Suing the "Mormon Corporate Empire"
The misuse of courts has reached a new low. In a rambling and clearly unhinged suit someone has now tried to begin a class action lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the grounds that it misrepresents its history for corporate gain.
The suit claims that it is known that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon from the gold plates and that it is known that Joseph Smith did not see God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in the First Vision, but the Church tries to manipulate and downplay these facts.
The problem for the suit is that it makes false claims on what is and is not known, and then outright lies about the implications. First off, the seeming main claim is that because at least some of the translation of the Book of Mormon was done by Joseph Smith looking in a seer stone in a hat it was not translated from the golden plates. This is a clear false claim. The belief of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that through the seer stone and working it out in his mind Joseph Smith was translating from the golden plates. I would also submit there is not enough clear testimony to say how Joseph Smith did the entire translation.
Addon claims about the Josiah Stowell trial are absolute rubbish in this suit. Joseph Smith was aquitted of disorderly conduct. The whole suit smacks of being a grandstanding attack on the Church under the guise of law. There is no way it has any chance of making any progress, but it gives the anti-Mormons more fuel for their echo chamber.
The claim that there is evidence that Joseph Smith did not see God the Father and his son Joseph Smith is pure rubbish. There is nothing that could possibly demonstrate that Joseph Smith was lieing in his 1838 statement. There is one statement very early on where Joseph Smith twice mentioned the Lord and did not explicitly state that two personages appeared to him. However some have read this on close reading to show that the two mentions of Lord refer to the Father and the Son. Even if they do not, Joseph Smith held visions sacred and did not always reveal all details, so this does not contradict his later statements. I am even less following how this debate can be made a matter of law.
The rest of the law suit is more seemingly focused on getting in unreasoned pot shots at the Church than anything else. It is not clear how the fact that general authorities get paid for their fulltime devotion to the Church has any bearing on the suit. It is even less clear that the Church owns for profit companies has any bearing. This is also where the suit breaks down into just plain rubbish. It tries to speak of classes in the church of general authorities, employees of for profit companies and unpaid lay leaders. The problem is that the Church probably has as many employees working for various non-profit subunits as in its for profit companies.
The attacks that the information in the gospel topics essays were not presented in general conference seems even less relevant. I see no legal standard that can accuse the Church of "hiding" information that it published on its website and openly promoted through its newsroom. The Church has always been more than open about running for profit companies. Beyond this, the Church has at various times divested itself of many of its non-eccesiastical operations. It sold of the ZCMI Department stores in about 1999. It spun off its hospitals to a seperate non-profit entity. It voluntarily turned over the majority of its colleges to state governments.
Beyond this, as President Hinckley explained in a talk in general conference, the role of the Church in for profit entities is rooted in the history of Utah and a need to develop an economy that was not colonial and exploited by outside profiteers. There are broad economic questions here, none of them even remotely accesible through RICO suits like this one, and none of the issues at all susceptible to hate mongering of calling a Church a "Corporate Empire".
There is in fact one other fate of for profit operations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is seen in the history of the Deseret News Press. At one point this operation was the largest commerical printer in the intermoutain west. It was at this press President Monson spent much of his business career as the general manager. What is the Deseret News Press printing plant today? It is used by the Church entirely to publish materials for lessons and other activities that are either distributed free or sold at cost. It probably is a net money sink for the Church, clearly not making the Church profits.
The suit claims that it is known that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon from the gold plates and that it is known that Joseph Smith did not see God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in the First Vision, but the Church tries to manipulate and downplay these facts.
The problem for the suit is that it makes false claims on what is and is not known, and then outright lies about the implications. First off, the seeming main claim is that because at least some of the translation of the Book of Mormon was done by Joseph Smith looking in a seer stone in a hat it was not translated from the golden plates. This is a clear false claim. The belief of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that through the seer stone and working it out in his mind Joseph Smith was translating from the golden plates. I would also submit there is not enough clear testimony to say how Joseph Smith did the entire translation.
Addon claims about the Josiah Stowell trial are absolute rubbish in this suit. Joseph Smith was aquitted of disorderly conduct. The whole suit smacks of being a grandstanding attack on the Church under the guise of law. There is no way it has any chance of making any progress, but it gives the anti-Mormons more fuel for their echo chamber.
The claim that there is evidence that Joseph Smith did not see God the Father and his son Joseph Smith is pure rubbish. There is nothing that could possibly demonstrate that Joseph Smith was lieing in his 1838 statement. There is one statement very early on where Joseph Smith twice mentioned the Lord and did not explicitly state that two personages appeared to him. However some have read this on close reading to show that the two mentions of Lord refer to the Father and the Son. Even if they do not, Joseph Smith held visions sacred and did not always reveal all details, so this does not contradict his later statements. I am even less following how this debate can be made a matter of law.
The rest of the law suit is more seemingly focused on getting in unreasoned pot shots at the Church than anything else. It is not clear how the fact that general authorities get paid for their fulltime devotion to the Church has any bearing on the suit. It is even less clear that the Church owns for profit companies has any bearing. This is also where the suit breaks down into just plain rubbish. It tries to speak of classes in the church of general authorities, employees of for profit companies and unpaid lay leaders. The problem is that the Church probably has as many employees working for various non-profit subunits as in its for profit companies.
The attacks that the information in the gospel topics essays were not presented in general conference seems even less relevant. I see no legal standard that can accuse the Church of "hiding" information that it published on its website and openly promoted through its newsroom. The Church has always been more than open about running for profit companies. Beyond this, the Church has at various times divested itself of many of its non-eccesiastical operations. It sold of the ZCMI Department stores in about 1999. It spun off its hospitals to a seperate non-profit entity. It voluntarily turned over the majority of its colleges to state governments.
Beyond this, as President Hinckley explained in a talk in general conference, the role of the Church in for profit entities is rooted in the history of Utah and a need to develop an economy that was not colonial and exploited by outside profiteers. There are broad economic questions here, none of them even remotely accesible through RICO suits like this one, and none of the issues at all susceptible to hate mongering of calling a Church a "Corporate Empire".
There is in fact one other fate of for profit operations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is seen in the history of the Deseret News Press. At one point this operation was the largest commerical printer in the intermoutain west. It was at this press President Monson spent much of his business career as the general manager. What is the Deseret News Press printing plant today? It is used by the Church entirely to publish materials for lessons and other activities that are either distributed free or sold at cost. It probably is a net money sink for the Church, clearly not making the Church profits.
Hey, John! I appreciated your post here explaining the law suit. Your post here and your comment on the Church Growth blog got me interested in reading more about the Josiah Stowell trial and seer stones. I came across this article that had some info I hadn't heard before. You probably already know all this stuff, but I thought you might be interested.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith
Thankyou for entering this information. I am 99% sure this case will not go to trial. Making Churchs liable for how they comunicate information with members is a horrible idea.
Delete