LDS Church argues tithing lawsuit should not be in secular courts
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a legal battle over tithing, faces a challenge to its financial affairs in a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit accuses church leaders of deceiving followers by soliciting donations for charitable causes and then secretly building an extensive reserve account worth over $100 billion from tithing funds.
Lawyers for the church argued that the case revolves around fraud rather than matters of faith, making it a secular issue. They contended that delving into the fraud allegations would infringe upon the church’s religious autonomy protected by the First Amendment. The defense emphasized that faith-based donations could be subject to fraud claims in certain circumstances, such as misusing funds designated for specific causes. However, they argued that scrutinizing tithing would require an examination of personal motivations and religious beliefs, which secular courts should not intervene in.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, highlighted the discrepancy between the church’s promise that donations would be used for charitable purposes and the actual accumulation of billions of dollars in a reserve account. They pointed to the church’s substantial investments through their financial arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, without allocating any funds towards charitable endeavors. Additionally, they cited a previous settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which exposed attempts to conceal the scale of the church’s investment portfolio.
During the proceedings, Judge Robert J. Shelby questioned the validity of the fraud claims and whether the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence of deception by church officials. He challenged the notion that investing tithing funds automatically equated to misuse, suggesting that the funds could still serve their intended purpose. The defense maintained that the lawsuit lacked a substantial fraud claim and exceeded the statute of limitations for filing.
The outcome of the legal battle hinges on the balance between religious autonomy and legitimate claims of fraud by the plaintiffs. While the church seeks protection under the umbrella of freedom of religion, the plaintiffs aim to hold them accountable for what they perceive as deceptive practices concerning tithing. The judge’s decision in this case will have significant implications for the church’s financial transparency and accountability in the future.
