Church will do as it always does in such circumstances and not collect tithes from individuals donating from fraudulent means. The article suggests as such in the end.


Tithing is VOLUNTARY. It is NOT mandatory and anyone who pays tithing knows that when they pay tithing that they are giving those funds to the Church to do with it as the Church so pleases. I actually feel very sorry for anyone who would ever ask that their tithing funds be returned to them for any reason.


It seems this state has really become a government of suppression and oppression. I don't think they can sue the church or any religion to recover donations from any source. If the religion wants to return it as blood money that's their choice, but the state would have a hard time getting it through court actions. Once money is donated it considered used and they can't take donations from others to compensate for donation from criminals. The state has to prove the church knew this donation was from criminal acts which they can never do.

What is ironic is the mentality of Mormonism in Utah and business owners. The employers run a crime ring and think that if they pay tithing it absolves them of their crimes. Especially when it comes to how they treat employees, job benefits, and wages.

Employers and this state have this insane idea that employee's are beholding to the god head of a business and the state to have a job, even if it is slavery. Workers of Utah have come to accept slavery and poverty pay as their way of life and not to expect anything else.


Let's go after the electric company too. I'm sure the guy paid the light bill.

Seriously. It's a donation. If he gave 10% to American Red Cross would they be sued?


I agree. On the tithing envelope there isn't a place on the slip that says. Is this money from legal or illegal gains, with a check in the box. There are bad folks in everything, even in church, no matter the religion. And anyone who would use a brick to slap a fly off of someone's head, might have some skeletons in his own closet, that he might not like opened.


Another GREEDY lawyer but why are Utah people/Mormons so susceptible to Ponzie schemes?


This is just the guy's job. He's supposed to recover the money, so he initiates legal actions to get it. Most likely the church will just return the money as they did in a similar situation referenced in the story. It will all be done out of court without much controversy.


They may be criminals, but at least they paid their tithing.


The Church didn't do anything wrong. My guess if this guy would just go to H. David Burton and ask for the money back, he'd get it. This court reciever dude must be some type of doofus with an agenda. I wouldn't have any problem with the church giving the money back. The Church, after all, can afford it.


I am in complete agreement with JanSan and Jenkins could have gotten agreement with the Church if he would meet with the church leaders and get their approval to return the money the church had, much of it would have been done in a friendly way.

Shame on you Jenkins


I'm sure the Church will work something out. But what amazes me is all the scammers who rip people off then pay their tithing. Uh, don't they get it? This is one thing that has bothered me about the Utah culture. Anything goes in business, then serve in your calling on Sunday and its OK. Money is the measure of righteousness for far too many people.


Tithing may not be mandatory, but in the early 70's when my dad ran into hard times, and it was feed us or tithe, the bishop and other authorities got all huffy. We left the church in May of 72 because they wanted their 10% one way or another.


Clearly the church should return it, the same as they do tithing and contributions identified to have originated from gambling proceeds.

And, they will return it - they'll probably just wait until they have a court order in place so the accounting is all documented appropriately and that it represents closure to the entire situation.


Since the LDS church does not countenance stealing they should willingly give the money back. It was stolen money. After all, they don't take 'tithing' on gambling winnings and gambling is legal most places.
Keeping the money puts the LDS Church in line as just one more money laundering outfit.
Give it willingly to the guy, with interest.


@Attentive & K: Probably so, as the problem is the money was donated or tithed with money that was not the persons money. I'm sure if someone took $150,000 from you and donated fraudulently, you'd want that money back as well. Unless, of course, you are independently wealthy.

Cubicle Dweller

This is actually a well settled legal issue known as a preference, which is a transfer to defraud creditors. A debtor is not allowed to just give away money or property to avoid paying a debt, otherwise a lot of people would just give all they had left to a trusted relative or friend prior to declaring bankruptcy. This was the reason that Thomas Jefferson could not free his slaves. As he was always insolvent, his creditors could have forced him into bankruptcy and recovered the slaves as a preference. This is an issue that is continually faced by any organization that accepts donations. It actually has nothing to do with how the funds were obtained by the donor. The only issue is whether bona fide creditors are being left in the lurch by such a transfer. Any payments to the power company are fine as those would be for actual services delivered by any standard (i.e. the electric company would be deemed a bona fide creditor).


to ilovecriters

Why? Because they are insulated from the real world, corralled into their callings and immersed in doctrine, and are, to be truthful, naive to the ways of reality.


@ ilovecriters: The "greedy" lawyer does not actually get to keep any of this money - it will be returned to the people it was stolen from.

@ attentive: He is not asking for money back that he paid - he is asking for the return of money that was stolen so it can be returned to the people it was stolen from (they did not voluntarily "give" that money to anyone - they invested it in a business).

To those who think this should not be done through a lawsuit: This lawyer is not acting on his own behalf, he is acting on behalf of his clients. He has to file a lawsuit so that there is a paper trail so that when the money is recovered there is an exact record of how much was recovered as well as a record of the fact that he received this money for and on behalf of the victims of this crime. This lawsuit also protects the LDS Church by ensuring that all the victims know they cannot approach the Church themselves over this issue. If this were not done through a lawsuit, there would be no binding, legal resolution to protect the Church.


So let's say the guy doesn't file a lawsuit - just goes in and asks for the money back and the Church returns it.

That's good, right?

But then what happens if some disgruntled victim decides that he (or she) did not recoup enough of his losses from this crime?

There is no finalized court order relieving the Church of any further financial obligation in this case. Disgruntled victim may not win a lawsuit to get any additional money back, but the Church has to spend time and money defending against him - and every other disgruntled victim who may decide they want more money back as well.

This way the lawyer and the Church have a finalized court order and a record of the efforts that were made to set things right - disgruntled victim cannot sue the lawyer for not doing enough and he cannot sue the Church because he wants more money back.

This lawsuit is a classic case of covering your own behind - it protects both the lawyer and the Church and is really nothing more than a fancy contract.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments